Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 4:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 4:1” utilice nuestra app.

Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity built the temple unto the LORD God of Israel;

Ch. 4. The Record of Opposition. (1) Ezr 4:1-5, from the reign of Cyrus to the reign of Darius. (2) Ezr 4:6, during the reign of Xerxes. (3) Ezr 4:7-23, during the reign of Artaxerxes

1. Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin ] Here called ‘adversaries’ by anticipation. From the Compiler’s point of view, the Samaritans were never anything but foes of the Jews.

The word ‘adversaries’ is applied to them again Neh 4:11.

Judah and Benjamin ] as in chap. Ezr 1:5. The great majority of those who returned, exclusive of priests and Levites, belonged to these two tribes. In view of the use of the expression chap. Ezr 1:5, there is no necessity to see here (as some commentators have done,) an allusion to the old hostility between the Northern and Southern Tribes.

the children of the captivity ] i.e. the ‘b’n hag-glah’. The phrase occurs also in Ezr 6:16; Ezr 6:19-20; Ezr 8:35; Ezr 10:7; Ezr 10:16. On ‘the Captivity’ see note on Ezr 1:11. The meaning is the same as ‘the children of the province’ Ezr 2:1. ‘The children of the captivity’ recalls their past calamities; ‘the children of the province’, their new position of subjection in the old homes.

unto the Lord God of Israel ] R.V. unto the lord, the God of Israel cf. Ezr 1:3.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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).

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Ezr 4:1-3

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

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 moments experience, we shall treat it too lightly; the adversary is an abiding quantity in life. (J. Parker, D. D)

Let us build with you. Beware of your associates

Beware of your associates. With some men we ought not to build even Gods 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.

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 Masters 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

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)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER IV

The Samaritans endeavour to prevent the rebuilding of the

temple, 1-5.

They send letters to Artaxerxes, against the Jews, 6-9.

A copy of the letter, 10-16.

He commands the Jews to cease from building the temple, which

they do; nor was any thing farther done in the work till the

second year of Darius, 17-24.

NOTES ON CHAP. IV

Verse 1. 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 4:9-10.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin; the Samaritans, as appears from Ezr 4:2,10.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. the adversaries of Judah andBenjaminthat is, strangers settled in the land of Israel.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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.

c Antiqu. l. 11. c. 4. sect. 3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

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. , sons 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 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 are variously explained. Older expositors take the Chethiv as a negative, and make to mean the offering of sacrifices to idols, both because 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 , 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 as an unusual form of , occurring in several places (see on Exo 21:8), the latter being also substituted in the present instance as Keri. The position also of before 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.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Opposition Made to the Jews.

B. C. 535.

1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; 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. 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, 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.

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, (1 Kings v. 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.

I. The undertakers are here called the children of the captivity (v. 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, 2 Kings xvii. 33. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods too. They are called the people of the land, v. 4. The worst enemies Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews and were not, Rev. iii. 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.

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,” v. 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, v. 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 worshippers of God; you worship you know not what, John iv. 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.

2. When this plot failed they did what they could to divert them from the 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, v. 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 (v. 5), or dissuade the men of Tyre and Sidon from furnishing them with the timber they had bargained for (ch. iii. 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.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Ezra – Chapter 4

Troublemakers, Verses 1-5

The adversaries who now appear on the scene at Jerusalem are evidently those whom the Jews feared, as may be recalled from chapter 3. A part of the urgency for erecting the altar was that the Jews might implore the aid of God against these adversaries. When antagonism fails to disrupt God’s people Satan will pretend friendship and willingness to co-operate in the endeavors of God’s people. The Scriptures warn and admonish caution in this respect (1Pe 5:8). They could not scare the Jews out of building the temple, so they would compromise the project by imposing their assistance on them.

Zerubbabel and Jeshua were sufficiently alert and aware of the Lord’s will to resist this move by the mixed people of the land of Judah. It appears that these people anticipated they would not be welcome, but had an answer which they felt would force the Jews to allow them to join in the affair. They purported themselves to be worshippers of the same God whom the Jews worshipped. They claimed to have made sacrifices to God ever since the time their ancestors were brought into the land by Esar-haddon, the king of Assyria. This was the time when the northern kingdom of Israel had been overrun, its inhabitants removed to far-away lands to the north, and a new people brought in from other far-away lands to repopulate the lands from which the Israelites had been taken. The account is in 2 Kings Chapter 17. Because of the sparse habitation of the land the lions became a menace, and the new, pagan inhabitants feared it was because they did not understand the ways of the god of the land. Therefore they were sent priests of Israel, who had officiated at the worship of the golden calves, which had been set up by Jeroboam I, and which he pronounced worship of the Lord. This false system was further adapted to the pagan rituals of the new people. In time these mixed people became known as Samaritans, and are the ones now addressing Zerubbabel and Jeshua.

The Jewish leaders quickly denied any intent to include these false worshippers of the Lord a place in their building. The grounds for this refusal were, 1) they had no part in true worship of the Lord; 2) the Jews were determined to build solely by themselves; 3) this was in keeping with the command’and permission given them by Cyrus king of Persia. Upon this the tormenters began doing things to discourage the people of the Jews and to make them afraid to continue their building. They hired men to connive ways to frustrate the building, and kept it up until the death of Cyrus and until the reign of Darius the Great (not the Darius of Daniel – Chapter 6), a considerable time after the first arrival of the Jews in Judah.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

THE PROGRAM OPPOSED BUT PROSPERED

IN concluding our last address we dealt with the enthusiasm of age, and listened to the cracked but enthusiastic voices of the old men who wept and laughed and shouted at the sight of even the foundation of the new house. But it is one thing to lay the foundation, it is another to complete the building.

Chapters four to six are a report of progress, and they prove the unity of the race and the universality of human experience, in that this report carries both the outline of plans and the description of opponents, the record of progress and the recital of opposition.

Such is life! There are instances in which the progress of life is marked, but seldom indeed is it smoothly made or delightfully accomplished. Once in a while we enjoy a solid week of sunshine, but seldom or never a month. The clouds darken, the thunders roll, the lightnings flash, the drenching rains fall; or, if at another season, the winds blow, the snow drives into the face, the hoar-frost bites into the very earth. It is perhaps well that these things are so. An eternal sunshine would be monotonous, and everlasting summer would thin the blood, sap the strength and result in ennui.

The opening sentence of this chapter, Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard, is the basis of the above remarks. Life itself is seldom free from adversaries, and constructive plans and material progress are never free from them. A man who does nothing may be the subject of scoff, even of contempt, but he never experiences opposition. It is when we begin to build either ourselves or institutions that our true enemies arrive, and bitter opposition is known, but the true man will carry on, and the man who yields to Divine leadership will mark progress.

This bit of history reveals some essential truths, and they have a wider application than appears upon first reading. For instance, we find here the opposition to the program, the prophets appeal, and the kings final approval.

THE PROGRAM OPPOSED

The first step is a sinister attempt. That certainly is discoverable in the language of Scripture. The opening sentence tells us that these men were the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, and yet 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.

A slight analysis, please! First, these men are adversaries; second, these men profess to be friends; third, these men profess to believe in the same God; fourth, these men admit essential differences!

Whenever a known adversary professes to be a friend, it is well to sound out his motives, determine if possible his objectives.

Again, when a man agrees with us at one point of religion, and disagrees at another, it is well to discover how essential is the agreement, and how important is the disagreement.

These people might have been in one of three companies: The remainder of the Israelitish inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom who had remained behind when their brethren were violently expelled by the Syrians, and who had always been enemies to Judah and Benjamin. Such men were the ancestors of the Galileans of the New Testament times. They might have been the offspring of Israelitish priests who were sent at the request of the captives to teach them the religion of the land when they were alarmed at an incursion of lions (2Ki 17:25-28).

On the other hand, it seems fairly clear from the text that they were neither of these, for the text tells us that Esar-Haddon, king of Assur, had brought them up to that land, a statement which identifies them as aliens and foreigners, with no kinship to Judah or Benjamin, but who by contact with left-over Jews had learned of Jehovah, and probably added Him to their pantheon.

There are men not a few who are willing to take up another god. Polytheists are not annoyed by numbers. Friendliness is their uniform attitude! Having no deep convictions of truth, they can add to their collection without any sense of compromise; in fact, another god is to them all to the good, and their very philosophy of religion renders them friendly, and courteous speech is their religious approach. The devil himself sought fellowship with Jesus on the same ground, and Judas Iscariot, his adequate representative, in the pretense of worship called Him Master, and kissed Him.

Gentle approach and smooth speech are alike tools of the adversary. The tigers claw has a velvet cover. The Modernists appeal for the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man shows him to be the religious descendant of the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin.

There are some men whose assistance in building even the house of God were better not had. The saloon man on the corner, the scarlet woman across the street, the candidate for mayor, the ward politicianthese are all willing contributors to your sanctuary. Only give them a chance, and they will come across with a subscription and lay down the spot cash, and even express their appreciation of being honored by your request. They say, Why should we be at war? Jesus was a Prince of Peace. Let us forget our differences, and recall the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, and fellowship. Ill help you in your great enterprise, and you will at least agree not to interfere in my affairs.

Such is history! Not the history of Ezras day, but the history of my day. Such is humanity ! Not the humanity of three thousand years ago, but the humanity of this moment.

The sinister attempt is uncovered.

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.

How rude! How unsympathetic ! How coarse! What do you think of such Christianity? A Christianity that will not have the help of men who volunteer the same; a Christianity that will not permit people to engage in a good work; a Christianity that will not accept aid from the world in putting over its great and glorious enterprises!

Is that the Christianity of Christ? We rather think so. The Old Testament which He approved, taught that two could not walk together except they be agreed, and the New Testament gives very little countenance to worldly fellowships. John writes: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1Jn 2:15), and the same John went to a frightful extreme, in the judgment of some people, saying,

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2Jn 1:9-11).

Paul wrote, Be not conformed to this world. History seems to be replete with illustrations of the fact that whenever the church invites and accepts the cooperation of the world, it takes into its bosom an enemy, and will be compelled later to discover that fact.

Mark the conduct here! These very men who a few hours before were pretending friendship and were keen to make their contributions, are no sooner rejected than their true spirit evinces itself, and they set themselves to the task of weakening the hands of the people of Judah, and trouble them in their building, and hire counsels against them, frustrate their purpose, and finally address an accusation to Artaxerxes, king of Persia, and lodge against them the most serious complaints. It is a fine thing to be free from close fellowship with such pretenders, to be independent of such hypocrites, to be rid forever of such courting rebels (Ezr 4:4-16)

Here again history repeats itself. Ecclesiasticism in the last fifteen years has become apostate. Its denominational organizations have almost uniformly corrupted religion, denying the faith and substituting a new godEvolutionfor Jehovah, and yet they tell us they believe in our God and want to work with us on the inclusive basis. In the name of brotherhood they seek for united endeavor on the part of Unitarians and Trinitarians.

As one has put it, They think by these two wingsUnitarianism on the one side, and Trinitarianism on the other, Ecclesiasticism is to mark progress.

But will she? When did Christianity ever succeed on such a basis? What has Latitudinarianism done for the church of God except to degenerate her? When and where did the inclusive policy bless foreign missions or missions at home? When and where did any church ever accept the compliments and co-operation of the world without at the same time losing its spiritual life? The attempt to thus widen the true channel of Christianity has only resulted in creating swamps in which the very life of spiritual religion is threatened.

Charity doesnt consist in the surrender of convictions; it is not strengthened by the breaking down of all barriers. Life is more exclusive than death. In the cemetery there are no divisions. In the graveyard friend and foe find no occasion of controversy; but among living men debates are possible, even desirable; and there is such a thing as a righteous contention for the faith, and battle even unto the death, in behalf of the truth.

I do not know one church in the United States, nor am I familiar with one in the Canadian provinces, nor have I ever heard of one in Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or China, or Japan, that proved itself a power for good and for God after it had compromised with false religions, descended to a modicum of doctrine or none, and proceeded upon a basis of co-operation with and from the world.

They carried their case to the highest court. In this instance it was Artaxerxes, the conqueror, the Persian, who had defeated Cyrus and had come into power. Artaxerxes was not a king who had created a country, but he had captured a country, and the opponents of Judah and Benjamin reasoned that he would be keen about his resources, and would demand the loyalty of his subjects in tax paying. They appealed, therefore, to his personal selfishness, his honor (Ezr 4:14), his security (Ezr 4:15), and particularly to his interest in toll, tribute and custom (Ezr 4:13).

Times have changed, but not the customs of men. To this day the two institutions that are most easily excited upon all these subjects are the State and the Church. The administrators of state are very solicitous on the subject of patriotism, and still more determined upon the principle of tax-paying, and when one remembers our misgoverned world is a world of nations that increase tributes, and customs, and taxes daily, and through the power of oligarchy oppress the long-suffering people, he might imagine that if you look to the church, the great ecclesiastical body that now sets itself up as sister to the State, or, as in some instances as the States competitor, it would provide another vision; but alas! not so!

The Artaxerxes of ecclesiasticism is today a conqueror also, and not a creator; and the interest of ecclesiasticism is not in the good of the people, but in the perfection and continuation of its own organization and in the execution of its own personally selfish program. Alas, for that individual preacher or that individual church that refuses to bow down before the ecclesiastical potentate! He is not always named a pope, nor in all branches of ecclesiasticism is he even called a bishop, but he is making his authority increasingly known, and the weight of his hand to be increasingly felt; and if any individual refuses to pay toll, tribute and custom, or any church fails to practice the same, the mailed fist of judgment falls.

There was a time when in all Congregational bodies it was supposed, and repeatedly asserted, that they knew no masters, that they recognized no overlords; but alas for the triumph of Modernism! Today no priest-ridden organization is more tyrannized over than Baptist, Congregational, Disciple, and other supposedly autonomous bodies.

The preacher who, like Daniel, refuses to bend the knee to that authority, is sent to the lions den, and unlike Daniel, is often destroyed, in official standing and employment prospect, by hungry secretaries. The church that does not bend the knee is blacklisted and browbeaten, and by processes of court, as with the Baptists in California, Oklahoma, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and now in New York, the property is taken from the majority and turned over to the use of those who worship the machine, and who recognize no other God.

The behavior of ecclesiastical potentates in this matter suffers by comparison with that of Artaxerxes, for while he did demand the cessation of temple building (Ezr 4:17-22), and caused the work to be suspended (Ezr 4:23-24), he did not appropriate that which had been accomplished to personal use, nor turn a totally deaf ear to the true prophets of God, as the present-day ecclesiastical potentate is wont to do.

THE PROPHETS APPEAL

Turn now to the fifth chapter, and new persons appear upon the scene, and new voices are heard in the matter at issue. Haggai and Zechariah become the spokesmen. They address themselves to the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the Name of the God of Israel, and the effect of their words is recorded in this fact, Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them (Ezr 5:1-2).

Who will say that speakers are useless? Who will say there is no power in preaching? Who will say that in the matter of material building, or a question of platforms, the prophet has no influence? When did the cause of God ever mark progress apart from it, and when did the people ever undertake big things without his leadership?

Eloquence is born of conviction, and action is often the fruit of eloquence. The greatest leaders are commonly both seers and speakers, and whenever the cause of God marks progress, you will find the hands of the minister and those of the layman are linked.

Politicians are often the opponents of prophets.

At the same time came to them Tatrni, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?

Then said we unto them after this manner, What are the names of the men that make this building (Ezr 5:3-4)?

How modern that sounds! It is like the chiding of the present-day secretary: What right have you to lead this church in any direction except that prescribed by us overlords? What right have you to call a preacher without consulting us? What right have you to determine where your own money shall be spent, and what individuals and institutions shall be supported? What are the names of the men that dare oppose us, defy our authority, and depart from our prescriptions.

Let no man imagine the politicians work in the civic realm alone. They are also in ecclesiasticism; and as for differences in methods, at present at least, those of lords of state are more considerate than the rulers of ecclesiasticism.

The Church of God at this time suffers from two sources, and it is practically impossible to determine which menaces it the mostModernism, the denial of all Christian essentials, or ecclesiasticism, the present octopus of overlordship.

Note now the features of the builders defense. First of all, The eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews. That eye is at times the undoing of men. When sin is in the midst, and the eye of God is turned upon it, the judgment day is come; but when men are in the line of Divine appointment, the eye of God upon them is but the light in which to work, and defense for them against all their opponents.

It does for them what the pillar of cloud accomplished in the Exodus. It makes a bright day for the faithful, and an impenetrable night for their enemies.

No civil authority, with criminal intent, can compel the cessation of duty faithfully discharged under Gods eye. No decree is effective against the Divine observation and pleasure. In the Book of Daniel when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are commanded at the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimerto to fall down and worship the image, and are told, If ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace, they answer the king,

O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.

If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we mil not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up (Dan 3:15-18).

That is the speech of men who believe that God is looking on. That is the defiance of temporal authority when it sets itself against Gods command, and that is also the revelation of the true believers spirit and the explanation of his loyal and successful service.

But it is possible for men in their fury to go too far, and that is exactly what took place in this instance. They sent a letter to Darius, the king, and that letter proved to be their undoing. It demanded an investigation, and that investigation didnt turn out as they had hoped, but resulted in the discovery of a decree that was not in their favor.

How often history repeats itself! More than once have we seen a committee appointed to investigate, and the committee was created for the express purpose of carrying out a certain policy of oppression, but before the facts were all in, it was found that the committee itself was made incompetent, and its intention had been paralyzed, and truth had triumphed.

Is it not cannily strange how often God brings out of some hiding place the most amazing witnesses, the most unexpected testimonies? These opponents never imagined that such witnesses lived, or that such testimony existed, but in due time they have appeared, and this day, when Modernists are seeking to discredit the authenticity of Gods Word, how often the spade of the archeologist smites the skeptic into silence, undermines his theories, proves false his conclusions, and throws up a wall of defense for the Word! It was so here! Out of the archives of the past came the positive proofs of their right to build. Cyrus, in the first year of his reign, had made a decree to build this house of God (Ezr 5:13). The search ordered by Darius (Ezr 6:1-5) revealed that fact, and reversed the kings decision, effecting

THE KINGS APPROVAL

Truth has a custom of coming abroad. Designing men often forget that fact, and their schemes suffer in consequence. In nine cases out of ten, where ulterior motives control, those entertaining them are hopeful that the truth can be covered up; but that thought is often in vain.

The poet has told us, Truth crushed to earth will rise again, but the inspired pen declares even a greater fact, The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment (Pro 12:19).

He had a proper estimate of values who penned the inspired sentence, Buy the truth, and sell it not (Pro 25:25). More than once in recent years opponents of the truth have found themselves facing defeat. In ecclesiastical circles such opponents have captured our colleges, and by political manipulation, now man our denominational organizations; but those colleges are proving an increasing liability, and in some instances they have had to unload in disgrace that which they shouldered by theft; and all across the American continent, at this moment, there are missionary organizations trembling on the brink of bankruptcy because the truth has come abroad concerning the apostacy of leaders, and the propaganda of falsehood.

What a suggestion this of Gods intervention in human affairs and even His influence over apostate ecclesiasticism! What an encouragement this to the faithful! If God be for us, who can be against us?

We sometimes debate the question as to whether Modernists or Fundamentalists are in the majority. That is not a debatable question, for where God is there the majority always exists; and the powers that be with those that are loyal to Him are more than they that be against Him. The important question then for every Christian is not how he may stand in with the human powers that be, but rather how he may abide a friend of truth, and under the favor Divine.

There are not a few men who are telling us what faithfulness to God is costing them. They are saying that their loyalty has resulted in official opposition and oppression, and in consequence they have lost office and salary and standing, but what are these as against the loss of Gods favor; and which, pray, would such prefer?

You say, That is all very well for the man who has kept his feet under him, retained his job, has a good income, and can care for his family, but right philosophies and even righteous courses do not feed hungry children, nor clothe the wife and little ones. So? Then God has failed, and the text is not trueThe Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly (Psa 84:11).

There are many men whose lack of tact, whose indifference to essential things, whose indolence in discharge of Divinely appointed tasks, whose failure to be sound and intelligent managers, effects unfavorable results that they would fain assign to Fundamentalism, but we still believe with the Psalmist, He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart, shall abide in Thy tabernacle (Psa 15:2; Psa 15:1).

I grant you that for quite a time it looked very bleak for Judah and Benjamin, and the prospects were all in favor of their opponents; but there is here another essential suggestion, namely,

Truth often reverses situations. This whole sixth chapter reveals that fact. The discovery of Cyrus decree converts Darius into a friend. The enemies of Israel have his sharp command, Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place (Ezr 6:7).

Can you imagine the joy that swept the tents of Israel when that sentence had reached them? But even that was only a fair beginning. Follow with Ezr 6:8-12, inclusive. Whoever imagined that it could be soin one daythe king whose decree had been most feared, becoming the friend of friends, and speaking the very words that cleared the whole situation and practically killed the entire opposition? Yes! Some of us know that to be possible. We have seen it done in life. We have gone against enemies ourselves. They have been so big, their voices so loud, their threats so furious, that fear took hold upon us, and it looked like all our future plans were doomed; and then we have seen a change over night. The next morning our enemies were in dishonor, their sinister hopes exposed, and their godless plans thwarted; yea, even made to become contributory, as here (see Ezr 6:13-14). The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice (Psa 97:1).

Truth and time complete Gods projects.

And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

And the Children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy,

And offered at the dedication of this house of God a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.

And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the Book of Moses.

And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month.

For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves.

And the Children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat,

And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel (Ezr 6:15-22).

How marvelous! How much like God! How perfectly in keeping with Christian experience! What project does He indict in our hearts that cannot be carried to successful completion if we are faithful?

It is impossible to complete any great task without meeting opposition. The more Divine the project, the more furious the opponents. Satan has his emissaries a multitude. They are ever ready to set upon the man who builds for God, but that is never an occasion for discouragement; it is rather, when properly understood, a reason for rejoicing.

Opponents to Christian endeavor are a practical demonstration that one is in the Divine will. Christ Himself has gone before us here.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us (Psa 2:1-3).

That is because they are heathen; that is because they hate God; that is because they do not propose to have His Son rule over them. But, what of it?

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.

Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee.

Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potters vessel.

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling (Psa 2:4-11).

God with you, you are more than conquerors!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.] In this chapter we have(i.) The proposal of the Samaritans to unite with the Jews in building the Temple, and its rejection (Ezr. 4:1-3). (ii.) The opposition of the Samaritans because of the rejection of their proposal (Ezr. 4:4-5). (iii.) The letters of the Samaritans to King Artaxerxes against the Jews, one of which is here given (Ezr. 4:6-16). (iv.) The reply of Artaxerxes to their letter (Ezr. 4:17-22). (v.) The stoppage of the building of the Temple (Ezr. 4:23-24).

Ezr. 4:1. The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin] These adversaries speak of themselves in the second verse as having been brought up hither by Esarhaddon king of Assur. They are the peoples spoken of in 2Ki. 17:24 : And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. They described themselvess in Ezr. 4:9-10, as the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations, &c. They were called Samaritans after the central point of their settlement. They were a very mixed people, including some Israelites, but chiefly composed of heathens.

Ezr. 4:2. For we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him] They did worship Jehovah, but not as the faithful Jews did. They worshipped Him not as the only living and true God, but as one amongst others, according to the statement in 2Ki. 17:29-33.

Ezr. 4:3. Ye have nothing to do with us to build] &c. The question was not, as Keil observes, whether they would permit Israelites who earnestly sought Jahve to participate in His worship at Jerusalema permission which they certainly would have refused to none who sincerely desired to turn to the Lord Godbut 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. To such, the rulers of Judah could not, without unfaithfulness to the Lord their God, permit a participation in the building of the Lords house. But we ourselves together] = we as a compact unity, excluding others.Schultz.

Ezr. 4:4. The people of the land] i.e. the adversaries, of Ezr. 4:1. Weakened the hands] &c. Hindered them by diminishing their courage and strength for the work.

Ezr. 4:5. And hired counsellors against them, to frustate their purpose] Whether by hired counsellors we are to understand ministers of state whom the Samaritans bribed, or legal agents whom they employed to bring about a stoppage of the work, is uncertain. All the days of Cyrus king of Persia] &c. 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 till 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 years of his reign).Keil.

Ezr. 4:6-7. Ahasuerus. Artaxerxes. Heb. Ahashverosh. Artachshashta] Dr. Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta, says that Ahasuerus must be Cambyses, the successor of Cyrus, and Artaxerxes must be the Pseudo-Smerdis (Bibl. Dict.). So also Rawlinson, et al. But Keil, Schultz, et al., hold that by Ahasuerus we must understand Xerxes, and by Artaxerxes really Artaxerxes Longimanus. The question is argued by them at considerable length in their observations in loco. Bishop Hervey takes the same view, and states it thus: Ezr. 4:6-23 is a parenthetic addition by a much later hand, and, as the passage most clearly shows, made in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. The compiler who inserted chap. 2, a document drawn up in the reign of Artaxerxes, to illustrate the return of the captives under Zerubbabel, here inserts a notice of two historical factsof which one occurred in the reign of Xerxes, and the other in the reign of Artaxerxesto illustrate the opposition offered by the heathen to the rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses. He tells us that in the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, i.e. before Esther was in favour, they had written to the king to prejudice him against the Jewsa circumstance, by the way, which may rather have inclined him to listen to Hamans proposition; and he gives the text of letters sent to Artaxerxes, and of Artaxerxes answer, on the strength of which Rehum and Shimshai forcibly hindered the Jews from rebuilding the city. These letters doubtless came into Ezras hands at Babylon, and may have led to those endeavours on his part to make the king favourable to Jerusalem which issued in his own commission in the seventh year of his reign. At Ezr. 4:24 Haggais narrative proceeds in connection with Ezr. 4:5. Fuerst also holds that Ahasuerus was Xerxes, but on Artaxerxes he says that the name was borne by Pseudo-Smerdis and Artaxerxes Longimanus. But if Ahasuerus was Xerxes, the Artaxerxes of the text must have been Artaxerxes Longimanus. Matthew Henry propounds another view, viz., that Ahasuerus (Ezr. 4:6) was also called Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4:7), and is identical with Cambyses. The view of Rawlinson is perhaps correct, that the theory that Ahasuerus is Cambyses and Artaxerxes the Pseudo-Smerdis presents fewer difficulties than any other. But, notwithstanding difficulties, the other theory seems to us to be the true one. It is beyond our province to enter further into the question.

Ezr. 4:7. Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel] These names certainly indicate Samaritans who, without being Persian officials, enjoyed, just as Sanballat subsequently, a certain degree of consequence.Schultz. And the rest of their companions] Margin: Heb. societies. Fuerst: Associates, colleagues. The writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue] It was written in Syriac or Aramaic characters. And interpreted in the Syrian tongue] It was in the Syriac or Aramaic language. Both the characters and the language were Aramaic. The Samaritans spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to Aramaic; and what they had thought in their own language they translated into Aramaic, and wrote in Aramaic characters.

Ezr. 4:8. Rehum the chancellor] Heb. . Fuerst: Properly, lord of the (royal) decree, i.e. either stadtholder, and so the parallel is , (comp. Ezr. 5:3; Ezr. 6:6, or, according to Ezra Apocr. ii. 25; Jos. (Arch. xi. 2), and Kimchi, &c.) = , chancellor; but the former is more probable. It is probably the title of the Persian governor of the Samaritan province. Shimshai the scribe] Margin: Or, secretary. Fuerst: Royal scribe.

Ezr. 4:9. The Dinaites] were probably, as suggested by Ewald, people from the Median city Deinaver. Rawlinson suggests that they were the people of Dayan, a country bordering on Cilicia. The Apharsathchites] were probably the same as the Apharsachites (chap. Ezr. 5:6), and were perhaps identical with the Partac, or Partaceni, a tribe of mountaineers living on the borders of Media and Persia. The Tarpelites]: The territory Tarpel has been supposed to be found in () of Ptolemy, cast of Elam, with which it is mentioned; more correctly, perhaps, the territory Tarpel is at the Motic swamp, whose inhabitants are mentioned in Strabo (i. p. 757). In no case can it be the Phnician Tripolis.Fuerst. The Apharsites] are by some regarded as Persians, by others as the Parhas, in eastern Media. The Archevites] were people from the city Erech, now Warka. The Susanchites], or Susanites, were from the city of Susa. The Dehavites] were the Dai or Dahi, mentioned by Herodotus (i. 125) among the nomadic tribes of Persia. The Elamites] were the original inhabitants of the country called Elam.

Ezr. 4:10. The great and noble Asnapper] seems to have been a distinguished officer in the service of Esarhaddon (Ezr. 4:2), and employed by him to conduct the colonists to Samaria and arrange their settlement there. And at such a time.] Chaldee = and so now, Ezr. 4:10; Ezr. 7:12, i.e. and so forth, et cetera.Fuerst.

Ezr. 4:12. And have set up the walls] &c. Keil would translate: And are setting up its walls and digging its foundations. Repairing (Fuerst) its foundations would perhaps be better.

Ezr. 4:13. Toll] Rather tax or tribute; the money payment required from every one. Tribute] A tax on articles consumed, excise.Fuerst. Custom] A road tax, a toll. Ibid. Thou shalt endamage the revenue] The meaning of the word rendered revenue in the text, and strength in the margin, is entirely uncertain. Keil, Rawlinson, and others say that depends upon the Pehlevi word , and signifies at last. And so at last thou shalt endamage the kings. Fuerst, however, says that this gives no suitable sense. But it seems to us, as Schultz observes, that the meaning of finally, at last, is entirely appropriate.

Ezr. 4:14. We have maintenance from the kings palace] Margin: We are salted with the salt of the palace. The Heb. is, We salt the salt of the palace; i.e. we eat the salt of the palace; a figurative expression, signifying to be in the kings service and to obtain subsistence from him, and implying the obligation to look after his interests. The kings dishonour] Keil: The damage of the king , deprivation, emptying, here injury to the royal power or revenue.

Ezr. 4:15. The book of the records of thy fathers.] It is called in Est. 6:1, the book of the records of the chronicles. Thy fathers] are the predecessors of the king on the throne, and the term applies not only to the Medo Persian but also to the Chaldean sovereigns. Of old time] Heb.: From the days of eternity, i.e. from time immemorial. For which cause was this city destroyed]by Nebuchadnezzar.

Ezr. 4:16. No portion on this side the river] The statement amounts to this, that the returned Jews, if allowed to rebuild and fortify Jerusalem, would seize all the country west of the Euphrates, and so the king would lose that part of his dominions. A very absurd exaggeration.

Ezr. 4:17. And at such a time] Rather, And so forth. (See on Ezr. 4:10.)

Ezr. 4:18. Read before me] Persian monarchs were not accustomed to read letters or records themselves, but to have them read to them by others (comp. Est. 6:1).

Ezr. 4:20. There have been mighty kings] &c. This is most applicable to David and Solomon, and in a smaller degree to Uzziah, Jotham, and Josiah. Ruled over all beyond the river] i.e. over all the region west of the Euphrates.

Ezr. 4:23. By force and power] Or, as in the margin, By arm and power. They compelled the Jews to desist from building.

Ezr. 4:24. According to Keil, Schultz, et al., the historian in this verse takes up the thread of the narrative which he dropped at the close of Ezr. 4:5, in order that, by inserting the episodical section (Ezr. 4:6-23), he might give in this place a short and comprehensive view of all the hostile acts against the Jewish community on the part of the Samaritans and surrounding nations. In their view this verse refers to the opposition which was commenced in the reign of Cyrus, while Ezr. 4:6-23 narrate subsequent hostilities. But according to the view of Bishop Cotton, that Ahasuerus (Ezr. 4:6) must be Cambyses and Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4:7) the Pseudo-Smerdis, and that this chapter is one continuous narrative, the enforced suspension of the work lasted for about two years.

THE PROPOSAL OF THE SAMARITANS TO THE JEWS

(Ezr. 4:1-3)

Notice:

I. The proposal made by the Samaritans. Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel; then they came to Zerubbabel, &c. (Ezr. 4:1-2). This proposal was

1. Plausible in its form. They proposed

(1) To render help in a great and good work. They said, Let us build with you. They do not ask for anything for themselves, except permission to co-operate in building the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel; but they offer something to the Jews, even their assistance in their great undertaking.

(2.) To render help in this work for an excellent reason. 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. They urge that they were worshippers of Jehovah even as the Jews were; that they were interested in the promotion of His honour; and that it would therefore be appropriate for them to unite in building a temple unto Him. Moreover, the returned Jews being neither a strong nor a wealthy people, and having much to occupy their time and energies, would naturally be prepared to welcome any suitable offers of assistance. Temptation is always plausible in its presentation to the tempted. (a). But this proposal was

2. Evil in itself. Fair and plausible in appearance, it was false and perilous in reality. The evil of their proposal will appear if we consider that

(1.) They were not Israelites. They were brought into Samaria by Esarhaddon king of Assur. And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, &c. (2Ki. 17:24). They were Dinaites, Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians, Susanchites, Dehavites, and Elamites (Ezr. 4:9). If it be allowed that these peoples had become mixed by marriage with the remnant of the Israelites who remained in the land at the captivity, still the heathen elements and usages and influences were predominant amongst them. They were not Israelites either by descent or by sympathy.

(2.) They did not worship Jehovah as the true God. When they were first planted in Samaria they were ignorant of the worship of Jehovah; and after they had been instructed in it, they adopted it not as exclusive of the worship of other gods but in common with such worship. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, &c. These nations feared the Lord, and served their graven images, &c. (2Ki. 18:24-37). To have received such a people into community and co-operation with the true people of God would have been an act of utter unfaithfulness and disloyalty to Him.

(3.) Their design in making this proposal was an unworthy one. The occasion of this request of the Samaritans, says Schultz, was the correct recognition of the fact that those who should have the Temple at Jerusalem would be 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 authorised, 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 favour 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 (2Ki. 17:24-41), is opposed to that view.

(4.) The acceptance of their proposal would have been perilous to the Jews. Proneness to associate with their heathen neighbours and to adopt their idolatrous customs had been painfully prevalent in the Israelites previous to their captivity, and had been the chief cause of their miseries. To have acceded to the proposal of the Samaritans would have been to have placed themselves in the utmost danger of falling again into their former sins with all their train of bitter consequences. They were not strong enough to overcome the heathen elements and influences which they must have encountered in association with the idolatrous Samaritans. In such association there was grave peril to their best interests. Separation from the Samaritans was essential to the spiritual safety of the Jews. (b).

II. The proposal rejected by the Jews. But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, &c. (Ezr. 4:3). In this rejection there are several noteworthy points

1. An exclusive obligation in relation to the work is asserted. 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. In such an undertaking the Jews and the Samaritans had nothing in common. The obligation to build the Temple devolved upon the Jews, and they alone would fulfil that obligation.

2. The alleged similarity of worship is indirectly denied. The rulers of the Jews in their reply to the Samaritans speak of our God and of the Lord God of Israel, implying that He was not the God of the Samaritans. The returned exiles worshipped Jehovah as the only living and true God, while the Samaritans worshipped Him simply as a local deity, as one god amongst others. In this sense, then, He was the Lord God of Israel, but not of the Samaritans. (c).

3. The command of King Cyrus is adduced in support of this rejection. As King Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us. The authority of Cyrus was binding upon both the Jews and the Samaritans. The Jews had his commission to come to Jerusalem and build the Temple; but if it was a work which the Samaritans could appropriately undertake, he need not have encouraged or even allowed the Jews to leave Babylon to do it. Again, if it was a work which might be done by others than Jews, why, seeing that he was so much interested in it, did he not undertake it himself? The mentioning of the authority of King Cyrus by the Jewish leaders was certainly a prudent thing. Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

4. The rejection of the proposal was unanimous. Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, i.e., all the heads of the people, concurred in declining the co-operation of the Samaritans. This unanimity is further indicated in the expression, We ourselves together will build, which Schultz correctly explains, we, as a compact unity, excluding others. If the Church of Christ would stand against and conquer its enemies, it must present to them a compact opposition. (d).

5. The rejection of the proposal was prompt and decided. There is neither hesitation nor uncertainty in the reply of the heads of the Jewish people to the Samaritans. It is perilous to parley with evil proposals. They should be immediately and firmly repudiated. (e).

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) It was but a shallow device, and showed a very inadequate conception of devilish art, to represent Satan a hideous and repulsive figure, with frightful marks to be recognised by, with a beastly foot to certify his track, and all concentrated malignities on his distorted features. Why, men would run from such ugliness by instinct; and if this were the type of evil, it could never come near enough to tempt us. Our virtue would be safe against a seducer that inspired nothing but disgust. In the real Satan we must look for a shrewder cunning, a more subtle diplomacy, a more politic disguise. Whatever he may have been to the superstitious fears of ruder ages, to try the temper of the nineteenth century he takes on the address of a courtier, the self-possession of a man of the world, the royal dignity of a prince, the beauty of a seraph, and the manners of a gentleman. If you meet him nowand meet him you certainly will to-morrow and to-dayhe will be transformed into an angel of light.F. D. Huntington, D.D.

(b) Let not any so much presume upon their own strength as to imagine that they can retain their sincerity, though they keep wicked company, and rather convert them to good than be perverted by them to evil, seeing this is a matter of great difficulty. To be good among the good, says Bernard, has in it health and safety; among the wicked to be so, is also commendable and praiseworthy: in that, happiness is joined with much security; in this, much virtue with difficulty. For as he who is running down the hill can sooner pull with him one that is ascending, than he who is going up can cause him to ascend that is running down; so he who holds a headlong course in wickedness can more easily carry with him one that is ascending the hill of Virtue, being a motion contrary to natural disposition, than he can cause him to ascend with him. For in common experience we see that the worser state prevails more in altering the better to its condition, than the better to make the worse like itself. The infected are not so soon cured by the sound, as they are tainted with their contagion. Rotten apples lying with the sound are not restored to soundness, but the sound are corrupted with their rottenness. Dead carcasses united to living bodies are not thereby revived, unless it be by miracle, as we see in Elijah and Peter; but the living, if they continue any time united to the dead, partake with them in their mortality and corruption. And thus it is in our spiritual state, wherein the worse more prevails to corrupt the better, than the better to reform the worse.Downame.

(c) Prone before, on every occasion, to adopt the idolatrous practices of the adjacent nations, the Jews now secluded themselves from the rest of the world in proud assurance of their own religious superiority. The law, which of old was perpetually violated, or almost forgotten, was now enforced, by general consent to its extreme point, or even beyond it. Adversity endeared that, of which in prosperity, they had not perceived the value. Prone, the mass of them, all but the wiser and more enlightened who worshipped Jehovah, to worship Him but as a national God, greater and mightier than the gods of other nations (a conception in itself polytheistic), they threw aside this lower kind of pride, to assume that of the sole people of the one true God. Their city, their native soil, their religion, became the objects of the most passionate attachment. Intermarriages with foreigners, neither forbidden by statute nor by former practice, were strictly inhibited. The observance of the Sabbath, and even of the sabbatical year, was enforced with rigour of which we have no precedent in the earlier annals, even to the neglect of defence in time of war. In short, from this period commences that unsocial spirit, that hatred towards mankind and want of humanity to all but their own kindred, with which, notwithstanding the extent to which they carried proselytism to their religion, the Jews are branded by all the Roman writers. The best of these writers could not but be unconsciously or involuntarily impressed by the majesty of this sublime monotheism, but their pride resented the assumption of religious superiority by this small people; and the stern self-isolation of the Jews from all religious communion with the rest of mankind was beheld only in its seemingly proud and lonely obstinacyin its refusal to contaminate itself with what it openly declared to be the unholy and unrighteous and foolish usages of the world.H. H. Milman, D.D.

(d) Union is power. The most attenuated thread, when sufficiently multiplied, will form the strongest cable. A single drop of water is a weak and powerless thing; but an infinite number of drops, united by the force of attraction, will form a stream; and many streams combined will form a river; till rivers pour their waters into the mighty ocean, whose proud waves, defying the power of man, none can stay but He who formed them. And thus forces which, acting singly, are utterly impotent, are, when acting in combination, resistless in their energies, mighty in power. And when this great union of the several powers of the Church shall be brought to bear unitedly on one point, its triumph will be the subjection of a world to Christ which now defies the solitary efforts of single forces.H. G. Salter.

(e) Decision of character and promptitude of action, qualities so important on board ship in a storm, in the manuvring of troops in battle, are indispensable to the Christian life, both to our getting through the strait gate, and our getting on in the narrow way. How often, for example, does it happen that to hesitate even for one moment between resisting and yielding to temptation is to fall! The battle is lost in that moment of vacillation. In such cases, our safety lies in coming to an immediate decision; in promptly resolving to dally with the tempter not an instant, to flee if we can, and if we cannot flee to fightso resisting the devil that if we cannot flee from him, he shall flee from us, and leave us.Thomas Guthrie, D.D.

THE PROPOSALS OF THE WICKED AND HOW TO TREAT THEM

(Ezr. 4:1-3)

The children of the captivity who had returned to their own land were true Israelites, both in their origin and in their sympathies; the Samaritans were heathens of various races, or at best only heathens mingled with Israelites. The Jews were decided monotheists; the Samaritans were confirmed polytheists, and are here correctly described as the adversaries of the Jews. For these reasons we may fairly regard the Jews as representing the true and good, and the Samaritans the false and evil. Viewed in this respect, the text suggests

I. That the wicked often propose to enter into alliance with the good. Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel; then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you. For selfish reasons these idolaters propose to co-operate with the Jews in building the Temple of the true and only God. In like manner worldly and wicked men often seek to form alliances with the religious and the godly. These alliances are of different kinds, e.g.

1. Commercial. Partnerships in business, &c.

2. Social. Reception into their society, or personal friendship.

3. Matrimonial. From various selfish motives the non-religious man may seek a religious woman for his wife; or the worldly woman a godly man.

4. And even, as in this case, Religious. Persons who have no real godliness, actuated by unworthy motives, sometimes seek to co-operate in religious enterprises.

II. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good are often supported by plausible reasons. For we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him, &c. How plausible! And men argue with equal plausibility for the formation of alliances between the worldly and the godly in our own day. Take the alliances mentioned above, and see how men argue for them.

1. Commercial. It is argued that religious principles have nothing to do with business transactions.

2. Social. That the advantage and enjoyment of social intercourse is independent of the question of personal piety.

3. Matrimonial. That the ungodly partner will soon be won over to the beliefs and practices of the godly one; or, at the very least, will derive much moral benefit.

4. Religious. That there is very little difference between the two parties; as, in the argument of the Samaritans. Such proposals must needs be plausibly supported, or they would not have even the remotest chance of acceptance. (a).

III. That the alliances proposed by the wicked are always perilous to the good. The Samaritans were the adversaries of the Jews, and their proposal was a dangerous one to the Jews. And the alliances we have spoken of place the best interests of the godly in jeopardy. In such business partnerships the good mans high standard of morality and business principle is in sore danger of a sad reduction. In social and matrimonial relationships of this mixed moral character there is great danger that the delicate bloom of piety will be soon swept away, that zeal for truth and for God will grow cold, that habits of devotion will gradually fail, and thus the very life of the soul will be gravely imperilled. And if the wicked be admitted into religious alliances and enterprises, such enterprises will run imminent risk of being first degraded and then defeated. (b).

IV. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good should always be firmly rejected. The leaders of the Jews are an example to us in this respect. 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, &c. When the difference of character is essential and radical, there should be no hesitation as to the treatment of such proposals. Occasional association between the unmistakably good and the unmistakably wicked is sometimes justifiable and necessary; as in business transactions and in the efforts of the good to benefit the wicked. I pray not, said Christ, that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil. (c). But the first suggestion of intimate association or close alliance between them, however plausibly presented and enforced, should be at once and decisively checked by the good. Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? &c. (2Co. 6:14-18). Resist temptation promptly and firmly. (d).

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Satan never plays a bold game. He wins by not showing his worst at first, by concealing his tricks, transformed into an angel of light. It takes a great deal of effort to put us thoroughly on our guard against his wiles; but when it is done, it is worth the pains. Tempting men imitate their great leader and prototype. They never go directly and openly to their object. If they would bend you from your integrity, they will flatter your self-respect by holding out to you a moral inducement. If they would corrupt your purity, they insinuate the poison through some appeal to your better affections. If they would weaken the holy restraints that gird in, with their blessed zone, the innocence of childhood, they will urge some sly argument to an honourable pride, or else to a friendly sympathy, or else to a praiseworthy love of independence; and the first battery that has been plied against many a boys virtue has been the cunning caution that bade him not be afraid of his elders. They may say, as Milton makes the Archfiend say, sitting like a cormorant on a tree that overlooked the sinless Eden and the yet innocent inmates, deceiving even his own black heart

Should I at your harmless innocence
Melt, as I do, yet public reason just,
Honour and empire, with revenge enlarged
By conquering this new world, compels me now
To do what else, though damned, I should abhor.

Theologians can cover their sectarian misrepresentations with the plea of zeal for the cause, and controversialists baptize their bigotry with language of Holy Writ wrested from its meaning.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose
Oh what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

Says the Apostle Paul, If Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.F. D. Huntington, D.D.

(b) Man, being a sociable creature, is mightily encouraged to do as others do, especially in an evil example; for we are more susceptible of evil than we are of good. Sickness is sooner communicated than health; we easily catch a disease of one another, but those that are sound do not communicate health to the diseased. Or rather, to take Gods own expression that sets it forth thus,by touching the unclean the man became unclean under the law, but by touching the clean the man was not purified. The conversation of the wicked has more power to corrupt the good, than the conversation of the virtuous and holy to correct the lewd.Manton.

(c) All company with unbelievers or misbelievers is not condemned. We find a Lot in Sodom, Israel with the Egyptians, Abraham and Isaac with their Abimelechs; roses among thorns, and pearls in mud; and Jesus Christ among publicans and sinners. So neither we be infected, nor the name of the Lord wronged, to converse with them that we may convert them is a holy course. But still we must be among them as strangers: to pass through an infected place is one thing, to dwell in it another. The earth is the Lords, and men are His; wheresoever God shall find the merchant, let him be sure to find God in every place.Thomas Adams.

(d) Keep the devil at arms length, and fight him at a distance. Suffer him, in easy security, to draw near, and resistance is over; the citadel of your soul is won. Nine-tenths of the gross, degrading, damning sins into which people are betrayed, are committed without premeditation, nay, with a clear purpose against them; but a man or a woman has toyed with temptationjust thus far I can venture, and stop short of foul and fatal sin. And then, as the poor bird when he sees the bait in the trap, Satan knows he has you fast; he knows that those encroachments are never staid. The art of godly living in its earlier stages is an art of wise defences, a constant, earnest vigilance at the outworks of the spirit, that they may never be stormed or sapped by the foe. Gradually, as a man grows in grace and godliness, the outer defence may be abandoned. Paul, the aged, could look steadily in the face many a peril which Paul the neophyte would have wisely shunned. But let the young pilgrim of life beware, and if he feels himself in an atmosphere of temptation, let him raise bulwarks of habits and self-denials by which the pestilent foe may be kept as far as may be from the near neighbourhood of the soul.J. B. Brown, B.A.

THE TRUE BUILDERS OF THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE OF GOD

(Ezr. 4:3)

The chiefs of the Jewish community here affirm that the building of the Temple at Jerusalem was their work, that the Samaritans had no proper part in it; and that, therefore, they would do the work themselves, without the proffered aid of the Samaritans. This position, which they took up and maintained, suggests that the true spiritual Israelites are the only authorised and legitimate builders of the spiritual Temple of God, or that Christian work should be done only by Christians. This position may be supported by the following reasons:

I. They alone will build on the time foundation. Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. He is the only foundation of a true character; the only corner-stone of a true church. Neither theological creeds or systems, nor ecclesiastical politics, nor even divinely instituted sacraments, nor schemes of social improvement, nor the unreliable excellences and fancied merits of individualsnone of these, nor all of them combined, can be the true foundation of the spiritual Temple of God. Christ is the only true and sure foundation. And the true Christian, who is both a stone in the edifice and also a builder of the edifice, is himself built upon Christ and builds others upon Him. He who is not himself a true Christian will suggest some other foundation, &c. (a).

II. They alone will build with the true materials. The spiritual temple is to be built of living and Christly souls. Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood. The Christian Church should be composed of Christian persons, and only of them. The great spiritual dwelling-place of God must be constructed of spiritual persons. The carnally-minded, the worldly-minded, the ungodly, have no true place in it. The Christian builder will seek to build the edifice of true materials; he will build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones. Those who are not them selves true Christians would build of wood, hay, stubble; they would put into the edifice unsuitable materials, &c. (b).

III. They alone will build in accordance with the true plan. The design of the Church is Divine. They who labour in the erection of the spiritual temple are not to carry out their own ideas, but to fulfil the plan of God. The Lord Jesus is the great Master Builder: He also superintends the work. The business of the workmen is to carry out His directions. Here are some glimpses of the Divine design for this temple. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. A glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Only the members of the true spiritual Israel will keep the Divine plan in view, and faithfully build in accordance with it.

IV. They alone will build with the true aim. What is the great end of the spiritual temple which is being built amongst men? The glory of God. For this end the Jews rebuilt their Temple. This is the end of the great redemptive work of our Lord and Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, and of all Christian agencies. Ye are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. The final cause of this spiritual temple is that God shall be manifest in it everywhere, realised everywhere, obeyed everywhere, adored everywhere. Only the godly will faithfully labour for this end. The ungodly, like the Samaritans, will be moved by political or other inferior considerations, and will aim at some selfish end.

V. They alone will build in the true spirit. The true spirit for Christian work is that of

1. Obedience, as opposed to self-will.

2. Humility, as opposed to haughtiness and self-conceit.

3. Patience in dealing with difficulties and disappointments, as opposed to petulance.

4. Trust in God, as opposed to self-confidence.

5. Self-consecration, as opposed to self-seeking. This is the true spirit for the builders of the spiritual Temple of our God; and this spirit belongs only to the true people of God. The first and chief condition of doing good to others is being good ourselves. To accomplish successful Christian work we must live sincere Christian lives. And so our subject brings us to the cross and to the Saviour, to the atonement and the example of the Lord Jesus. Fitness for holy work begins by trusting in Him, and is maintained by imitating Him. (c).

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Christ is often called the foundation; the stone; the corner-stone on which the Church is reared (Isa. 28:16; Mat. 21:42; Act. 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 2Ti. 2:19; 1Pe. 2:6). The meaning is, that no true church can be reared which does not embrace and hold the true doctrines respecting Himthose which pertain to His incarnation, His Divine nature, His instructions, His example, His atonement, His resurrection, and His ascension. The reason why no true church can be established without embracing the truth as it is in Christ, is, that it is by Him only that men can be saved; and where this doctrine is wanting, all is wanting that enters into the essential idea of a church. The fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion must be embraced, or a church cannot exist; and where those doctrines are denied, no association of men can be recognised as a Church of God. Nor can the foundation be modified or shaped so as to suit the wishes of men. It must be laid as it is in the Scriptures; and the superstructure must be reared on that alone.Albert Barnes, D.D.

(b) By going to the lowest stratum of human nature, Christ gave a new idea of the value of man. He built a kingdom out of the refuse of society. To compare small things with great, it has been pointed out by Lord Macaulay that in an English cathedral there is an exquisite stained window which was made by an apprentice out of the pieces of glass which had been rejected by his master, and it was so far superior to every other in the church, that, according to tradition, the envious artist killed himself with vexation. All the builders of society had rejected the sinners, and made the painted window of the righteous. A new Builder came; His plan was original, startling, revolutionary; His eye was upon the contemned material; He made the first last, and the last first; and the stone which the builders rejected He made the head stone of the corner.Joseph Parker, D.D.

(c) The true philosophy or method of doing good is, first of all and principally, to be goodto have a character that will of itself communicate good. There must and will be active effort where there is goodness of principle; but the latter we should hold to be the principal thing, the root and life of all. Whether it is a mistake more sad or more ridiculous, to make mere stir synonymous with doing good, we need not inquire; enough, to be sure that one who has taken up such a notion of doing good is for that reason a nuisance to the church. The Christian is called a light, not lightning. In order to act with effect on others, he must walk in the Spirit, and thus become the image of goodness; he must be so akin to God, and so filled with His dispositions, that he shall seem to surround himself with a hallowed atmosphere. It is folly to endeavour to make ourselves shine before we are luminous. If the sun without his beams should talk to the planets, and argue with them till the final day, it would not make them shine; there must be light in the sun itself, and then they will shine, of course. And this, my brethren, is what God intends for you all. It is the great idea of His Gospel, and the work of His Spirit, to make you lights in the world. His greatest joy is to give you character, to beautify your example, to exalt your principles, and make you each the depositary of His own Almighty grace. But in order to this, something is necessary on your parta full surrender of your mind to duty and to God, and a perpetual desire of His spiritual intimacy; having this, having a participation thus of the goodness of God, you will as naturally communicate good as the sun communicates his beams.H. Bushnell, D.D.

THE HOSTILITY OF THE SAMARITANS TO THE JEWS

(Ezr. 4:4-5; Ezr. 4:24)

The advances of the Samaritans having been firmly declined by the Jews, they resorted to opposition, and endeavoured to thwart them in their great work. Notice:

I. The tactics of the wicked. Having failed to accomplish their selfish purposes by the proposal to co-operate in the work, the people of the land at once proceeded to hinder the work. If the Jews would not accept their proffered assistance, they were resolved that they should experience their hostility. The Jews had said that they would do the work alone, whereupon the Samaritans determined that they should not do it at all. They weakened the hands of the people of Judah, i.e., they discouraged and intimidated them as regards their great work. The wicked are, alas! fertile in resources for the accomplishment of their evil designs. Their methods are often manifold and crafty. If they cannot bend the good to their wishes and aims by plausible pretences, they alter their tactics and betake themselves to unscrupulous opposition in various forms.

II. The venality of the wicked. The Samaritans hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose. M. Henry suggests that these counsellors, pretending to advise them for the best, should dissuade them from proceeding, and so frustrate their purpose, or dissuade the men of Tyre and Sidon from furnishing them with the timber they had bargained for (chap. 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. Or, as Schultz suggests, they were hired to get the edict of Cyrus cancelled by influencing the ministers to whom chap. Ezr. 7:28 and Ezr. 8:25 refer, or other influential persons, to give advice to Cyrus unfavourable 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. But, however these counsellors proceeded in their work, it is reasonable to infer that they were men of some skill and resource and power of persuasion, and they deliberately exercised their abilities in an evil cause for gain. In them the voice of conscience was overwhelmed by the cravings of cupidity. In the twenty-fourth chapter of Acts we have two illustrations of this venality. The learning and eloquence of Tertullus, a Roman barrister, were employed to promote the cause of tyranny, injustice, and falsehood, and to persecute a true and holy man. And Felix the governor refrains, for the space of two years, from doing what he is convinced is his duty in releasing St. Paul from his imprisonment, in the hope of receiving bribes to do so. It is inexpressibly mournful to see men prostituting their genius, or learning, or wisdom, or eloquence, or power for money. Yet how numerous are the forms and instances of it in our own day, e.g., men write fictions and songs which minister to mens lower nature at the expense of their higher nature, &c. (a).

III. The temporary triumph of the wicked. The Samaritans succeeded in discouraging the Jews, harassing them in their work, and finally putting a stop to their work. They frustrated their purpose all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia. For the space of fourteen years the building of the Temple was arrested, viz., for five years of the reign of Cyrus, seven and a half of Cambyses, seven months of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and one year of Darius. The wicked have often succeeded in hindering the progress of the cause of God. St. Paul was hindered by Satan, once and again, from the execution of his purposes (1Th. 2:18). Persecution too has frequently obstructed sadly the work of God, and inflicted grievous trials and sufferings upon His people.

IV. The freedom allowed by God to the wicked. He allowed the Samaritans to resist His purposes, to persecute His people, to arrest the building of His Temple for fourteen years. And still He allows the atheist to deny His existence, the blasphemer to blaspheme His name, and the wicked to do evil with both hands earnestly. He will not invade the moral freedom with which He Himself has dowered us. And sentence against an evil work is not speedily executed. His forbearance, even with the most pernicious and provoking sinners, is very great. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. But let no one presume upon the Divine patience. Thinkest thou, O man, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering? &c. Rom. 2:4-11). (b). And in the end the Temple of God shall be built, and His purposes fully and splendidly accomplished. The triumph of the wicked is only temporary. God will frustrate their deepest designs, and overrule them for the fulfilment of His own. Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain. Let us learn, before leaving this section of the narrative, that the most dangerous enemies of the Church of God are hypocritical adherents to it. Half-hearted, inconsistent, ungodly professors of religion are, in their influence, the worst obstructions to the progress of the kingdom of God.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Gold is the only power which receives universal homage. It is worshipped in all lands without a single temple, and by all classes without a single hypocrite; and often has it been able to boast of having armies for its priesthood, and hecatombs of human victims for its sacrifices. Where war has slain its thousands, gain has slaughtered its millions; for while the former operates only with the local and fitful terrors of an earthquake, the destructive influence of the latter is universal and unceasing. Indeed war itselfwhat has it often been but the art of gain practised on the largest scale? the covetousness of a nation resolved on gain, impatient of delay, and leading on its subjects to deeds of rapine and blood? Its history is the history of slavery and oppression in all ages. For centuries, Africaone quarter of the globehas been set apart to supply the monster with victimsthousands at a meal. And, at this moment, what a populous and gigantic empire can it boast! the mine, with its unnatural drudgery; the manufactory, with its swarms of squalid misery; the plantation, with its imbruted gangs; and the market and the exchange, with their furrowed and careworn countenances,these are only specimens of its more menial offices and subjects. Titles and honours are among its rewards, and thrones are at its disposal. Among its counsellors are kings, and many of the great and mighty of the earth are enrolled among its subjects. Where are the waters not ploughed by its navies? What imperial element is not yoked to its car? Philosophy itself has become a mercenary in its pay; and science, a votary at its shrine, brings all its noblest discoveries, as offerings, to its feet. What part of the globes surface is not rapidly yielding up its last stores of hidden treasure to the spirit of gain? or retains more than a few miles of unexplored and unvanquished territory? Scorning the childish dream of the philosophers stone, it aspires to turn the globe itself into gold.John Harris, D.D.

(b) The patience of God informs us of the reason why He lets the enemies of His Church oppress it, and defers His promise of the deliverance of it. If He did punish them presently, His holiness and justice would be glorified, but His power over Himself in His patience would be obscured. Well may the Church be content to have a perfection of God glorified, that is not like to receive any honour in another world by any exercise of itself. If it were not for His patience, He were incapable to be the Governor of a sinful world; He might, without it, be the Governor of an innocent world, but not of a criminal one; He would be the destroyer of the world, but not the orderer and disposer of the extravagancies and sinfulness of the world. The interest of His wisdom, in drawing good out of evil, would not be served if He were not clothed with this perfection as well as with others. If He did presently destroy the enemies of His Church upon the first oppression, His wisdom in contriving, and His power in accomplishing deliverance against the united powers of hell and earth, would not be visible, no, nor that power in preserving His people unconsumed in the furnace of affliction. He had not got so great a name in the rescue of His Israel from Pharaoh, had He thundered the tyrant into destruction upon His first edict against the innocent. If He were not patient to the most violent of men, He might seem to be cruel. But when He offers peace to them under their rebellions, waits that they may be members of His Church, rather than enemies to it, He frees Himself from any such imputation, even in the judgment of those that shall feel most of His wrath; it is this renders the equity of His justice unquestionable, and the deliverance of His people righteous in the judgment of those from whose fetters they are delivered. Christ reigns in the midst of His enemies, to show His power over Himself as well as over the heads of His enemies, to show His power over His rebels. And though He retards His promise, and suffers a great interval of time between the publication and performance, sometimes years, sometimes ages to pass away, and little appearance of any preparation to show Himself a God of truth; it is not that He hath forgotten His word, or repents that ever He passed it, or sleeps in a supine neglect of it: but that men might not perish, but bethink themselves, and come as friends into His bosom, rather than be crushed as enemies under His feet (2Pe. 3:9): The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hereby He shows that He would be rather pleased with the conversion than the destruction of men.S. Charnocke, B.D.

THE ANTAGONISM OF THE WORLD TO THE CHURCH

(Ezr. 4:6-16)

In these verses we have a further account of the hostility of the Samaritans to the Jews in their great work. Homiletically we may view it as an illustration of The antagonism of the world to the Church. This antagonism as it is here illustrated is

I. Persistent. The opposition to the Jews was carried on during a considerable portion of the reign of Cyrus, the whole of the reigns of Cambyses and of the Pseudo-Smerdis; and it was continued by means of letters of accusation in the reigns of Ahasuerus (Ezr. 4:6) and of Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4:7). Terrible is the persistence of the world in its hostility to the Church of God. In different forms it is continued age after age; and at present we can discover no signs of its cessation. The spirit of worldliness is as hostile now to the spirit of decided piety as ever it was. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. If the world hate you, said our Lord, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you, &c. (Joh. 15:18-21). (a).

II. Authoritative. This letter was written and sent to Artaxerxes by two high officers of the Persian monarch. It seems to have been devised by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their associates, and to have been written by Rehum the Persian governor in Samaria, and Shimshai the royal scribe in the same province. The letter of accusation had all the weight which the authority of these distinguished officers could impart to it. The spirit of secular governments has often been inimical to the spirit of true godliness, and their action hostile to the principles of truth and righteousness. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Church.

III. Combined. All the colonies of the Samaritans concurred in the statements and in the sending of this letter. Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions: the Dinaites, &c. (Ezr. 4:9-10). They followed the cry, though ignorant of the merits of the cause. The popularity of a movement is no proof of its truth or righteousness. Numbers are not a reliable guarantee of the wisdom and worthiness of a cause. Majorities have very frequently been on the side of falsehood, injustice, and folly. Mark what a combination there was against the Lord and Saviour. Against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together. There is combination in hell.

Devil with devil damned firm concord holds.

IV. Unscrupulous. This is very manifest in the gross exaggerations of this letter. Notice two or three of them. Jerusalem the rebellious and the bad city. A most unjust description of its character. If this city be builded and the walls set up, they will not pay toll, &c. (Ezr. 4:13). An unwarranted and slanderous assertion, for these Jews had never given any cause why their loyalty to the Persian monarchs should be suspected. If this city be builded, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river. An extremely absurd exaggeration. One would suppose that the authors of it must have known it to be a gross misrepresentation. The chief assertions of the letter were unscrupulous and base calumnies. The enemies of the Church of God have never been particular as to the weapons they should use against it. Falsehood and cruelty, fines and imprisonment, bonds and banishment, fire and sword, have all been employed against it.

V. Plausible. This letter to Artaxerxes reveals the craft and plausibility of the Samaritans

1. In their profession of loyalty to the king. Thy servants (Ezr. 4:11) Now because we have maintenance from the kings palace, and it was not meet for us to see the kings dishonour, &c. (Ezr. 4:14).

2. In their presentation of proof of their assertions. They suggest that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers, &c. (Ezr. 4:15). The remarks of M. Henry on this verse are admirable: 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 remembered

(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, 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 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. But it was craftily conceived and executed; and, for a time, it answered the purpose of its authors. The Church now has to contend against, not only the strength but also the subtlety of its foes; not only against the roaring lion, but also against the old serpent. Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. And the blandishments of the world are more perilous to the Church than its threats. Christians need to be wise as serpents, watchful as trusty sentinels, and prayerful as devoutest saints.

Yet greater is He that is in us and for us, than all our foes, with all their might, and malice, and cunning. The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? (b).

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) From the fiery days of the stakes of Smithfield even until now, the worlds black heart has hated the Church; and the worlds cruel hand and laughing lip have been for ever against us. The host of the mighty are pursuing us, and are thirsty for our blood, and anxious to cut us off from the earth. Such is our position unto this hour, and such must it be, until we are landed on the other side of Jordan, and until our Maker comes to reign on the earth.C. H. Spurgeon.

(b) As for the trouble thou puttest thyself to concerning the cause and Church of Christ, which thou mayest see at any time distressed by the enemy, though God takes thy goodwill to them (from which those thy fears arise) very kindly, yet there is no need of tormenting thyself with that which is sure never to come to pass. The ark may shake, but it cannot fall. The ship of the Church may be tossed, but it cannot sink, for Christ is in it, and will awake time enough to prevent its wreck. There is, therefore, no cause for us, when the storm beateth hardest upon it, to disturb Him, as once the disciples did, with the shrieks and outcries of our unbelief, as if all were lost. Our faith is more in danger of sinking at such a time than the cause and Church of Christ are. They are both by the promise set out of the reach of men and devils. The Gospel is an everlasting Gospel. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one iota of this shall perish. The Word of the Lord endureth for ever, and shall be alive to walk over all its enemies graves, yea to see the funeral of the whole world.W. Gurnall.

GOOD CAUSE FOR GREAT ZEAL

(Ezr. 4:14)

The facts of the case were these. Now let me take these words right out of those black mouths, and put them into my own and into yours. They will suit us well if we turn them to the great King of kings. We may truly say, Now because we have maintenance from the Kings palace, &c. The text will enable me to speak on three points.

I. We acknowledge a very gracious fact. We have maintenance from the kings palace. Both the upper and the nether springs from which we drink are fed by the eternal bounty of the great King. Hitherto we have been supplied with food and raiment. Although we do not drink of the water from the rock, or find the manna lying at our tent door every morning, yet the providence of God produces for us quite the same results, and we have been fed and satisfied; and, at any rate, many of us, in looking back, can say, My cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy have followed me all the days of my life. Hence, we have thus, even in things temporal, been made to feel that we have been maintained from the Kings palace. But it has been in spiritual things that our continual experience of the Kings bounty has been most notable. We have a new life, and therefore we have new wants, and new hunger, and a new thirst; and God has maintained us out of His own palace as to this new life of ours. We have had great hunger at times after heavenly things, but He has satisfied our mouth with good things, and our youth has been renewed like the eagles. Sometimes we have been drawn aside from our steadfastness, and we have wanted mighty grace to set us on our feet again, and to make us once more strong in the Lord and in the power of His might; and we have had it, have we not? In looking back upon all the way wherein the Lord our God has led us, we can sing of the beginning of it, we can sing of the middle of it, and we believe we shall sing of the end of it; for all through we have been maintained out of the Kings palace. This is matter of fact both as to things temporal and things spiritual. Beloved, it is a great mercy that you and I have been maintained out of the Kings palace as believers; because, where else could we have been maintained? As to spiritual things, to whom could we go but unto Him who has been so good to us? What empty wells ministers are if we look to them! If we look to their Master, then the rain also filleth the pools, and we find that there is supply in the preached word for our consolation. And the books you once read with so much comfort appear to have lost their flavour, their aroma, and their sweet savour, and, I may add, even the Word of God itself, though it is unchanged, appears to be changed sometimes to you. But God, your God, oh, how graciously has He still supplied you! All my springs are in Thee, my God; and had they been elsewhere they long ago had failed.

We may remember that our maintenance from the Kings palace has cost His Majesty dear. He has not fed us for nothing. It cost Him His own dear Son at the very first. We should not have begun to live if He had spared His Son and kept Him back from us; but the choicest treasure in heaven He was pleased to spend for our sakes that we might live; and ever since then we have been fed upon Jesus Christ Himself. Let us bless and magnify our bounteous God, whose infinite favour has thus supplied our wants. Think over the kind of maintenance you have had from the Kings palace. We have had a bountiful supply. As the sun throws out his wealth of heat and light, and does not measure it by the consumption of men, but throws it broadcast over all worlds, even so does God flood the world with the sunlight of His goodness, and His saints are made to receive it in abundance. Our receptive faculty may be small, but His giving disposition is abundant. We have had an unfailing portion. As there has been much of it, so it has always come to us in due season. Times of need have come, but the needed supply has come too. The supply has ennobled us. For, consider how great a thing it is to be supported from a kings palace; but it is the greatest of all privileges to be living upon the bounty of the King of kings. Such honour have all the saints. Even those that are weakest and meanest have this high honourto be supplied by Royalty itself with all that they need. And there is reason for good cheer in this, that we have such a soul-satisfying portion in God. A soul that gets what God gives him has quite as much as he can hold and as much as he can want. He has got a portion that might well excite envy. Let us rejoice, &c.

II. Here is a duty recognised. It was not meet for us to see the kings dishonour. The reasoning comes home to us. If we are so favouredwe, who are believerswith such a choice portion, it is not meet for us to sit down and see our God dishonoured. By every sense of propriety we are bound not to see God dishonoured by ourselves. It is well to begin at home. Art thou doing anything that dishonours thy God, professoranything at home, anything in thy daily avocation, anything in the way of conducting thy business? Is there anything in thy conversation, anything in thy actions, anything in thy reading, anything in thy writing, anything in thy speaking, that dishonours God? Seeing that thou art fed from the Kings table, I beseech thee let it not be said that the King got damage from thee. Perhaps that dishonour may come from those who dwell under our roof, and live in our own house. I charge you that are parents and masters to see to this. Do not tolerate anything in those over whom you have control that would bring dishonour to God. We cannot impart to our children new hearts, but we can see to it that there shall be nothing within our gates that is derogatory to the religion of Jesus Christ.

Let the same holy jealousy animate us among those with whom we have influenceas, for instance, amongst those who wish to be united with us in Church fellowship. It is the duty of every Church to try, as far as it can, to guard the honour and dignity of King Jesus against unworthy persons, who would intrude themselves into the congregation of the saints, of those who are called, and chosen, and faithful. To receive into our membership persons of unhallowed life, unchaste, unrighteousof licentious life and lax doctrine, such as know not the truth as it is in Jesuswould be to betray the trust with which Christ has invested us.

Under what sacred obligations do we stand to maintain the statutes and testimonies of the Lord! And, oh, how the King is dishonoured by the mutilation and misrepresentation of His Word! Therefore we are always bound to bear our protest against false doctrine. Those who have their maintenance from the Kings palace ought not to allow the Lord to be dishonoured by a neglect of His ordinances. The Lord Jesus has given you only two symbolic ordinances. Take care that you use them well. Again, let us take care that He be not dishonoured by a general decline of His Church. When churches go to sleepwhen the work of God is done deceitfullyfor to do it formally is to do it deceitfully; when there is no life in the prayer-meeting, when there are no holy enterprises afloat for the spread of the Redeemers kingdom, then the world says, That is your Church! What a sleepy set these saints are! Oh! let not the King be thus dishonoured. And, oh, how can we tolerate it that so many should dishonour Christ by rejecting His Gospel! We cannot prevent their doing so, but we can weep for them; we can pray for them, we can plead for them, we can make it uncomfortable for them to reflect that believers are loving them, and yet they are not loving the Saviour. Privileged as you are, you ought to love your Master, so that the slightest word against Him should provoke your spirit to holy jealousy.

III. A course of action pursued. Therefore have we sent and certified the king. How shall we do that? Doubtless we act as it well becomes us, when we go and tell the Lord all about it? Certified the King!but does He not know? Are not all things open to Him from whom no secrets are hid? Ah, yes; but when Hezekiah received Rabshakehs blasphemous letter he took it and spread it before the Lord. It is a holy exercise of the saints to report to the Lord the sins and the sorrows they observe among the peoplethe griefs they feel, and the grievances they complain ofto spread before Him the blasphemies they have heard, and appeal to Him concerning the menaces with which they are threatened. After those people had certified the king, they took care to plead with him. Plead with God! That praying is poor shift that is not made up of pleading. And when you have done it, do not go away and make your prayers into a lie by contrary actions, or by refraining from any action at all. He that prays hard must work hard; for no man prays sincerely who is not prepared to use every effort to obtain that which he asks of God. We must put our shoulder to the wheel while we pray for strength to put it in motion. All success depends upon God; yet He uses instruments, and He will not use instruments that are useless and unfitted to the work. Therefore let us be up and be stirring, for if we are maintained from the Kings palace, it is not meet that we see the Kings dishonour, but it is due to Him that we should seek His glory. Alas! there are some here that have never eaten the Kings bread, and will be banished from the Kings presence if they die as they are. But, oh remember, the King is always ready to receive His rebel subjects, and He is a God ready to pardon. Kiss the Son lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.C. H. Spurgeon.

THE SUCCESS OF THE SUBTLE SCHEME OF THE SAMARITANS, OR THE TEMPORARY TRIUMPH OF THE WICKED

(Ezr. 4:17-23)

I. Examine the letter of the king. Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum, &c. (Ezr. 4:17-22). This letter suggests

1. That the subtlety of the wicked frequently obtains a temporary triumph over the good. We have already noticed that the letter of the Samaritans to the king was very plausible. And that it completely succeeded is clear from the reply of the king to it.

(1.) The search in the archives of the nation which they recommended (Ezr. 4:15) was made. I commanded, and search hath been made (Ezr. 4:19).

(2.) The result which they predicted (Ezr. 4:15) followed the search. And it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. The Jews had formerly rebelled against foreign powers by whom they had been subjected. Hezekiah rebelled against the king of Assyria (2Ki. 18:7). Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon (2Ki. 24:1). Zedekiah also rebelled against the king of Babylon (2Ki. 24:20).

(3.) The warnings which they gave (Ezr. 4:13; Ezr. 4:16) were heeded. As a result of the examination of the records of the kingdom, the king discovered that there had been mighty kings over Jerusalem, which had ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom had been paid unto them; and so the warnings of the Samaritans seemed to him reasonable and timely, and he acted upon them, inquiring, Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?

(4.) The end which they aimed at was attained. Their object was to obtain authority to put a stop to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. And the king writes, Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment be given from me. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this. The misrepresentations of the Samaritans had sufficient truth in them to completely mislead Artaxerxes the king and to accomplish their evil design. Falsehood, says Colton, is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth; and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong, as no watches so effectually deceive the wearers as those that are sometimes right.

A lie which is half a truth
Is ever the worst of lies.

2. That one generation frequently suffers through the sins of another and an earlier one. The Jews of this time were suspected of disloyalty, and were prevented from carrying on their great work because some of their ancestors had rebelled against the domination of foreign powers. They smarted for the sins of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. The children of the spendthrift, the drunkard, and the impure man generally have to bear the iniquities of their fathers. (Comp. Exo. 20:5.) This stern fact should prove a restraint from sin. (a).

2. That the cause of God is frequently reproached and hindered by the evil conduct of some of its adherents. The rebellions of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were now made use of to asperse the Jews and to stop the work of God. A few instances of this kind, as Scott observes, standing on record, whilst the blameless lives and patient sufferings of thousands are unnoticed and forgotten, serve through revolving ages as a pretext, by which malignant enmity misleads worldly policy. All who love the Gospel should therefore walk circumspectly, avoiding all appearance of evil, especially in this particular, lest the Church of God and posterity should suffer through their misconduct; for the whole body will be condemned without hearing, if a few individuals act improperly. (b).

II. Notice the action of the Samaritans. Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes letter was read, &c. Their action was

1. Prompt. They allowed no delay whatever, but eagerly carried out the royal mandate. They went up in haste to Jerusalem, &c.

2. Personal. They did not depute others to put a stop to the work of the Jews: their interest was too deep and zealous for that. They themselves went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews.

3. Powerful. They made them to cease by force and power. They compelled the Jews by a display of force, which they probably took with them, to desist from building the city. Thus the plotters prevailed; the enemies were triumphant, and the progress of the good work was arrested. The tact and energy and zeal of the Samaritans were worthy of a good cause, and they were rewarded with success.

LEARN:

1. That the temporary triumph of a cause or a party is not a proof of its righteousness. When Jesus Christ was crucified, dead and buried, the enemies of truth and light and God appeared to be completely victorious. (c).

2. That we are not competent to judge the relation of present events to the purposes and providence of the great God. These require time for their development, &c. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) This is a truth evident by universal experience. It is seen every day, in every part of the world. If Mr. Paine indulge in intemperance, and leave children behind him, they may feel the consequences of his misconduct when he is in the grave. The sins of the fathers may thus be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation. It would, however, be their affliction only, and not their punishment. Yet such visitations are wisely ordered as a motive to sobriety.Andrew Fuller.

The child generally inherits the natural constitution, the mental peculiarities, and sometimes even the moral character of his parent. His secular condition, too, rich or poor, is frequently determined by his parents. Some inherit a princely fortune, and some a crushing penury, from their ancestors. And their social status, too, is often ruled by the position and conduct of those of whom they were born. Children participate in the shame or the glory connected with the memory of their parents. The brilliant reflection of an illustrious sire seems to lead his offspring to social honour, and to shed a radiance on his name. On the other hand, the infamy which parents by theft, treason, or murder, have gained for themselves, transmits its odious influence down to their children, depreciating their own personal worth, and degrading them in the estimation of their contemporaries.David Thomas, D.D.

(b) Was there ever a club in all the world without disreputable persons in it! Was there ever any association of men that might not be condemned, if the fools rule was followed of condemning the wheat because of the chaff? When with all our might and power we purge ourselves of deceivers as soon as we detect them, what more can we do? If our rule and practice is to separate them wholly as soon as we unmask them, what more can virtue itself desire? I ask any man, however much he may hate Christianity, what more can the Church do than watch her members with all diligence, and excommunicate the wicked when discovered? It is a foul piece of meanness on the part of the world that they should allege the faults of a few false professors against the whole Church: it is a piece of miserable meanness of which the world ought to be ashamed. Nevertheless, so it is. Ha! ha! they say, So would we have it! so would we have it! The daughter of Philistia rejoices, and the uncircumcised triumphs when Jesus is betrayed by His friend, and sold by His traitorous disciple. O deceitful professor, will not the Lodr be avenged upon you for this? Is it nothing to make Jesus name the drunkards song? Nothing to make the enemy blaspheme? O hardened man, tremble, for this shall not go unpunished.C. H. Spurgeon.

(c) If ever failure seemed to rest on a noble life, it was when the Son of Man, deserted by His friends, heard the cry which proclaimed that the Pharisees had successfully drawn the net round their Divine Victim. Yet from that very hour of defeat and death there went forth the worlds lifefrom that very moment of apparent failure there proceeded forth into the ages the spirit of the conquering Cross. Surely if the Cross says anything, it says that apparent defeat is real victory, and that there is a heaven for those who have nobly and truly failed on earth.F. W. Robertson, M.A.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

TEXT AND VERSE-BY-VERSE COMMENT

B. The work is interrupted by Israels enemies.
1. Opposition develops.

TEXT, Ezr. 4:1-5

Now when the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the people of the exile were building a temple to the LORD God of Israel,

they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers households, and said to them, Let us build with you, for we, like you, seek your God; and we have been sacrificing to Him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here.

But Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of fathers households of Israel said to them, You have nothing in common with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves will together build to the LORD God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia has commanded us.

Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah, and frightened them from building,

and hired counselors against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

COMMENT

In chapter four we see opposition finally appearing and becoming clearly identifiable. It can be anticipated that when Gods people get busy, Satan will raise opposition.

It is not just history we are reading, for these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1Co. 10:11). If the O.T. teaches us valuable lessons about the nature and works of the Eternal, All-powerful, All-loving God, it also has something valuable to say about the nature of our enemy, and of the methods which he still uses.

Ezr. 4:1 mentions the enemies; they are more fully described in Ezr. 4:2; Ezr. 4:9-10. We recognize them primarily as the Samaritans, known to us from the N.T. From this and other passages of the O.T. we can understand why the Samaritans were so bitterly resented by the Judeans in the N. T.

Ezr. 4:2 shows that the strongest opposition for Gods people is from the half-godly.[22] The Samaritans claimed first that they worshiped the same God as Israel. While they called Him by the same name, they understood His nature in a much different way and their worship followed very different patterns. Their second claim will explain this: they asserted that they had been sacrificing to Israels God since the days of Esar-haddon, 150 years earlier. When Israel had been conquered by the Assyrians in 722 or 721 B.C., the Assyrians had taken many of the people, especially the well-to-do, with them into captivity; then they imported other conquered peoples into their land, as a means of discouraging revolt. By shuffling populations around, they sought to put all of them into strange environments thus making revolt more difficult and unlikely. 2 Kings 17 gives the full story of the beginning of these policies; note especially 2Ki. 17:24 ff., and 2Ki. 17:33. This was followed by 1) marriages between the Israelites remaining in the land and the heathen immigrants, which God had forbidden; and 2) natural calamities in the land. The Assyrians sought to minimize these calamities by returning priests of the God of Israel to the land to teach proper forms of worship on the premise that there are many gods, each possessing different territories, and each god must be worshiped on the soil identified with him (compare 2Ki. 5:17) or he would become angry and vent his rage on the land.

[22] For N.T. parallels, see Rev. 3:9; Rev. 3:15 ff.

Sargon had been king of Assyria when Israels capital, Samaria, fell. His policy of deportations was continued by the next two kings, Sennacherib and Esar-haddon. The persons speaking in verse two identify themselves as among the later groups of people imported into Israels former territory, possibly after the fall of Tyre to Assyria in 671 B.C. These peoples and their successors continued to use only the books of Moses in their religious practices, even to modern times. The Samaritan woman whom Jesus meets furnishes an illustration of some of their likenesses and differences compared to Judea (Joh. 4:20; Joh. 4:25).

The Samaritans may have had a political motive for their actions as described here. By joining the new Jewish group in their venture the Samaritans may have sought identification with them and thus a salvaging of something of their political position.[23][23] Interpreters Bible, Vol. III, p. 596.

In Ezr. 4:3, the response of Israels leaders has been criticized as unnecessarily severe and uncharitable.[24] However, some things may be said in their defense. 1) It was this same intermarriage with the people of the land, the Canaanites, and intermingling of Israels religion with their heathen neighbors which had brought about their downfall (Jdg. 1:27 ff; Jdg. 2:11 ff.). Solomons marriages to many foreign wives and his subsequent building of temples where they might worship their various gods (1Ki. 11:4-11) had sown the seeds that grew to the kingdoms division and eventual destruction. Note that Solomon built more than one temple. 2) The leaders of Judah and Benjamin had already shown a willingness to use the help of foreigners. They were not so ungracious as to refuse to employ foreigners for labor, or to refuse their contributions. The people of Tyre and Sidon had already given assistance (Ezr. 3:8), and in an earlier era money had been received from Manasseh and Ephraim (2Ch. 34:9). This was not the issue. The real problem apparently was the character of the building, i.e., its control and leadership, and worship to which it would be put. 3) We might also question the sincerity of the Samaritans, who hadnt restored the Temple during the time when they were in total possession of the land.

[24] Ibid., p. 595. The writer conditions this on p. 599, questioning if, without these policies, Judaism and the law and the prophets alike, (would) have survived amid the rising flood of Hellenistic synchretism through the centuries between the O.T. and the N.T.

Ezr. 4:4 marks the virtual halt of the project, because of 1) discouragement, and 2) fear. The account will continue to elaborate on the steps taken by their enemies, but the injury has already been done; the opposition has been effective.

In Ezr. 4:5, the counselors have been compared to lobbyists in our times, hired to influence those who form government policies.[25] The era from Cyrus to Darius, mentioned here, would include also the reigns of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes.

[25] G. Coleman Luck, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 31.

WORD STUDIES

ENEMY: Tsar: Ezr. 4:4; the basic idea in the word is to exert pressure: hence, to press in on, or oppress. It is the word used in Psa. 23:5. Of course, most of the people who do this are our enemies; but even our friends or relatives, consciously or unconsciously, can add pressure to us. Many of Israels most bitter enemies were peoples most closely related to her. God prepares a table (provides) for us in the midst of all these situations.

DISCOURAGE: Meraph Yadim: Ezr. 4:4; literally, as in KJV, weaken the hands. It means to make the hands hang down, to relax, let fall, or weaken: thus, to discourage, The word is in the repetitive participial form indicating continuity of action; they continuously again and again weakened the hands.

TRIBUTE: Mindah: Ezr. 4:13; has the basic idea of a gift, i.e., the kind of a gift measured out; it is always used of another nation, for example to avoid military attack.

CUSTOM: Belo: Ezr. 4:13; payment in kind; i.e., a portion of the crops. This tax would usually be paid by a nations own citizens.

TOLL: Halak: Ezr. 4:13; privilege to walk; hence, payment for passage through a land.

SALT: Melach: Ezr. 4:14. Possibly it means to be rubbed small, or pulverized. Since salt is used to preserve, it was used as a symbol of an enduring, permanent agreement, forever sacred and inviolable. Salt must always accompany offerings (Lev. 2:13), as a symbol of a perpetual bond of friendship and loyalty.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) The adversaries.The Samaritans, so termed by Nehemiah (Ezr. 4:11). These were a mixed race, the original Israelite element of which was nearly lost in the tribes imported into the northern part of the land by Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esar-haddon. (See 2Ki. 17:24-34.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE SUSPENDED, Ezr 4:1-24.

1. The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin The foreign population, who had been transported from various cities of Chaldaea and settled in the depopulated towns of Israel, especially the cities of Samaria. Compare Ezr 4:2; Ezr 4:9-10; Ezr 4:17 with 2Ki 17:24. The names of their principal leaders and counsellors are given in Ezr 4:7-8.

The children of the captivity Those who had gone into exile, and had returned again. Most of the returned had been born in exile.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Enemies Of The Returnees Of Judah And Benjamin Seek To Hijack The Building Of The Temple ( Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:1

‘Now 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 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.

Ezr 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 2Ki 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.

‘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.

Ezr 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. Note 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 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 (Ezr 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.

Ezr 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. No 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 Ezr 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. Jer 7:30-31; Jer 19:4-5; Jer 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, and which continued on until the days of Nehemiah, 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 (Ezr 6:6-12).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:2 “Esarhaddon king of Assur” Comments – Esarhaddon, king of Assur, was king of Assyria from 681 to 669 B.C. following the death of his father Sennacherib . [35] PTW says this Assyrian name means “ Ashur hath given a brother.”

[35] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Esarhaddon.”

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:3 “ye have nothing to do with us” Comments – The heathen today have no part in the kingdom of God nor in building the house of God today. Note:

2Co 6:16, “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:5 “all the days of Cyrus king of Persia” Comments – Cyrus king of Persia reigned over Babylon from 559 to 530 B.C. [36]

[36] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Cyrus.”

Ezr 4:5 “even until the reign of Darius king of Persia” – Comments – Darius the Great reigned from 522 to 485 B.C. [37]

[37] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Darius.”

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:6 “And in the reign of Ahasuerus” Comments – There were at least two kings by this name in the Scriptures. Ahasuerus, king of Persia and husband of Queen Esther, reigned from 485 to 464 B.C. The other individual by this name was “a king of the Medes and father of Darius (Dan 9:1).” [38]

[38] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Ahasuerus.”

Dan 9:1, “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;”

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:7 “And in the days of Artaxerxes” – Comments – Artaxerxes reigned from 465 to 424 B.C. ( ISBE) [39]

[39] R. Dick Wilson, “Artaxerxes,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).

Ezr 4:6-7 Comments The Persistence of Israel’s Adversaries – These adversaries of the Jews (Ezr 4:1) did not give up until they saw results. This was persistence.

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:10 “And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over” Comments – Asnapper, or Ashurbanipal, was the last of the great kings of the Assyrian empire, who reigned from 668 to 626 B.C. [40]

[40] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Ashurbanipal.”

Ezr 4:18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.

Ezr 4:18 Word Study on “plainly” Gesenius says the Hebrew word “plainly” ( ) (H6568) means, “distinctly, accurately, word for word.”

Comments – F. F. Bruce believes the word “plainly” used in Ezr 4:18 and Neh 8:8 indicates the practice of the Law being read aloud in Hebrew, followed by an oral interpretation in Aramaic. He says the Hebrew word ( ) (H6568) is equivalent to the Aramaic “mepharash,” meaning “with an interpretation.” Since Aramaic was the official language used in diplomatic intercourse and documents in the Persian Empire, the word “mepharash” was generally used to denote the procedure of reading the document also in the local vernacular language. Therefore, Ezr 4:18 and Neh 8:8 imply that an Aramaic interpretation followed the oral reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. This was needed because many of the Jews returning from the Captivity no longer understood spoken Hebrew. [41]

[41] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 53.

Neh 8:8, “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly , and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”

Some modern translations support this idea.

NET, “The letter you sent has been translated and read to me.”

NIV, “The letter you sent us has been read and translated in my presence.”

NLT, “The letter you sent has been translated and read to me.”

YLT, “ The letter that ye sent unto us, explained, hath been read before me.”

Ezr 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.

Ezr 4:24 “unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” – Comments – Darius the Great reigned from 522 to 485 B.C. [42]

[42] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Darius.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Building of the Temple Hindered

v. 1. Now, when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, the mixed population to the north of Judah, the Samaritans, who had mingled the Assyrian religion and customs with a remnant of the knowledge of Jehovah, besides continuing in their opposition to the members of the southern kingdom, heard that the children of the captivity, the returned exiles, builded the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel,

v. 2. then they came to Zerubbabel, the governor of the province, 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. Cf 2Ki 17:24. The territory of the northern kingdom had been colonized by people brought up from Babylon, Cutha, and other Eastern countries, and they had been given a priest of Israel. They knew of the true God, but many of them also worshiped idols and clung to various heathen superstitions, all of which neutralized any worship of Jehovah which they may have believed they were rendering Him.

v. 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, the strange mixture of religions which the Samaritans held was not a worship of the true God, nor did they accept a large part of divine Revelation the writings of the prophets; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, hath commanded us. This was a proper reproof of unionistic practises, which might well be taken as a model in our days, when the spirit of unionism is in the air and coalitions and federations are effected without true unity of spirit.

v. 4. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, they tried to put obstructions of every kind in their way, not only by molesting the workmen, but also by eventually obtaining an injunction against the continuation of the work, and troubled them in building,

v. 5. and hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, in order to set aside the edict which gave the Jews permission to build the Temple, all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius (Hystaspes), king of Persia. For some sixteen years, by the use of various legal tricks, they actually succeeded in delaying the construction of the Sanctuary. And even in later years, as the author here summarizes, after the Temple had been erected, they persisted in their efforts to prejudice the Persian rulers against the Jews.

v. 6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, known in secular history as Xerxes, the successor to Darius, who was favorably disposed to the Jews, as the next chapters show, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

v. 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes, commonly known as Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned from 465 to 424 B. C. wrote Bishlam, Xithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, evidently all of them Samaritans, unto Artaxerxes, king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue and Interpreted in the Syrian tongue, that is, both the writing and the language were Aramaic. Even at this late day they did not give up their hostility, but made another attempt to prevent the growth of Jerusalem and the building of its walls.

v. 8. Rehum, the chancellor, and Shimshai, the scribe, apparently Persian officials in Samaria, wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort.

v. 9. Then wrote Rehum, the chancellor, and Shimshai, the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the communities transplanted to Palestine from the Eastern countries, which are now named according to their original homes: the Dinaites, the Apharsathchltes, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites,

v. 10. and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper, the official in charge of the colonizing of the northern territory, brought over and set it in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, south and west of the river Euphrates, and at such a time, literally, “and so forth,” an abbreviation including all other facts which were usually mentioned in the opening of a letter. That is the usual consequence when faithful Christians are opposed to unionism in every form hostility on the part of the enemies and an attempt to hinder the spread of the Gospel.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Ver. 1. The adversaries of Judah That is, the Samaritans, who were planted in the several cities of Israel in the room of the Israelites, whom Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, had long before carried away captive.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

B.THE INTERRUPTION AND AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RESPECTING THE MACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES

Ezr 4:1-24

I. The Interruption of the Building of the Temple. Ezr 4:1-5

1Now 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. 3But 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. 4Then 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.

II. An Original Document respecting the Hostile Machinations. Ezr 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. 7And 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. 8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this 9sort: 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. 12Be 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. 13Be 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. 14Now because we have maintenance from the Kings palace, and it was not meet for us to see the kings 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. 16We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have 17 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 time 18,The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. 19And 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. 20There 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. 21Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. 22Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? 23Now 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. 24Then 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 AND CRITICAL

Ezr 4:1-5. The interruption. Ezr 4:1-3 first give its occasion. When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard of the undertaking in Jerusalem, they wished to unite 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. children or members of the captivity, is the name given to the returned exiles in Ezr 6:19 sq.; Ezr 8:35; Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:16, etc.; so also briefly e.g., Ezr 1:11. In order to establish their claim they maintain: We seek your God as ye (do). with or , also with the simple accusative, is the constant expression for our somewhat colorless 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 does not accord with this view; besides, in such a case we would expect the perf. instead of the part. . It is very probable that here, as in fifteen other passages (comp. e.g.Exo 21:8; 1Sa 2:3; 2Sa 16:18 ; 2Ki 8:10) is for , 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 likewise is found in Qeri, and is read by Esdras (), 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. Bhr on 2Ki 19:37), we have to identify them beyond question with those colonists referred to in 2 Kings 17, with the Samaritans so-called, whom the king of Assyria, 2Ki 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. fr Wissensch. und Kunst in Giessen, I. 1, S. 147 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 Kings 17, 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 Phnicia of their ancient inhabitants, and provided them with new ones, comp. Schrader, l. c., upon our passage.1 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 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 Kings 17 on this subject cannot be understood (as Bhr 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 Bhr 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 is, how the remnant of the ten tribes, who had maintained themselves in their habitations in the midst of the colonists, especially according to Jer 41:4 sq.; and 2Ch 34:9-10 (comp. Bhr on 2 Kings 17, S. 401, and Ngelsbach on Jer 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, 2Ch 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. 2Ki 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 themselvesof themselves having quite a strong inclination to heathenismto 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. Ezr 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.2 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 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 (2Ch 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, Jer 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 (Ezr 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 Samaritans, that they reflected more deeply upon themselves, and finally attached themselves to the worship at Jerusalem.

Ezr 4:3. The Jews refused the Samaritans. The sing. 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. is used with , and accordingly is not the stat.abs. of the foregoing , for otherwise this would not have the article, according to the usual combination with .Ye have nothing to do with us to build, that is, it is not for you and us in common; comp. the expression what is to me and thee namely, in common, Jos 22:24; Jdg 11:12; 2Ki 3:13. In that they say: housenot unto God, as Ezr 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 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., S. 125, 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.

Ezr 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 Ezr 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 is, the people now inhabiting Judah. , already in pre-exile times the name of the southern kingdom is used here also as the name of the country (comp. Ezr 4:6). with the part. (slackening and affrighting) expresses the continuance of the action; the second participle is explanatory of the first, , affrighting with reference to building=from building. The Kethib is sufficiently established by the noun (Isa 17:14) and by the Syriac; the Qeri, prefers the usual form .Without 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 hired counsellors against themfor a cancelling of the edict according to Ezr 4:5, in that they were able to influence probably the ministers to whom Ezr 7:28; Ezr 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. is in continuation of the part. of the previous verse; is a later form of . The time during which they succeeded in frustrating the purposes of the Jews, (for which is to a certain extext the term.techn.), consisted of about fourteen yearsfrom about the third year of Cyrus in Babylon (comp. Dan 10:2 sq.) until the second of Darius, comp. Hag 1:1.

Ezr 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?3 Most ancient and modern interpreters, (comp. J. H. Michaelis, in loco.) had supposed that the author from Ezr 4:6 onward would explain why the building of the temple was discontinued for so long a time, as stated in Ezr 4:5, that he then entered into the period between Cyrus and Darius. They were led to this opinion by Ezr 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 Ezr 4:6-7 had ruled before him. Luther, from this point of view, united this 6th 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., S. 137, and Khler in Komm. zu. den. nachexil. Proph.4). 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. 813), or also Orapastes (Justin. Hist. Ezr 1:9), which name cannot be identified with . 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 Dan 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 , However is in Ezr 7:8. and so also in the book of Nehemiah, without question, Artaxerxes (Machrochir). It is true that it is there written (with ), in our passage, however, (with ); but a different person cannot be inferred from this difference in writing. This is clear from Ezr 6:14, where the name is written as it is here, and yet must be referred to a Persian king ruling subsequently to Dariuscertainly, 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 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 Ezr 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 Ezr 5:6 sq. the temple throughout is in the foreground. Furthermore Bertheau properly reminds us in notes on Ezr 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 when it must have been obligatory upon them to explain to the Persian officers in Ezr 5:16 why the building already begun under Cyrus had not been completed. By all these circumstances we are compelled to understand by really Xerxes, and by 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 does not accord with the sending of Ezra under Artaxerxes in chap. 7.; so far as the one was unfavorable to the Jews and the other favorable, the fact is overlooked that in his answer (Ezr 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. S. 138) 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 Nehemiah shows how very necessary it still was that the city should be built up, and the walls re-established even after Ezra. That which really appears to be against the view here advocated, is the manner in which Ezr 4:24 passes over from this king to Darius. By the use of one and the same verb in Ezr 4:21 (give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease), in Ezr 4:23 (they went up to Jerusalem and made them cease) and in Ezr 4:24 (then ceased the work) and apparently also by the use of at the beginning of Ezr 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., S. 303) and Schrader (Stud. u. Krit., 1867, S. 469) 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 might be written by the author again, in Ezr 4:24, after that he had used it in Ezr 4:21-23, notwithstanding he was here treating of a previous time. The temporal particle , 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 the view here advocated involves in Ezr 4:6-23, is in itself improbable, this objection is removed to a certain extent by Ezr 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 Ezr 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.

Ezr 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. , hostility (comp. Gen 26:21) has here the special meaning of accusation, just as 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.

Ezr 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 re-establishing the walls of the city, which then likewise through Nehemiah 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 , for which the qeri has the usual form , in accordance with Ezr 4:9; Ezr 4:17; Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:3, etc., .To whom the sing. suffix properly refers, whether to the first named Bislam or to the last named Tabeel is doubtful, is yet without any real importance. , from which our plural is to be derived (comp. Ewald, 187 d) is contracted from as , Gen 49:22 from and for from or (comp. Olsh. 198 c). It is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, and was here without doubt chosen simply with reference to Ezr 4:9; in Aramaic it is more frequent. Formed from 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 .And the rest of their companions.This is according to Ezr 4:9 sq.: the others who were their companions.And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic. is no more here than in Est 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 is, 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 Ezr 7:12 sq. is of Arian origin, to be compared with the new Persian nuwischten, to write, and means letter. Comp. Ezr 4:18. is part. pass. of , interpret, translate into another language.

Ezr 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.); for 1) it is inconceivable that the author should have left the contents of the letter referred to in Ezr 4:7 so entirely undetermined. The contents of the letter mentioned in Ezr 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 Ezr 4:17. Without doubt he regarded this as of especial importance. 2) Already the fact that the remark that the letter in Ezr 4:7 was written in Aramaic, is immediately followed by a section in Aramaic, and so also the fact that in accordance with Ezr 4:7, where Samaritans are designated at the outset as authors of the letter; again after the Persian officials in Ezr 4:9, Samaritan tribes are mentioned as taking part in the letterall this is in favor of the view that it is only the contents of that letter which now follow (comp. Khler, Nachexil. Proph. S.21). 3) The word in Ezr 4:7, which is found nowhere else in Hebrew, looks evidently forward to the same word in Ezr 4:9. 4) If another letter were referred to in Ezr 4:8, a connecting copula could no more be lacking here than at the beginning of Ezr 4:7, (Keil). Without doubt the Samaritans mentioned in Ezr 4:7, who had become known to the author elsewhere, had been the proper instigators of the letter, the Persian officials mentioned in Ezr 4:8 merely their instruments. The verb which is likewise used of the former, does not by any means always mean: to write with ones 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 Ezr 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 Khler (l.c.) suppose that he found the verses 811a, and so also then the following letter itself in the history of the building of the temple written in Chaldee, which he used in Ezr 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 and the like, which stands at the end of Ezr 4:10, is found only in the superscriptions of letters, where things that are self-understood may be omitted (comp. Ezr 4:11; Ezr 4:17), not in a historical narrative. = 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 , 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 (), who had a separate and independent authority, Rawlinson in loco.Tr.]. = , in the later Hebrew is used as an indef. article, as in the later Hebrew. has, according to Raschi and Ab. Ezra, arisen from and = = , comp. in the Talmud , I say , thou sayest; thus literally: as we say,then: in the following manner, or also, according as has been stated.

Ezr 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 is, 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., p. 414). Schrader would find it as Da-ya-a-ni, also Da-ya-i-ni in the inscription of the older Tiglath Pileser, who reckons them among the Nahiri, that is, to the Armenians, I. c., S. 246. The Apharsathchites, perhaps identical with the Apharsachites in Ezr 5:6, were compared by Hiller (Onom. p. 655, 745) with the robber Partakites (Herod. I. 101; Strabo 15:3, 12), on the boundary of Media and Persia; Rawlinson regards the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sittaces, according to the inscriptions, and the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sac (comp. Rd. in Gesen. Thes., app. p. 107). [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 (Ptol. VI. 2, 6) dwelling on the East of Elymais.5 The Apharsites are identified with the Persians, whose name is here provided with prosthetic; Hiller (Onom. p. 655) thought of the Parrhasians in Eastern Media. The Archevites had their name probably from (Gen 10:10), Arku in the inscriptions, the present Warka on the left bank of the Euphrates, southeast of Babylon (comp. Schrad. I. c., S. 18). The Babylonians are the inhabitants of Babylon, the Susanchites those of Susa, the Dehavites (Qeri), the of the Greeks (Herod. I. 125), the Elamites, those of Elam or Elymais.

Ezr 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 Phnicia 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 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 2Ki 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 Ezr 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.6 After the designation of the place: in the city of Samaria, the following , etc., may also be merely a designation of place; accordingly the , which is before is to be supplied before it, and is to be taken as neuter of the land or places. , on that side of the river, of the land to the west of the Euphrates, is explained as a now universally prevailing geographical expression. contracted into (comp. Ezr 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.

Ezr 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 himselfwhich is now no longer the case hereas 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. Ezr 4:17; Ezr 5:6; Ezr 7:11., in the book of Esther thrice , 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.) rendered this meaning doubtful. In Ezr 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 Est 3:14; Est 8:13, and in Est 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 Est 3:14 has rendered it summa. Gildermeister (D. M. Zeitschr. IV., S. 210) and Haug (Ewalds bibl. Jahrb. V., S. 163 sq.) conjectures in the syllable the Persian fra, the Sanscrit pra=, pro, the new Persian far, in the corresponding the Zend paiti (Sanscrit prati) = and , ; in a word like enghana, old Persian thanhana, from cenghdicere, prdicare.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. Ezr 4:17. Alongside of the form of the Qeri, , that of the Kethib,, is also justified.

Ezr 4:12-16. The information given to the king: Be it known unto the king. for as for and for , Ezr 7:25-26; Dan 2:20; Dan 2:28-29; Dan 2:45, etc. has in Bib. Chald., occasionally also in the Targums, more frequently in the Talmuds, vindicated itself as preformative like in Syriac. Comp. Zck., Dan 2:20.7That the Jewsunto us have come., 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. Zec 6:9 sq.; Neh 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. , with metheg in the second syllable, and so with kametz under , is hardly a correct reading. We should read either (so Norzi) with short o sound in the second syll. from the form , which occurs in the Targums, and is given by the Peschitoan intensive formation like Hebrew ; or (J. H. Mich.) as stat. emphat. of the stat. abs., (comp. Ezr 4:15). We must certainly prefer the Qeri to . A similar false separation of words is found in 2Sa 11:12. is shaphel of , and means to make ready. That the perf. 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 (), 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, Nehemiah would not have found them still under this same king in the condition described in Nehemiah 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. might be the imperf. Aphel of , dig, dig out, which is also found in Syriac, since would be for ; 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 , properly sew together, then heal, improve; alongside of the sharper form is to be maintained, after the analogy of which under the influence of the guttural we have .

Ezr 4:13. Be it known now unto the king that they will not pay toll, tribute and custom.The three usual kinds of taxes are here meant, comp. Ezr 4:20; Ezr 7:24., for which Ezr 6:8 has , which expression is also usual in Syriac, is etymologically= measure; here, however, the appointed general tax. after is perhaps the consumption tax, and the toll for highways.And that it finally will prepare damage to the king.The meaning of , which is entirely disregarded by the ancient versions, is entirely uncertain. The meaning income is simply invented by the Jewish interpreters of the middle ages, and is not recommended by Ezr 4:15; Ezr 4:22 in so far as the kings themselves are those who are there injured. Haug (l.c.) compares in the Pehlewi language, which=the last, hindermost, Sansc. apa, superl. apama, and thus gains for our word the meaning of finally, at last, which certainly is entirely appropriate. is a Hebraism, or perhaps only a copyists mistake for . is tert. fem, in Aphel, in which conjugation the Bib. Chald. sometimes chooses the prefix , which it preserves even in the imperf. and part., comp. in Ezr 4:15. The subj. is the city of Jerusalem, or the indef. subject, referring to the design of Jerusalem.

Ezr 4:14. Now because we have maintenance from the kings 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. Jdg 9:45; Jer 17:6; Isa 51:6. To salt the salt of any one probably means to live through any ones bounty, perhaps pay, and therefore be obligated to him, stand in his service. Syriac and Persian expressions accord with this, comp. Gesen., Thes., p. 790. 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.8 is according to the analogy of the Heb., , the uncovering, not in the sense of deprivation, but of dishonoring; the Sept. has properly , whilst the Vulg. employs lsiones. It would be a dishonoring of a great king if the Jews should throw off their allegiance (refuse to fulfil their duties)., also in the Talmud= appropriate, fitting, is connected with , arrange.Therefore have we sent, namely, this letter, and made known to the king, namely, the following.

Ezr 4:15. That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers.subj. of is he whose duty it is to search, the keeper of the archives, properly indef. subj. and (comp. Ezr 6:2) is the memorable occurrence from =. In Est 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. is nom. verb, of Ithpaal of the verb , uproar; it is found elsewhere only in Ezr 4:19. , they make (continually) uproar, indefin. subject, they make; in Ezr 4:19 there is made. , from the days of old. The fem. form is also found in Syriac alongside of the masc.; otherwise in Bib. Chald. the masc. 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 Nebuchadnezzar. is Hoph., which is used throughout in Bib. Chaldee for the Ittaphal.

Ezr 4:16. We certify the king, that ifby this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.The verse concludes with this inference and summing up. =on this account, in consequence of this circumstance as in Dan 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. Ecc 9:6; 2Ch 10:16; Jos 22:25; Jos 22:27.

Ezr 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 edictThe abrupt way in which the letter of the king is mentioned may be explained from the fact that the same address as in Ezr 4:11 is here used, even if with slight differences. from the Zend. patigama (modern Persian paigam, Armenian pattkam) is the command, and in this sense has even passed over into the Hebrew, comp. Ecc 8:11; Est 1:20. At its root is the word paiti () and gam = go, accordingly=the approaching message (comp. Keil on Dan 3:16). Moreover, comp. notes on Ezr 4:10.

Ezr 4:18. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me., 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 Neh 8:8, as then this word has the same meaning also in the Talmud.9

Ezr 4:19. And I commanded. properly, Kal passive part.; in Bib. Chaldee is used instead of a tertia pers. praet. pass, accordingly, instead of the Ithpael (comp. Ezr 5:17; Dan 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 , the form also occurs, in fem , Dan 6:18.Search hath been made, and it is found that this cityhath made insurrection. is here used as in 1Ki 1:5 in Hebrew, of rising up in rebellion. Comp. Ezr 4:15.

Ezr 4:20. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem which have ruled.The reference is to Uzziah, Jotham, and perhaps David and Solomon, if in any way a rumor of them had come to Babylon and to the Persians.10 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. before depends upon the previous : ruling over all on that side of the river. With reference to the following clause comp. Ezr 4:13.

Ezr 4:21. Give ye now commandment, namely, to those who are building in Jerusalem. is here as in Ezr 4:19, not in the sense of investigation, observation, as in Dan 3:12, in connection with , but in the sense of decision, command, = 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 and 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

Ezr 4:22 he sharpens the previous command: and be carefulso , which is especially frequent in Syriac,to make a mistake = that you may not make a mistake with reference to this matter. properly to what = that not, comp. Ezr 7:23, so also in Syriac. Accordingly the meaning is, that , damage, which easily grows as a pest, may not become great.

Ezr 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.Now when the contents of the letter . . . were read. A parenthetical clause begins with . It is not until that the principal clause continues.They went up to Jerusalem, unto the Jews. may be connected with and in the sense of going to or unto (comp. Ezr 5:8Dan 2:24; here both prepositions follow. The subject is supplied from the parenthetical clause. , properly, with arm, or the power of the arm, but this could not be the meaning here, were it not for = troops, which is accordingly added. The Sept. renders freely, but not incorrectly (against Keil): , comp. the Hebrew , Eze 17:9, and , or , Dan 9:15, 31, where also Keil explains the meaning as warlike powers. Instead of , almost always occurs without the prosthetic .

Ezr 4:24. Then ceased the work of the house of God.This verse already begins the continuation of Ezr 4:1-5, the further history of the building of the temple; at least it is introductory thereto. Our author himself (comp. notes on Ezr 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 , 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.11

thoughts upon the history of redemption

Ezr 4:1-3. (1) The release of Israel and the re-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.; Isa. 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 Gods 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. Zec 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 outsetshould 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 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. Isa 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 Gods 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 act, 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 Joh 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 Jacobs 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 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 Churchs rigor, narrowness, lack of culture, whilst in truth he seeks to make the Church conformable unto the worldsuch an one is in fact to be placed on a par with the Samaritans: he is, 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 is, in the State Churches especially; to a limited extent in the free evangelical churchesTr.], 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.

Ezr 4:4-5. The Samaritans were able for a time to prevent the building of the house of God. But what God would have, must finally come to pass. Just as at a previous time when David could not at once and himself execute his design of building a temple to the Lord (2 Samuel 7), so the Lord now showed that He did not require under all circumstances that which the world was still able to take away from Him and His people. Thus then the Church should never be discouraged when their enemies triumph for a season, and when it is as if they accomplished nothing, as if they lacked the most necessary things, and walked in a way that is not good. When the progress of their work is rendered more difficult by a thousand persecutions, by the spread of many calumnies and the like, then is the time, as Starke says, to pray the third petition that God would prevent all and every wicked counsel and purpose. But we should not judge by success whether we have chosen the right or the wrong way, but only by Gods word and truth. We should not find it too hard to be miserable and poor so long as it pleases God. It so easily happens, as it is elsewhere said, that the better the work, the greater hindrances are found, and that where God proposes something good, the devil does not rest, but sows tares with it (Starke).

Ezr 4:7-16. It was calumniation when the Samaritans charged the Jews behind their back at the Persian court with pursuing political ends, although in Artaxerxes time the question was no longer of the temple, but of the city and its walls. The Jews had nothing to do with political deliverance and independence, but with securing their existence and freedom of worship which could hardly be refused them by the Persians. But such slanders were almost a necessity. The Church must ever be prepared for them. The world knows only worldly motives, worldly aims, and cannot but ascribe them also to the Church; with all things that they allow themselves, they make a crime for the Church. But all the more care must the Church take that such calumniations may not gain ground; all the more carefully accordingly must it hold itself aloof from the world and its aims. Otherwise it not only injures itself for the present, but also for the future; it makes itself suspected. For their accusers already, to gain credence for their word, refer to the fact that the Jews had already in former times snatched to themselves a great worldly power. O that the congregation might not be so much denied by their own and their forefathers sins ! how much more irreproachably, powerfully and charmingly would they be able to carry out their work of missions in the world.

Ezr 4:17-23. The Persian king Artaxerxes commanded that the building of the walls of Jerusalem should cease. We might ask how it was possible that the only true God, the Lord of heaven and earth, should make the lot of His people, and accordingly the history of His kingdom dependent upon the command of the king of Persia; that He should allow His people, and indeed His cause in general, to fall into such dependence upon men, and indeed heathen? But this is indeed His method. Even the individual is allowed a free and determining influence upon his action. And in the very fact that He limits Himself, makes Himself dependent, lets Himself be satisfied, so that the world may enjoy an independent, true existence, and men may have a real freedom, He shows His highest and best greatness. Only the false God, the one merely conceived, is the entirely unlimited one who takes away every freedom of the creature, who wills and does everything himself, and thereby becomes of the nature of the creature and sinful. It is shown here so truly how that which is truly great and important may be externally weak and inversely.

Ezr 4:24. When Cyrus had given the congregation permission to return and build the temple of the Lord, it almost appeared as if already heathenism was capable and ready under the circumstances to establish a free church in a free state. But when afterwards the building was obliged to stop and remain so long unfinished, when so to speak the Church must lie down in chains, the saying of the free church in the free state became a fable, and as such must it ever anew prove itself to be. The interests and also the callings of the State and the Church are involved in too many ways and in too close relations for the former not to claim when it has the power an oversight of the latter and an influence upon it. The most favorable thing for the Church is ever the Christian State, which really wishes the Church well and ministers to it; as the last thing, however, it has to expect the antichristian state, which restrains it, persecutes it, and where it is possible, enchains and destroys it.

[The authors view of the relations between Church and State are the usual ones prevailing on the continent of Europe and among State-church men in Great Britain. It has been sufficiently proved, however, in the United States and the British colonies that a free Church in a free State is no fable, but a historical fact, and a condition in which the Church is purest, strongest and most dominant in the land through the Christianizing influence that it freely exerts on all classes of the community. And whilst Church and State are closely related in many questions of morals and religion, in education, in marriage and divorce, the observance of the Sabbath, questions of property, individual rights, etc., and conflict will more or less arise, yet the relations will become more and more accurately defined without interfering with the prerogatives of either. Comp. the section on Church and State in the Evangelical Alliance proceedings, N. Y., 1873.Tr.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Ezr 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 nonethey would be made to conform to the world by the worldly-minded; 2) From what happens when they do exclude themthey 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: No one should enter into communion in religious matters with strange and false religious opinions, 2Co 4:14; Tit 3:10. Tale-bearers and false and wicked talkers are cursed; for they perplex those who enjoy good peace (Sir 28:15), and invent villany, Psa 64:7; Psa 140:4 The Church of God and its members suffer greater injury by false friends than by open enemies, Psa 41:10; 2Co 11:26.

Ezr 4:1-5. The duty of the congregation to be apparently intolerant: 1) Towards whomeven against many who would enjoy its communion; 2) howexcluding that which is excluded by its entire character and then bearing whatever evil is ascribed to them on account of this; 3) for what purposein order to preserve its best things and thereby at the proper time likewise offer salvation to their enemies.Brentius: Ejusdem farin sunt, qui nunc hujus nunc illius religionis sunt. Injustum est; qui fides est persuasio certa de divinis promissionibus. Hi autem, cum hinc inde fluctuent, non habent fidem.The foolish behaviour of the world towards the Lords people: 1) The world would belong to the Lords 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.

Ezr 4:7-16. The charges raised by the world against the people of God; their apparent justice and their lack of grounds. 1) The congregation builds itself at present not with peaceful, but rebellious disposition: in fact, it must obey God rather than men; but they know also how falsely this word is applied by those who have forgotten that the kingdom of the Lord is not of this world. 2) They have in past times constantly sought after worldly power, and have been guilty of manifold encroachments; in fact, the Church has at first more and more taken a political form and equipped itself with external worldly power; but the consciousness that according to its own idea something different was more appropriate has never been able to be entirely suppressed. 3) The church will, if it have its own way, in future endanger the existence of the state; in fact, it cannot acquiesce in the state as it is; the church must seek to gain power over the king, but in a spiritual sense; not with power, but kindness; not from without, but from within. It would not oppress, but change, transform, glorify.Brentius: Vide, mirabilem piorum sortem in hoc sculo. Pii sunt, propter quos omnia bona hominibus hujus seculi eveniunt. Attamen accusantur, quod soli hi sint, propter quos omnia mala, bella, fames et seditiones eveniant.Starke: Gods church has at all times been subjected to false accusations. Christ and His apostles could give sufficient witness of this. Let us only avoid the doing, the lie is good counsel, Act 24:5 sq.

Ezr 4:14-24. The churchs independence of the state. God makes His church dependent on the world: 1) on its own account to glorify its faith and to exercise its patience; 2) for His own sake in order to bring it to a proper conception of the fact that it does not need external majesty and power, a magnificent cultus, etc.; 3) for the sake of the worldthat it may learn to see that the church cannot be suppressed by it, that there is something higher than it can reach with all its power.Starke: God often lets it happen that a good intention is interrupted by the craft of enemies, in order to try His believers. Magistrates are Gods officers. If, however, they do not properly fulfil their office, a severe judgment will pass over them, Wis 6:5-6. God is a long-suffering God who allows Himself to be interfered with and presents Himself as a hero who is faint-hearted (Jer 14:9), but He will wake up some time, Sir 17:19.

[Scott: Every vigorous and successful attempt to revive true religion will excite the opposition of Satan and of the children of disobedience in whom he worketh.Henry: The worst enemies Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews and were not, Rev 3:9.Take heed who we go partners with, and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with a pious confidence, we must trust men with a prudent jealousy and caution.See how watchful the churchs enemies are to take the first opportunity of doing it a mischief. Let not its friends be less careful to do it a kindness.A secret enmity to Christ and His gospel is oft gilded over with a pretended affection to Csar and his power.At some times 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.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[1][Also Smith, the Assyrian Canon, p. 138, and Rawlinson in loco, who says: There appear to have been at least three colonizations of Samaria by the Assyrian Kings. Sargon, soon after his conquest, replaced the captives whom he had carried of by colonists from Babylonia and from Hamath (2Ki 17:24). Later in his reign he added to these first settlers an Arabian element (Ancient Monarchies, II., p. 415). Some thirty or forty years afterwards, Esar-haddon, his grandson, from largely augmented the population of colonists drawn from various parts of the empire, but especially from the southeast, Susiana, Elymais, and Persia. Thus the later Samaritans were an exceedingly mixed race.Tr.]

[2]It was not until very late that their historians invented a return of three hundred thousand men from the Assyrian banishment, and a new establishment of ancient Israel in the midst of the land by this great band, and especially on Mt. Gerizim. (Comp. Abulfatahs Arab. Chronik. in Paulus Memorabilien. II., S. 54100, and in the Samaritan book of Joshua, published at Leyden, in 1848. Vid. Ewald IV., S. 125.)

[3]Kleinert already in the Beitragen der Dorp. Professoren Theol., 1832, Bd. 1, had to a certain extent pointed to the correct opinion which has been commonly recognized, as in my article Cyrus der Grosse Stud. u. Krit. 1853, S. 624 sqq.; by Baihinger. Stud. u. Krit. 1857, S. 87 sqq.; by Hengst., Christologie II., S. 143; by Berth. and Keil in their Commentaries, et al..

[4][So also Rawlinson in loco, who refers to the well-known fact of history, that Persian kings had often two names.Tr.]

[5][Rawlinson in loco regards them as colonists from the nation which the Assyrians called Tuplai, the Greeks Tibareni, and the Hebrews generally Tabal.Tr.]

[6]According to Hitzigs faithful disciple Egli, it would be an appellative, that would show us the relationship of the Assyrian with the German and would be essentially the same as the German Schnapper.

[7][More properly it is the characteristic of the subjunctive or optative force of the verb. See Luzattos Gram. der bib chald., 109, and Riggs Manual of Chaldee, p. 65.Tr.]

[8][The Persian satraps had no salaries, but taxed the provinces for the support of themselves and their courts. Rewlinson in loco.Tr.]

[9][It is doubtful if the Persian monarchs could ordinarily read (Ancient Monarchies, Vol. IV., p. 185). At any rate it was not their habit to read, but to have documents read to them (comp. Est 6:1). Rawlinson in loco.Tr.]

[10][Rawlinson in loco doubts the reference to David and Solomon, and thinks the reference more probable to Menahem (2Ki 15:16), and Josiah (2Ch 34:6-7; 2Ch 35:18).Tr.]

[11][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 (Herod. i. 130); and as he persecuted the Zoroastrian (Behist. Inscr., Colossians 1, par. 14), so would he naturally be inimical to the Jewish faith (comp. Ancient Monarchies, Vol. IV., pp. 347, 398) Rawlinson in loco.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This chapter relates an interruption to the labours of the people in building the temple from their enemies. Commandment issued from the king to put a stop to the work.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

I beg the Reader to remark with me the several interesting circumstances which occur in this chapter. As an history they are deserving attention; but as a spiritual subject in reference to the building of the temple of God, they become much more so. Let the Reader observe how the adversaries of Judah speak of God’s people reproachfully, in calling them the children of the captivity. And are not God’s people in all ages branded with some reproachful name of contempt? And let the Reader remark further who those adversaries were. Not the Chaldeans, their old masters, nor the Persians, their new ones; but those of the land. Persons who lived near them, and carried on a mungrel kind of religion; who professed to call upon the Lord, and yet served their idol gods? Alas! who are the greatest enemies gracious souls have to contend with now? Not open ones; not professed Infidels. A man’s foes (says one that could not be mistaken) are they of his own household. Mat 10:36 . And if possible nearer yet than this, in a spiritual, sense: what greater foes hath a follower of Jesus than the opposers in his own heart from sin and unbelief, and the corruptions of his own nature. But Reader! doth not the gospel of Jesus in building the spiritual temple to his glory, meet with the same opposition all over the earth? And wheresoever the true gospel of Jesus is preached, doth not the enemy raise up foes either subtle, insinuating, or more open and bold, continually to oppose it?

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Ezr 4

1. Now when the adversaries [Samaritans] of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel;

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 [hypocrisy]; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur [he ended his reign b.c. 668], 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 an house unto our God [this is not intolerance but obedience]; 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,

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 [this systematic opposition continued for eight years, viz., until b.c. 529].

6. And the reign of Ahasuerus [he reigned seven years], 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 [king of Persia, who reigned only seven months] wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue [this explains the transition to another language at this point].

8. Rehum the chancellor [the lord of judgment] and Shimshai the scribe [the royal secretary] wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort:

9. 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,

10. And 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, and at such a time.

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 [Euphrates], 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 [ lit. and at length damage will be done to the kings].

14. Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace [ lit. we eat the salt of the palace], and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king;

15. That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers [extending to the remote antiquity of the Median dynasty]: 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 have no portion on this side the river.

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.

18. 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?

23. Now 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 [but the altar as the centre of worship remained]. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

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 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:

“Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard.” ( Ezr 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!

“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” ( Ezr 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,

“Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God” ( Ezr 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 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, No, 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.

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” ( Ezr 4:4 ).

All bad men can do work of that kind. What is so easy as to weaken a good man’s hands? Nothing 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 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 Nehemiah, 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

“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 ” ( Ezr 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 New 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. No 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 so, 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-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, No: 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!

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXI

THE RETURN AND REORGANIZATION UNDER ZERUBBABEL

Ezra 1-6

This section embraces the return unto the dedication of the Temple, 536-516 B.C. (Ezra 1-6). First, we have the decree of Cyrus, Ezr 1:1-4 , issued 536 B.C. In this remarkable decree Cyrus gives his authority for issuing it, as Jehovah, the God of Israel. This does not imply that Cyrus was a monotheist or a believer in the God of Israel, but it does imply that he recognized the existence of the God of the Hebrews and acknowledged him as the promoter of their welfare.

There are five remarkable things about this decree, viz: (1) It was promulgated by a heathen king. (2) It recognized Jehovah as the dispenser of the kingdoms of the world, saying, “All the kingdoms of the earth hath Jehovah, the God of heaven, given me.” (3) It declares that the supreme God had “charged” him to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. (4) It originated in a “stir” of the king’s spirit by God himself. (5) It provided for money and free will offerings for the Temple. All this may have been brought about as tradition says, by Daniel showing Cyrus the prophecy of Isaiah, thus causing him to issue this decree. However this may be, we have here some great lessons on God’s government of the world, viz: First, God’s universal sovereignty over the kings of the earth. Second, these heathen people had some light of the true God which perhaps, they received from the Jews. Third, God’s prophecy cannot fail and his promise is made sure, as in the case of Caesar Augustus, who issued the decree that all the world should be enrolled, fulfilling a prophecy of Micah some five hundred years before. It may be added that all this shows that the Persians during this period recognized the one supreme God, though they worshiped others gods, and that Isaiah had foretold this decree giving the very name of the king and bringing us the lesson that God’s foreknowledge is unlimited making possible all predictive prophecy.

Next follows the first return and genealogy, Ezr 1:5-2:67 . The company was composed of those whom the Spirit of God stirred up, which was not large comparatively speaking, perhaps, because the larger part of them were engaged in commerce and did not wish to take chances on transferring their business interests. He charged their friends to help them freely, which has a parallel in the case of the children of Israel leaving Egypt, though without order from the king. Cyrus was honest in his decree. All the vessels that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar were returned. They numbered in all 5,400. A partial list of them is given, but only the best materials are mentioned, such as the silver and the gold.

The genealogy in the second chapter gives only the heads of the various tribes or representatives of them: this list had been carefully preserved through the Exile. This company of returning pilgrims is the “remnant” so frequently spoken of by the prophet Isaiah. The total number was 42,360 Jews, and 7,337 servants. Their beasts numbered 736 horses, 250 mules, 435 cattle, 6,720 asses a large caravan. The mention of the actual heads of the tribes in Ezr 2:2 and Neh 7:7 , gives evidence that the twelve tribes were represented in this return, the prophetic proof of which is found in Jer 3:18 ; Jer 16:15 ; Jer 30:3 ; Eze 11:15 ; Eze 11:17 . These prophecies show that Israel and Judah both were to return to their land. There is also abundant historical proof that Israel returned with Judah. After the division of the kingdom and before the captivity ‘of Israel there were four defections from Israel to Judah. Then the history of the Jews after their return proves it (See Zec 11:14 ) ; the twelve tribes were there in Christ’s day, and James addresses the twelve tribes. This exact numbering here in Ezra has the historical value of preserving the genealogy and the details here given show the poor and insignificant beginning they had upon their return.

The first attempt was to rebuild the Temple, Ezr 2:68-3:13 . There was a considerable amount of wealth among those who returned in this company. The larger part of them settled in the various cities of Judah, comparatively few of them in the city of Jerusalem. We have an account of the first offering toward the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezr 2:69 ) amounting to about $450,000.00. In the seventh month they gathered together under the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel and erected an altar; the starting of the worshiping of God in sacrifices. They had learned in the Exile that it was impossible to have a religion without a temple. It is probable that the stone upon which this altar was erected is the stone now under “The Dome of the Rock.” They offered their burnt offerings and then kept the “Feast of the Tabernacles” as best they could. In the next year under the direction of the leaders they laid the foundation of the Temple. This probably occurred in 535 B.C. It was attended with joyful ceremonies as recorded in Ezr 3:10 . It is possible that the song they sang then was the whole or part of Psa 136 . There were those present who remembered the former Temple and they thought of the destruction of that grand building and doubtless they lived over again the fifty years intervening. The younger members of the congregation were overjoyed at the present success, and the old men as truly were grateful, but gave vent to their feeling with a wailing of sorrow at the memory of the former Temple. Fifty years had passed since their former beautiful Temple had been destroyed, and they could not but think over the awful past, when it went down in ruins. So the younger men rejoiced but the older men wept and wailed.

We find the first hindrance to the work in Ezr 4:5-24 . This is by the Samaritans) that mixed race to the north of Judah. Their first offer was friendly, to co-operate with and help the Jews build the Temple, and from Ezr 4 we see that Zerubbabel did not accept their offer, but promptly rejected it because they saw the outcome of such an alliance; then, they showed that the decree of Cyrus had appointed them to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The refusal angered the Samaritans and they succeeded in putting a stop to the work of erecting the sacred edifice. In Ezr 4:24 we are told that the work on the house of the Lord ended until the second year of the reign of Darius the king of Persia. This would be 520 or 519 B.C.

In Ezr 4:4-5 we have a general statement of the opposition in this language: “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.” Then follows the opposition in particular: In a letter to Ahasuerus (Cambyses) they bring an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem, but there are no particulars given. Then in a second letter to Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis), they brought an accusation against Jerusalem with the following particulars: (1) they are building the rebellious and bad city; (2) they have finished the walls; (3) the people are preparing to avoid tribute, custom and toll; (4) the records show this to be a rebellious and hurtful city, and there should be an investigation to see if these things are so; (5) this means that Persia will have no portion beyond the river Euphrates. The result was that Artaxerxes responded that he had examined and found records as they had charged, and therefore he ordered the work stopped, and did stop it by force.

There are some critical matters just here that call for consideration: (1) “Ahasuerus” and “Artaxerxes” are royal titles and are applied to various monarchs of Persia; (2) these are not the “Ahasuerus” and “Artaxerxes” of Esther and Nehemiah, making Ezr 4:6-23 parenthetical as some say, but they refer to “Cambyses” and “Pseudo-Smerdis” as indicated above, and Ezr 4:6-22 connects directly with the preceding and following verses; (3) “the rebellious city” has a certain basis of truth in three instances: It rebelled (a) in the reign of Jehoiakim, (b) in the reign of Jehoiakin, and (c) in the reign of Zedekiah; (4) the statement, “have finished the walls,” is an Oriental exaggeration (Ezr 5:3 ) ; (5) “no portion beyond the river” has basis of truth in the reigns of Solomon and Menahem.

The work was stopped, for probably seventeen or eighteen years, and apparently no efforts were made to continue it. At this time there appeared two prophets upon the scene, Haggai, an older prophet, and Zechariah a younger one. They aroused the people to activity by a series of prophecies which we find recorded in their books. Haggai says, “The time has come for you to build God’s house.” The trouble was they had taken time to build houses for themselves and neglected God’s house. He says they ought to consider their ways; that the present drought and hard circumstances existed because they had neglected the building of the house of God (Hag 1:7-11 ). Zechariah by a series of visions co-operates with Haggai and the people are at length aroused to a genuine effort to build, or rather rebuild the Temple.

As they were rebuilding the Temple the matter was reported to Tattenai, the Satrap, who had charge of all this part of the Persian Empire. It caused him some apprehension. He wished to know for certain whether the Jews had authority to rebuild the Temple or not. They answered that the decree of Cyrus was their authority. Then Tattenai entered into correspondence with the king about the matter.

The history of the old Temple, the Jews’ disobedience and captivity, and the decree of Cyrus was all recited in the correspondence between Tattenai and Darius. The king ordered a search for the Cyrus decree, the decree was found, and the work was ordered to go forward. This decree granted all that the Cyrus decree did and added the help of the governor with gifts of various kinds and for various purposes. The date of this decree was 519 B.C. If we compare this letter of Tattenai to Darius with the former one, we find that there is a vast difference. The former was characterized by bitterness and false accusations, while the latter was a fair statement and a legitimate inquiry into the merits of the case.

We note here that credit is given to the prophets for the success of the work, though it was four years, five months, and ten days after they began to prophesy before the work was completed. It is well to note here also the points made by the prophets bearing directly on the work of rebuilding the Temple. Haggai reproves them for excusing themselves from the building under the plea that it was not time to build and refers to their building themselves houses to live in and neglecting the house of God. Zechariah by a series of visions confirms Haggai’s work and encourages them to undertake the great task of building. (Here the student should read Haggai and Zechariah they will be interpreted later in the course).

The Temple was finished and dedicated 516 B.C. (Ezr 6:13-22 ). This great event occurred about seventy years after the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The nation now had a religious center. A new era for Judaism dawned. This Temple remained until A.D. 70, when it was destroyed by the Romans. Haggai promised that the desire of all the nations should come into it. In the courts of this same building Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked. There was a note of joy in this dedication. They offered sacrifices as they did at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, but this exercise did not compare with Solomon’s in magnificence. There was also a resetting here of the priests and Levites in the service of the Temple. Then followed a great celebration of the Passover. Few other such celebrations of this feast are recorded in sacred history. Along with this one may be named the one in Egypt at its institution, the one at Gilgal upon the entrance into the land, another in the days of Hezekiah, yet another in the days of Josiah, and the last one in the days of Jesus when he instituted his Supper to take the place of the Passover.

QUESTIONS

1. By whose decree did the first exiled Jews return to their country and what was the date of this decree?

2. What five remarkable things about this decree and how brought about?

3. What great lessons here on God’s government of the world?

4. What light does this give us on the religious condition of Persia during this period?

5. What great prophet had foretold this decree giving the very name of this king and what the lesson?

6. What, in general, was the response to this decree, what kindness shown to them by the Persians, what parallel found in earlier Jewish history and why was the response so small?

7. Who were the men named in Ezr 2:2 (cf. Neh 7:7 ), counting the regular Israelites, the Nethinim, the servants and singers, how many people and how many beasts of burden in this first return, and what evidence that all the twelve tribes were represented in this return?

8. What prophetic proof that the ten tribes were not wholly lost?

9. What historical proof?

10. Why this exactness in numbering and detail?

11. What was the first thing they did upon their arrival in Jerusalem and what was the amount of this offering?

12. When did they set the altar and inaugurate regular service, who were the leaders, what was the first feast kept, what was the next step, what steps did they take now toward rebuilding the Temple, and where did they get their material? (See your Bible.)

13. When did they lay the foundation, what correspondence here (see 1Ki 6:1 ), what the ceremonial on this occasion, what Psalm did they sing; how did they sing it and how did the people give expression to their emotion?

14. From whom did opposition come to the work of rebuilding the Temple, what proposition did they make, what the subtlety of it, how was it met and why?

15. Where do we have a general statement of the opposition, in what form does the opposition appear in particular, what points made, what result and what critical matters in this connection?

16. How long did the work of building cease, who stirred them up to renew the work, what new opposition arose, what form did it take, what history was recited in the correspondence, what was the result, what enlargement of this decree over the Cyrus decree, what was the date of this decree and how does the correspondence here compare with the former letter to the king?

17. What credit is here given to the prophets for the success of the work, and how long after they began to prophesy to the completion of the work.?

18. What were the points made by these prophets bearing directly upon the work or rebuilding the Temple?

19. Describe the dedication service, contrast it with Solomon’s dedication of his Temple and note the resetting here in the service of this Temple.

20. What great Jewish festival did they keep at this time and how many great occasions of a like celebration in the history of Israel can you name?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Ezr 4:1 Now 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. Now when the adversaries of Judah ] Aroused by those loud acclamations and outcries, Ezr 3:12-13 . These adversaries were those Samaritans, Ezr 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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Ezra Chapter 4

But there never is a blessing of God upon the earth without drawing out the wiles and enmity of the devil; and so we find on this occasion. There were persons who “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” (Ezr 4:2 ). How kind it seemed I how fair, that now at least, instead of the old antagonism, their neighbours were going to be so friendly – to help them to build and to worship and to serve the same Lord as they!

Surely Israel ought to rejoice! Nay, beloved brethren, in this world we have always to judge. We must take care how we judge, but nevertheless, we have to judge. We have to prove all things and hold fast that which is good; and so they did on this occasion. Zerubbabel and Jeshua were not taken in in these later days, as were Joshua and the princes on a somewhat similar occasion long before, when the Gibeonites came up in their pilgrim guise. “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 Jehovah God of Israel, as king Cyrus, the king of Persia, hath commanded us.” No doubt it was a state of weakness, a state of humiliation, for why mention king Cyrus? What had he to do? What a strange position that he should be commanding Israel! But so it was. They were really humbled, and humbled publicly in the earth, and they were not taken out of that state of humiliation. But while indebted to the powers that then were for their protection and that measure of good government which they enjoyed, still they maintained rigorously the word of God for the special place of Israel. They are as distinct at least, if not more so, than they were in the days of Moses, or David, or any other. Never was there a deeper sense in Israel of the special place of Israel than when they were thus low and feeble.

What a lesson for us! We are not to give up the peculiar place of the church of God because we are only a remnant. We are not to give up the principle that none but those who are members of that body – accepted as such – have their place of responsibility in the work of the Lord. We are not to yield to the spirit of the times that is around us. So, at any rate, Zerubbabel and Jeshua decided, and they were right. Then the people of the land weakened their hands. Now they showed what they really were – not friends, but adversaries. And mark, beloved friends, they were adversaries, though they were worshipping the Lord God of Israel – adversaries, though they were not idolaters, as far as we know, at this time. That is not what is said, but they were not Israel. That was enough. The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were building the temple, and therefore it was that they came. They came under the garb of Israel; but it was really to hinder. Such was Satan’s object; but he was foiled. Nevertheless, it is said that they “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 unto the reign of Darius king of Persia” (vers. 4, 5).

Here there is a considerable lapse. Several kings reigned between these two, and they are given in the rest of the chapter which is a parenthesis (vers. 6-23) to explain what took place between those two points. “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. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, etc.” All this took place, and the consequence was that their pretentious opposition at least did take effect and troubled the Israelites, and they ceased from the work. But mark this – and it is a very important thing – God does not attribute the ceasing of the work to the command of the king, although the king did give in at last, and did yield to their importunate begging of him to stop the Israelites; but the Israelites began to stop before the authority of the king. It was want of faith, and not the king’s authority that stopped the work; and, beloved friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The cessation of blessing among God’s people is really never the work of the enemy without, but want of faith, and, consequently, of faithfulness within.

This is all-important for us to bear in mind, because we are so apt to lay the blame on circumstances. They might well do it here. They were wrong. God would have been with them had their faith looked up to Him, and He would have preserved them from ceasing that work. But inasmuch as they were too much occupied with what people said and did, outside them, instead of looking to God according to that good beginning when they set the altar upon its base – instead of crying to Him they listened to the adversary, and stopped their work, and the adversary managed to get the king’s authority to seal what they had already done.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

Ezra

BUILDING IN TROUBLOUS TIMES

Ezr 4:1 – Ezr 4:5 .

Opposition began as soon as the foundations were laid, as is usually the case with all great attempts to build God’s house. It came from the Samaritans, the mingled people who were partly descendants of the ancient remnant of the northern kingdom, left behind after the removal by deportation of the bulk of its population, and partly the descendants of successive layers of immigrants, planted in the empty territory by successive Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Esar-haddon was the first who had sent colonists, about one hundred and thirty years before the return. The writer calls the Samaritans ‘the adversaries,’ though they began by offers of friendship and alliance. The name implies that these offers were perfidious, and a move in the struggle.

One can easily understand that the Samaritans looked with suspicion on the new arrivals, the ancient possessors of the land, coming under the auspices of the new dynasty, and likely to interfere with their position if not reduced to inferiority or neutralised somehow. The proposal to unite in building the Temple was a political move; for, in old-world ideas, co-operation in Temple-building was incorporation in national unity. The calculation, no doubt, was that if the returning exiles could be united with the much more numerous Samaritans, they would soon be absorbed in them. The only chance for the smaller body was to keep itself apart, and to run the risk of its isolation.

The insincere request was based on an untruth, for the Samaritans did not worship Jehovah as the Jews, but along with their own gods 2Ki 17:25 – 2Ki 17:41. To divide His dominion with others was to dethrone Him altogether. It therefore became an act of faithfulness to Jehovah to reject the entangling alliance. To have accepted it would have been tantamount to frustrating the very purpose of the return, and consenting to be muzzled about the sin of idolatry. But the chief lesson which exile had burned in on the Jewish mind was a loathing of idolatry, which is in remarkable contrast to the inclination to it that had marked their previous history. So one answer only was possible, and it was given with unwelcome plainness of speech, which might have been more courteous, and not less firm. It flatly denied any common ground; it claimed exclusive relation to ‘our God,’ which meant, ‘not yours’; it underscored the claim by reiterating that Jehovah was the ‘God of Israel’; it put forward the decree of Cyrus, as leaving no option but to confine the builders to the people whom it had empowered to build.

Now, it is easy to represent this as a piece of impolitic narrowness, and to say that its surly bigotry was rightly punished by the evils that it brought down on the returning exiles. The temper of much flaccid Christianity at present delights to expand in a lazy and foolish ‘liberality,’ which will welcome anybody to come and take a hand at the building, and accepts any profession of unity in worship. But there is no surer way of taking the earnestness out of Christian work and workers than drafting into it a mass of non-Christians, whatever their motives may be. Cold water poured into a boiling pot will soon stop its bubbling, and bring down its temperature. The churches are clogged and impeded, and their whole tone lowered and chilled, by a mass of worldly men and women. Nothing is gained, and much is in danger of being lost, by obliterating the lines between the church and the world. The Jew who thought little of the difference between the Samaritan worship with its polytheism, and his own monotheism, was in peril of dropping to the Samaritan level. The Samaritan who was accepted as a true worshipper of Jehovah, though he had a bevy of other gods in addition, would have been confirmed in his belief that the differences were unimportant. So both would have been harmed by what called itself ‘liberality,’ and was in reality indifference.

No doubt, Zerubbabel had counted the cost of faithfulness, and he soon had to pay it. The would-be friends threw off the mask, and, as they could not hinder by pretending to help, took a plainer way to stop progress. All the weapons that Eastern subtlety and intrigue could use were persistently employed to ‘weaken the hands’ of the builders, and the most potent of all methods, bribery to Persian officials, was freely used. The opponents triumphed, and the little community began to taste the bitterness of high hopes disappointed and noble enterprises frustrated. How differently things had turned out from the expectations with which the company had set forth from Babylon! The rough awakening to realities disillusions us all when we come to turn dreams into facts. The beginning of laying the Temple foundations is put in 536 B.C.; the first year of Darius was 522. How soon after the commencement of the work the Samaritan tricks succeeded we do not know, but it must have been some time before the death of Cyrus in 529. For weary years then the sanguine band had to wait idly, and no doubt enthusiasm died out: they had enough to do in keeping themselves alive, and in holding their own amidst enemies. They needed, as we all do, patience, and a willingness to wait for God’s own time to fulfil His own promise.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 4:1-3

1Now when the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the people of the exile were building a temple to the LORD God of Israel, 2they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers’ households, and said to them, Let us build with you, for we, like you, seek your God; and we have been sacrificing to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here. 3But Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of fathers’ households of Israel said to them, You have nothing in common with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves will together build to the LORD God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia has commanded us.

Ezr 4:1 the enemies There was a delay from the starting of the temple in 536 B.C. to the completion in 516 B.C. Ezra explains that the delay was because of Judah’s enemies (the surrounding people groups), while the prophet Haggai explains that it was because of Jewish apathy. The presence of opposition is foreshadowed in Ezr 3:3.

Judah and Benjamin There were thirteen tribes. When they split in 922 B.C., ten tribes went with the northern group and three (really four if one counts the Levites) stayed with the southern group. Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and most of Levi made up Judah.

This phrase was used often in the historical books of Kings and Chronicles to refer to the southern kingdom. In this context it implies that most of the Jews who returned were from the Babylonian exiles (i.e., 605, 597, 586, 582 B.C.). The northern tribes, exiled by Assyria in 722 B.C., were deported to Media and the vast majority of them never returned to Palestine.

the people of the exile This is the descriptive title for the returning Jews. It implies that some of the opposition came not only from the half-Jewish descendants of the remaining Jews who had intermarried with pagan immigrants, but also possibly from Jews who were never exiled and had not intermarried. The returning Jews had a fervor for YHWH which came across as an elitism. They wanted no hint of paganism or idolatry, which had cost them their land, their freedom, and their worship! They also wanted no part of the indigenous Jewish leadership.

Ezr 4:2 approached Zerubbabel The VERB (BDB 620, KB 670) is a Qal IMPERFECT. It is surprising with the significance of Jeshua so prominent in chapter 3 (cf. Ezr 4:2; Ezr 4:9) that Zerubbabel would be approached here in this chapter. Probably it was because he represented the legal authority of the Persian government. 1Es 5:68 has and Jeshua here (cf. R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 40).

Let us build with you This VERB (BDB 124, KB 139) is a Qal IMPERFECT, used in a COHORTATIVE sense.

and the heads of fathers’ households The aspect of clanism is prominent in the list of people in chapter 2. Leadership was a shared experience among the returnees. This matches the elders of Moses’ wilderness wandering period (cf. Exo 18:13-27).

Notice that all three leadership spheres are mentioned in Ezr 4:3 :

1. Zerubbabel – political

2. Jeshua – religious

3. heads of father’s households – traditional tribal (clan)

for we have been sacrificing to Him The VERB (BDB 256, KB 261) is a Qal PARTICIPLE. The Jews of the Exile had ceased to sacrifice because of the Mosaic restrictions (Deuteronomy) about sacrifice away from the central sanctuary. The very fact that these people continued to sacrifice showed they were not in conformity to the Pentateuchinal guidelines.

since the days of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria This is a statement from the Samaritan leaders. They had been exiled by the Assyrian Empire in 722 B.C. This particular Assyrian king’s military exploits are not known to us, but he reigned from 681 to 669 B.C. It is obvious that these Samaritans were claiming to be YHWHists (cf. 2Ki 17:24-41), but the Aramaic documents from the Elephantine Papyri show us their syncretic tendencies.

Ezr 4:3

NASBYou have nothing in common with us

NKJVYou may do nothing with us

NRSVYou shall have no part with us

TEVWe don’t need your help

NJBIt is out of the question that you should join us

Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible has not for you, and for us. This terse reply was a forceful way to reject the request (cf. Jdg 11:12; 2Sa 16:10; 2Sa 19:22; 1Ki 17:18; Mar 1:24; Mar 5:7; Luk 4:34; Luk 8:28; Joh 2:4).

NASBwe ourselves will together build

NKJV, NRSVwe alone will build

TEVwe will build it ourselves

NJBwe shall build. . .on our own

The key word is yhd (BDB 403), which denotes unity (cf. Ezr 3:1). The building itself had a community aspect. It was a task that in and of itself brought and established a sense of identity.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

adversaries. The Samaritans (Ezr 4:10). See note on 2Ki 17:24, 2Ki 17:26.

children = sons.

the temple. The walls and gates already built by Nehemiah. See Structures (pp. 616, 617), and notes on Neh 1:21, Jer 25:11. See special note at end of 2Ch 36:21.

the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.

God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 4

And when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity [had built the towers,] started to build the temple of the Lord unto the LORD God of Israel; they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and they said, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as you do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon the king of Assur, which brought us up hither. But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, You don’t have anything 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. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building ( Ezr 4:1-4 ),

Now when the northern kingdom was destroyed by Assyria, the Assyrian king took the people of the northern kingdom and scattered them throughout the world, and they had brought other people that they had conquered and settled them in the land of the northern kingdom. Became known as Samaria. But that was the capital city. And the people ultimately became known as the Samaritans. Now when they came into the land, the wild animals began to turn against the people, and many of them were devoured. And they came to the king and they said, “Hey, we can’t get along with the gods of the land. The animals are turning against us. So send us some priests that they may teach us how to worship in order that we might worship these gods of the land so that these wild animals won’t be eating our kids and all.”

So the king of Assyria found some priests and they brought them to these people who the priests taught them the worship of God. And so they feared Jehovah, but they worshipped their own gods. In other words, He was just made a part of their whole total worship program, but it wasn’t a true worship of Jehovah, nor were they truly descendants of Abraham or Israel. So they did, however, as a part of their total worship, worship Jehovah, even as they were taught, they did have the sacrifices; they did offer the sacrifices and all because the priest taught them the burnt offerings, the peace offerings and these things, so they did do that. And so when these fellows came and were going to build their temple, they said, “Hey, we’d like to help you because we worship your God, too.” But they worship God as a mixture, with a lot of other gods. And so Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the chief men decided that they didn’t want their help.

Now it would be great if the church would maintain that same attitude today. We don’t need the help of the world in doing the work of God. But not all churches see it that way, and many are trying to conscript Satan to come help them in their building programs or whatever. But God doesn’t need any help in accomplishing His program, especially from those who are not true servants of God. And I feel that it is wrong to go to worldly people to try to conscript aid for the work of God.

They refused to accept their help. Now these are the same people that in the time of Christ were called the Samaritans. And the Jews would not have any dealings, even after they returned, they would not have any dealings four hundred years later when Christ came, they still would not have any dealings with the Samaritans. And you remember when Jesus met the woman of Samaria at the well and said, “Would you give me a drink of water?” She said, “How come you’re asking me for a drink? You’re a Jew, I’m a Samaritan. The Jews don’t have dealings with the Samaritans.”

It is true the Jews would usually, when they were coming to the feast from Galilee, go clear on down to the Jordan River and come all the way along the Jordan River and then come up from Jericho rather than take the shorter route directly through Samaria, because they just didn’t like to be around the Samaritans. There was a lot of bad blood between the two.

Now the Holy Spirit came upon the church, and in one of the early persecutions, the church was sort of scattered, and Jesus had said to His disciples, “When the Holy Ghost comes upon you, you shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in Judaea, and in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” So in the persecution, as the church was scattered, Philip went up to Samaria and began to preach Christ to the Samaritans. And many believed and were baptized when they saw the miracles that were wrought through the hands of Philip.

Now when the church in Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans had also received the Gospel, they sent unto them Peter and John for as yet the Holy Spirit had not come upon them. And when they came, they laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. And that’s when Simon said, “Hey, I’d like to buy this power that whoever I lay my hands on they would receive, too.” And Peter said, “Your money perish with you because you think that the gifts of God can be bought with money.” And told him to pray that God would forgive him the bitterness, the gall that was in his heart.

So the Samaritans received the Gospel, a great revival. Now at the present time there are still about two hundred Samaritans still living. They’re almost extinct. There’s only about two hundred of them living today. They still live in the area of Nablus, which is at the, in the valley at the base of mount Ebal and mount Gerizim. And they still believe that mount Gerizim is the place where God should be worshipped. You remember the woman by the well said to Jesus, when she realized that He was a prophet, “Sir, I perceive that you’re a prophet, our fathers say that we are to worship God in this mountain, Gerizim,” right above them there, for they were at Shechem which is the present-day Nablus( Joh 4:19-20 ), in that area. “Our fathers tell us we’re to worship God in this mountain, Gerizim. You say in Jerusalem. Where is God to be worshipped?”

And so they still today have an annual Passover sacrifice, and they sacrifice a lamb at the top of mount Gerizim still to the present time. They are called the Samaritans, as I said there are only about two hundred of them left and they are pretty much imbecilic. They’re pretty much imbeciles now because of the close cross breeding. They won’t marry outside, and so their numbers continue to reduce. And they have just a lot of idiocy among them because of this cross, close cross breeding. But they still exist, which is about two hundred Samaritans left.

So these were the people that came to Jeshua and Zerubbabel and they said, “Hey, we will help you because we worship your gods, too. We’ll help you build this temple.” And they consulted together and they said, “Nope, we don’t want your help.” Well, their help being spurned, then they turned against them and did their best to defeat their purposes of rebuilding. They started really hassling them and hindering in every opportunity.

So they hired attorneys, to frustrate their purposes ( Ezr 4:5 ),

To file injunctions, to get the court to file injunctions. Make them have an EIR report and all this kind of junk, you know, to just frustrate their building efforts. I’m sure that no matter what they did, they couldn’t foul things up as much as things can be fouled up with our present governmental systems today. If you want to build anything, it is just unreal what they make you go through. We are, we are just governmentalized to death. It seems to be the government’s purpose to put everybody out of business and to make everybody dependent on the government. That sounds good, but then who’s going to pay the bills? If the government makes, try and be independent, so difficult, more and more ordinances, OSHAs and everything else to come and harass you. I’ll tell you, they couldn’t harass them nearly as much as the government harasses building projects today. It’s a… Some of you may be government employees and… But oh, the bureaucracy today is something horrible. We’re just going to sink under bureaucrats.

So they sought to frustrate the purposes.

all of the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the time that Darius took over the throne. So in the reign of Ahasuerus [who is the Cambyses of secular history], at the beginning of his reign, they wrote to him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Ahasuerus Artaxerxes [who is also Ahasuerus the previous verse, Cambesis( Ezr 4:6 ) of the secular history] they wrote him a letter in the Syrian tongue. And they said, Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side of the river, and at such a time. Be it known to the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come to Jerusalem, and they are building the rebellious and bad city, they have set up the walls, and they’ve joined the foundations. Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city is built, and the walls are set up again, then they will not pay their toll, or their taxes, or customs, so that you will be endangered in receiving revenue. Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore we have sent and certified to the king these things; [And we suggest] That you search the book of records: and you will find in the book of 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 in old times: for this cause this city was destroyed. We certify the king that, if this city be built again, and the walls are set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side of 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 time. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. And I have commanded, and a 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 Jerusalem, which have ruled over all the countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them. Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not built, until another commandment shall be given from me. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and to his companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. 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 ( Ezr 4:5-7 , Ezr 4:11-24 ).

So during the time of Cambesis(???), the Artaxerxes, the work was stopped. The period of perhaps ten years or so. They have started, they laid the foundation, they were building, and they got this order to cease and desist. So they stopped the building, and in stopping the building, they got then involved in their own houses, and fixing up their own places. And they started fixing up their houses very nicely, just forgot and left desolate the house of the Lord. And so if you will read Haggai, chapter one, he is crying out against the people for their forsaking the house of the Lord. “Is it time for you, O Israel, to dwell in your ceiled houses, while the house of the Lord lies desolate? Behold, take a look at things because you have sowed much, but you’re gathering little” ( Hag 1:4 , Hag 1:6 ).

It seems like your pockets have holes in them. You can’t keep your money. And you’re always broke and you never have enough. And the reason is, is that you’ve been spending everything for yourself and you’ve just been letting God’s house go desolate. And so Haggai is encouraging the people, “Let’s get back and let’s start building the temple once again.” “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Ezr 4:1-5

NEARLY A CENTURY OF OPPOSITION TO ISRAEL;

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

“Now 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).

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” (Ezr 4:2). The people who thus approached the Jews were the remnants of the Northern 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” (Ezr 4:2). “Isaiah had prophesied in 734 B.C. that Northern Israel would cease to be a distinct people within sixty-five years (Isa 7:8); and this was fulfilled by 669 B.C., during the reign of Esarhaddon (680-668 B.C.).”

The following verses (Ezr 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.

E.M. Zerr:

Ezr 4:1. The people designated as the adversaries were the classes who had been brought in to occupy the country after the Assyrians took the 10 tribes away into captivity. For information on this subject see 2 Kings 17. Doubtless they had grown to be a numerous band in the two centuries that had gone by since then. In that time the captivity of the kingdom of Judah also had taken place, and these folk probably thought that they would have continuous and undisturbed possession of the whole land.

Ezr 4:2. Envy was certainly the motive for the proposition these adversaries made. If any glory should come from this building project, they wanted a share in it. There was some truth in their claim about sacrificing to the same God that the men of Judah worshiped. On this point let the reader again read, carefully, the account that is given in the 17th chapter of 2 Kings. It will be seen just to what extent these people sacrificed to the Lord.

Ezr 4:3. Zerubbabel was the leader or superintendent of the construction work of the temple. The other men referred to were under him and had some prominent part in the work. The motive that prompted these adversaries to make the proposition they did would have made it wrong to let them into the work. But a still greater reason existed for refusing them. They were adversaries according to the inspired writer, and it would have been unsafe to permit them to have such an important connection with the sacred building. Another thing, Cyrus did not authorize any but the Jews to do this reconstruction, and that would have made them intruders to employ them as they suggested. Zerubbabel and his co-workers were true both to God and to Cyrus. They informed these people that it was the house of our God, which would make it inappropriate for the Lord’s adversaries to take part in it. They also stated that their operations were according to the commandment of the king of Persia, and thus the whole project was not only a work of God, but was in harmony with the highest temporal authority over them.

Ezr 4:4. This short verse is a general statement of the activities of the local citizens who were the adversaries of God’s people. It merely says they weakened their hands, which means they “slackened” their hands in the work. It does not state how it was done, and that will be learned in the following verses. But before going on with the reading, make another notation in the first column of the chart as follows: “The work was hindered all the rest of the reign.”

Ezr 4:5. Hired counsellors would be about what we would mean were we to “employ an attorney.” They wanted these counsellors to help devise some way of hindering the work of the temple. Frustrate means to “break up.” One translation of the word in the A. V. is, “cause to cease”. This verse makes a general statement of the length of time the hindrance lasted, but some following verses will give more details of the wicked actions.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

In this chapter we have the story of the opposition of the Samaritans, and the consequent cessation of work on the Temple for a time. The historic chronology presents difficulties. The subject is not of vital importance. Perhaps, however, the simplest solution is that in the first five verses we have a general statement of the fact that this opposition continued from the reign of Cyrus to that of Darius; while in verses six to twenty-three there is a more detailed account of the opposition.

The one objection to this solution is that the names of the kings mentioned in verses six to twenty-three are not those given as reigning between Cyrus and Darius, but after Darius. Admitting this difficulty, it seems to me less than that presented by any other attempt to explain this passage, and it is quite unsafe to build any theory definitely on names which may be dynastic rather than personal. However, the principal interest of the chapter for us is the opposition and the forms it took. First was an attempt to induce Zerubbabel and those associated with him to admit into partnership such as were really enemies of the work. This being definitely refused, these enemies set themselves in every way to hinder the work, until at last they were successful in obtaining letters from the reigning monarch interdicting the work. Thus, for a long period the building of the house of God ceased, while building houses for the people went forward unchecked.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Building of the Temple Opposed

Ezr 4:1-10

So long as you lead a languid and unaggressive life, the enemy will leave you alone, but directly you begin to build Gods temple, you may count on His strenuous opposition. When we are permitted to go on from day to day without much temptation, we may fear that we are doing little to destroy evil and construct good. But the virulent hate of the wicked one is a comfortable sign that his kingdom is suffering serious damage. Let us so live that we may give the devil good reason to fear and hate us. There is a stronger than he. 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 traitors hand. This is why so many fair enterprises have miscarried. They have seemed to afford common ground for cooperation with the false and counterfeit Israel, but they have ended in disillusion and disappointment. Though the Jews excited the intense hatred and opposition of their would-be helpers, their policy of exclusiveness was amply justified by the result. The old proverb reminds us that we must never trust our enemies when they offer blandishments and gifts.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 4

The Adversaries

The first discordant note in connection with this gracious symphony is struck in the chapter we are now to be occupied with, not however, at first from within, but from without; then affection those within so that the song of joy is silenced and a brief season of apathy supervenes.

There were those who, all along, had watched with a jealous eye the work of restoration going on at Jerusalem. They were the Samaritans, the descendants of the mixed races settled in the land by heathen kings after the capture of the ten tribes, who had long ago been carried away to Assyria, and have since been lost so far as positive identification by man is concerned.

We learn something of these conscienceless people by turning back a few pages in our Bibles, to 2 Kings, chap. 17; from ver. 24 to the end we have the record of these men who were brought from the various parts of the Assyrian dominions and settled in the land. At first they made no pretence at being anything but idolaters; but upon becoming alarmed by wild beasts increasing among them, they concluded they needed to know the manner of the God of the land. Entreating the king of Assyria for help, he sent unto them some of the captive priests of Jeroboams order, who taught them how they should fear the Lord. But the unreality of it all is seen in verses 32 and 33: So they feared the Lord, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them, priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods after the manner of the nations whence they had been carried away. And their subsequent degraded state is depicted in the closing verse, in contrast to what God required of His people Israel.

These Samaritans were largely of the same character as thousands in this day of grace who make a profession of Christianity but have never even pretended to own Christ as Lord, and who know nothing of the saving value of His blood. They, too, fear the Lord, but serve their own gods; and it is a sad mistake for the believer to be linked up with such in Church fellowship. Such Christians as these will ever prove a snare and a hindrance, like the mixed multitude who came up with the children of Israel out of Egypt.

In the case before us, we learn that when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel, 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 Esar-haddon, king of Assur, who brought us up hither (vers. 1, 2). Their words sounded friendly, but their true character is given in the opening clause- they were adversaries. They sought the ruin of the little company to whom they made such fair protestations. These were indeed the wiles of the devil. Had they once gotten a foothold in the city of God they would have destroyed everything that bore the sign of His approval. To have received and encouraged them would have made the remnant company numerically stronger, but actually much weaker. It would have been admitting the enemy within the fortress. The safety of the people of God was in separation. They were set apart to Him whose name they bore. To mingle with the nations could but insure ruin and disaster.

Note the profession of these Samaritans. They declared that they too served the God of Israel,-but they could not go back far enough. They knew nothing of redemption by blood, nothing of Jehovahs covenant-sign; they had not known Gods mighty works. What they knew was mere hearsay, and based on that was an empty acknowledgment of His power, while ignorant of His grace, and no subjection of heart to His will. How like the empty professions one so frequently hears. Men talk glibly of serving the Lord and having made a start for the kingdom, who know nothing of repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Till such are brought to self-judgment before God, and heart-confidence in Christ as Saviour, they are only a hindrance to any Christian company, and will be adversaries to everything that is really of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the flesh hates to be accounted unfit to take part in what is of God. Natural men, however little place they have for the truth in their souls, resent being given the place the truth puts them in. So here, when Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the ancient men of Judah refused the help of these unholy Samaritans, great indignation was aroused. The leaders in Israel said: 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 (ver. 3). The last words show how plainly they recognized their servitude, and felt the difference of present conditions from those of old. But withal there is a splendid boldness, an unequivocal declaration of adherence to the principle of separation, the neglect of which in the past had been responsible for all their troubles. It is the spirit of the 50th psalm-taking sides with God, who says to the wicked, What hast thou to do to declare My statutes, or that thou shouldst take My covenant in thy mouth?

This is divine independence; and only as believers learn to take this attitude toward the Christless profession around them, will they be maintained in integrity and uprightness before God. As a testimony for Him in the world, amalgamation with the ungodly cannot help them, and will only hinder saints. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord; touch not the unclean, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2Co 6:17, 18).

But this always provokes the ire of the wicked, who will ever be ready to make unsubstantiated charges of pride and pharisaism against those who would be faithful to God at whatever cost. So we read: 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-and this not for a brief season, but persistently, all the days of Cyrus even until the reign of Darius, including the years of Ahasuerus (probably Xerxes). Thus their real nature is made manifest. If they cannot have a hand in the work, they will do their best (or, their worst) to ruin it. They cannot brook the refusal of their offer of fellowship; so, by spreading evil reports and misrepresenting the motives and actions of the separated company, they will hinder all they can. A letter is even drawn up and dispatched to the king, who is here called Artaxerxes, in which there is just enough truth to make it likely to accomplish its purpose, while the question at issue is not touched upon at all.

From chap. 4:6 to chap. 6:18 the language used is Chaldean, or Aramaic; so we have here undoubtedly transcripts of the actual letters that passed between the kings and their subjects.

It is significant that the first letter proceeds not exactly from the nations but from the societies settled in Canaan. (See vers. 9, 10.) The various names used are rather the names of clans, or guilds, than national designations. The little Jewish companys exclusiveness drew out their hatred.

In their epistle they profess great concern for the kings interests, and grave fears lest his revenues or honor be touched. They charge the Jews with rebuilding Jerusalem, with having set up its walls and joined the foundation (ver. 12). Now all this was flagrantly false, as Nehemiahs record proves. No permission had yet been granted to restore and build Jerusalem; and this was not the work in which the remnant were engaged. They were rebuilding the house, or temple-not the city-of God; and their work is wilfully misrepresented.

The past history of Jerusalem is briefly reviewed, at least such part of it as would serve their purpose, and the charge is confidently made that the restoration of the rebellious city will mean the destruction of Persian power on this side the river (ver. 16).

The cunningly worded document accomplished its purpose, and a messenger soon returned with an imperial mandate declaring that search had been made, and all the evil accusations against Jerusalem as a centre of rebellion and sedition established. Then an order is given to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded until another commandment shall be given from me (vers. 17-21).

With this official communication in their hands, Rehum and Shimshai and their companions made a hasty visit to Jerusalem and caused the work to cease by force and power. Yet, clearly they acted with no real authority whatever, inasmuch as the matter of carrying out the decree of Cyrus as to the building of the temple had not been touched at all. That edict remained unrepealed, and had there been the energy of faith the work of restoring the house of God would have gone on despite the wrath of Rehum and his allies.

But already, first love had begun to wane, and we are told, 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).

During the interval a period of apathy came in, so that the first energy, for what was of God declined, and each one began to think rather of his own comfort and the comforts of his family. They turned to building their own ceiled houses, to storing up goods, and to attending carefully to their own interests. Of this the prophet Haggai accuses them. For, it should be noted, the ministry of both Haggai and Zechariah comes in here. The reader might with profit turn from the present account and read thoughtfully the two books bearing their names, ere going on with Ezras record.

There is no hint of any suffering inflicted by the adversaries of the Jews while they were attending to their own interests. It was what was of God these wicked workers hated. To behold those gathered to His name devoting their time and strength to building for themselves excited no enmity, and the enemies purpose to stop the building of the house of God succeeded.

So it ever is, the world and the world-church are quite content to see Christians prospering in temporal ways. The line of demarkation soon goes down when riches increase and self-interest prevails. It is the spiritual prosperity, the energy of faith that offends the world; for when the light shines brightly, it exposes the selfishness, the pride, the hypocrisy of those who have a name to live but are dead.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

CHAPTER 4

1. The offer of the Samaritans refused (Ezr 4:1-6)

2. The letter to King Artaxerxes (Ezr 4:7-16)

3. The kings reply (Ezr 4:17-22)

4. The work is stopped (Ezr 4:23-24)

Ezr 4:1-6. The adversaries were the Samaritans. (There is an interesting correspondence with the book of Acts. After the Spirit of God had begun His blessed work, the enemy from without and then within started his hindering work.) They had watched silently the work of restoration and then appeared before Zerubbabel and 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, who brought us up hither. These words revealed their true origin. They were a mongrel race settled by heathen kings in the conquered territory of the house of Israel, the ten tribes. We find the history relating to them in 2Ki 17:24. The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, Cuthah, Ara, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and colonized them in Samaria. They were a wicked lot, and the LORD punished them by sending lions in their midst. Then they appealed to the Assyrian king and expressed a desire to get acquainted with the manner of the God in the land. Priests of Jeroboam, who were captives, were then sent to them. One of these priests taught them in Beth-el the corrupt worship which had been the downfall of the ten tribes. The result was they feared the LORD, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places. They served their own idols at the same time. The record saith, Unto this day they do after the former manners, they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel. These Assyrians married Israelitish women who had been left in the land. (In the British Museum is a cylinder containing the annals of Esar-haddon, giving the deportation of the Israelites and the settlement of colonists in their place.) These corrupt people with their well sounding words remind us of the Gibeonites in Joshuas day. They illustrate the wiles of the devil. The leaders of the remnant refused them participation in the building of the house of the LORD. They realized that they were a separated people and to permit these Samaritans to come in would have been disobedience to the Word of God, bringing His displeasure upon them. If they had been permitted to link themselves with the people of God, corruption and disaster would have been the result. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua endowed with divine wisdom knew that they were adversaries and had no call and no right to engage in the work of the LORD. It was a decisive reply they received. 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. At once they were unmasked. They turned against them, molested them, and hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose. They also wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The Hebrew word (used only in this passage) is sitnah, cognate with the noun Satan. Satan was the power behind these Samaritans and their efforts to hinder the work. Their method was Satans method. These Samaritans may well be compared with the large masses in Christendom who have a form of godliness and deny the power thereof. Like the Samaritans the unsaved multitudes in professing Christendom pretend to serve the Lord, but they are the enemies of the Cross, and their belly is their god, they mind earthly things. The New Testament demands separation from such (2Co 6:14-18; 2Ti 3:5; 2Jn 1:11). Fellowship with them is disastrous, for they are only natural men, not having the Spirit and are therefore unfit for Christian fellowship, for they are serving the world and its god.

Ezr 4:7-16. Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel, Persians, and officials of the government, probably closely identified with the Samaritans and residents of Jerusalem, wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes. (Ahasuerus is a regal title, meaning the venerable king; Artaxerxes also is such a title, meaning the great king.) With the eighth verse begins an Aramaic section of the book, which extends to chapter 6:18. The Syrian tongue was Aramaic. The letter is a very cunningly devised document, full of misrepresentation and falsehood, inspired by him who is the liar, and the father of it. They accused the Jews of building Jerusalem and setting up the wall. This was a falsehood, for only the house was being built and not the wall or the city. What they said about the city, its former character of rebellion, was true, and the accuser made use of the past sins of the nation. But God had again been gracious to His people and turned their captivity. Reminding the king of the possible danger if the city were built again and fortified by a wall; and the loss of revenue, they inspired fear in the kings heart. The same accuser of the brethren, liar and falsifier, who stood behind these letter writers, is still at work and will continue till he is cast out (Rev. 12).

Ezr 4:17-22. The king received the letter and instituted a search into the former history of Jerusalem, which verified what the letter claimed, and he commanded at once that the city should not be built. The falsehood that they were building the city and the wall was not discovered. The enemy was successful. Yet a faithful God watched over it all.

Ezr 4:23-24. We can well imagine that when the letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai and their companions, with what a feverish haste they must have rushed up to Jerusalem, and made them cease from the work by force and power. 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. The remnant was severely tested, and at that time there set in a decline. The former energy seems to have left them, as we find when we consider Haggais message. Nor do we read anything at the close of this chapter about turning to the LORD in prayer.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

the adversaries: These were the Samaritans, the descendants of the various nations with which the kings of Assyria had peopled Israel, when they had carried the original inhabitants captive. Ezr 7:9, 1Ki 5:4, 1Ki 5:5, 1Ch 22:9, 1Ch 22:10, Neh 4:1-11, Dan 9:25, 1Co 16:9

children of the captivity: Heb. sons of the transportation, Ezr 1:11, *marg. Ezr 6:16, Ezr 6:19, Ezr 6:20, Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:16, Dan 5:13

Reciprocal: 2Ki 17:41 – unto this day Ezr 4:10 – And the rest Neh 6:9 – Their hands Zec 1:19 – scattered Mat 2:8 – that Luk 9:52 – the Samaritans Joh 4:9 – for

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THERE ARE MANY ADVERSARIES

The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin.

Ezr 4:1

I. 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. No 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, Gods 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 traitors hand. This is why so many fair 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.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

IN THE OPENING verses of chapter 4, another striking feature comes into view. As is always the case when a work of God takes place, there were adversaries, and their first move had in it a strong element of flattery, and was therefore a very seductive one. They came with the profession of seeking and serving the true God, and so they offered to assist in the building of the house, as being partners in the work. This brought to light a fifth feature marking this revival – a feature of great importance: Zerubbabel and Jeshua and other chief men refused the alliance they proposed, and maintained a position of separation from the surrounding world. Had they acquiesced, the work would have been ruined from the outset.

If we read the last chapter of the book of Nehemiah, we discover there was failure on this very point, to the marring of the work, and similarly revivals in the history of Christendom have too often been spoiled in the same way. Take the Reformation for instance: it fell very short of what it might have been as the result of many of its leaders getting into alliance with secular and worldly persons and powers, so that even religious wars were fought. That having come to pass, the power and spirituality of the revival rapidly evaporated.

Under Zerubbabel and Jeshua, however, the line of demarcation between the returned remnant of Israel and the mixed multitude that dwelt around them, was faithfully maintained, and the result of this is at once manifested. Points of dispute, which might easily lead to strife and warfare, are frequently solved, at least for a time, by a spirit of compromise. Each side yields a few points and peace is patched up; but it was not so here.

Instead of the watchword being compromise it was separation, and the result was strenuous opposition; not only weakening their hands in various ways, but also hiring counsellors against them at headquarters in a most persistent way. Here is a sixth feature that we must note. If true saints maintain separation from the world, they will have to face opposition from the world. This is as true today as at any other time in history. If we compromise we may avoid it in large measure and lose our power. If we maintain separation, we must face it in some way, for as the Scripture itself says, ‘all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution’ (2Ti 3:12). It may not take the form of outward violence, as it did in the case of the Apostle Paul, but be exerted in more indirect and subtle ways. The absence of it would not commend us but the reverse. It would mean that the great adversary knows that as regards his designs we are innocuous, and so he wastes no energy over us.

Here it was far otherwise, and the adversary pitted his strength against those who without compromise were bent on rebuilding the house of God, as had been prophesied. The opposition was most persistent, for no less than four kings are mentioned in verses Ezr 4:5-7. It began at once in the days of Cyrus, and continued until the time of Darius, as stated in verse Ezr 4:5, who is identified as the one surnamed Hystaspes in secular history. In between these kings came Ahasuerus, not the one mentioned in the book of Esther, but the one known as Cambyses. During his reign the opponents were very active, writing up an accusation against the Jews in Jerusalem, but apparently without any definite effect.

Then came the Artaxerxes of verse Ezr 4:7, who is identified with the usurper, known as Smerdis in profane history, who only held dominion for a very short time. Being a usurper, he was of course disposed to upset and annul decrees of his predecessors, in order to establish, if possible, his own position. The opponents saw that this man furnished them with an excellent chance of succeeding in their petition, so once more they sent up a letter.

The opposition had not diminished by the lapse of time or by the earlier lack of success. It had rather increased, as is clear if we read verses Ezr 4:7-9. The letter went up in the names of certain men who were eminent amongst the inhabitants of the land, backed by no less than nine of the tribes or citizens or peoples, who then had their dwelling in the surrounding country of Palestine. It was evidently a very imposing document.

A copy of this letter is given to us in verses Ezr 4:11-16, that we may see how skillfully the adversary can mix lies with facts, and thus garble and misrepresent the case in question.

The first thing that strikes us is that there is no mention of the thing the Jews had come to do under the decree of Cyrus – the rebuilding of the house of God. They have much to say about the building of the city and its walls. It is possible of course that some little work of this sort had been done, which furnished them with a pretext, but we know that nothing serious of this sort was accomplished until Nehemiah’s day. Their assertion of this to the king was simply a lie.

Then, assuming that the city was being rebuilt, they denounced it as a bad and rebellious place. It was true that the last few kings, and especially Zedekiah, had been bad men and unreliable, breaking their word in a rebellious spirit, and this gave some support to their accusation. The city, however, had originally been chosen of God and for a brief time held dominion from Him. They gained their opportunity to besmirch the whole history of Jerusalem by the bad behaviour of the last kings that reigned there: a striking example of how the whole of God’s work may be dishonoured by unfaithful servants, and give the opportunity the adversary desires.

A third thing that strikes us is the way they presented the matter; as if their whole concern was for the king’s advantage and reputation, and they had themselves but little interest in it. This Artaxerxes being, we understand, a usurper, he would specially fear anything that might challenge his authority. The great spiritual adversary, who lay behind these human adversaries, is not lacking in skill!

The closing verses of our chapter show that their letter had the desired effect. In those early days careful records were kept, and search being made, the unfaithful doings of Zedekiah and others were revealed, as well as records of the great dominion once exerted by such as David and Solomon. Armed with the official edict that was issued, the adversaries, ‘by force and power’, made the work on the house of God to cease. It seemed as if what God had purposed in this matter was effectually frustrated.

Thus it has been again and again in the sad history of the world. It appeared at the outset that God’s purpose in creating Adam was defeated by the introduction of sin. It appeared as if God’s call of Abram to go forth to the land of promise was defeated by his descendants going down into Egypt. It now appeared as if the establishment of God’s house on earth through David and Solomon had been defeated. And so it has been in the history of Christendom, when God has intervened in reviving mercy. Always the adversary has been at work and has found human instruments available to his hand. This has been the case in our own day. We have only to consider the history of the past one hundred years – and more particularly perhaps the history of the English-speaking world – to see it all too plainly.

But does the adversary finally prevail? In the history before us the answer is found in chapters 5 and 6. When God intervenes everything is reversed. And ultimately God always does intervene. Let us take comfort and encouragement from that.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Ezr 4:1. Now 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 2Ki 17:33, where it is said, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods. They are called the people of the land, Ezr 4:4. Thus, the worst enemies that Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews, and were not.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Ezr 4:1. The adversaries of Judah. These were the Samaritans; that is, Jews of the ten tribes, apostate from the religion of their fathers, now intermarried with the heathen, who were worshippers of God and of idols. Consequently they could not be admitted into the Jewish church. This people, Asnapper the Assyrian general, had brought and planted in the cities of Samaria. The other adversaries are here named, the principal of whom was Tobias, at the head of the Ammonites. These several reduced nations or colonies, inhabiting the ancient kingdom of David, after some time, took the alarm on seeing Zerubbabel, one of Davids line, invested with the government of Jerusalem.

Ezr 4:6. Ahasurus, who is called Cambyses by Herodotus; he reigned during the absence of Cyrus his father. His reign was short, only seven years and five months. He led his army like a fool against Ethiopia, without guides, and without provisions: and they perished in the deserts.

Ezr 4:7. In the days of Artaxerxes, surnamed Longimanus, or Longhand. During the seven years that Cambyses son of Cyrus reigned, the adversaries had grieved, but kept silence; for they thought the son would not act against his sire. Now, a new prince having usurped the throne, they lost no time to excite his jealousy against the Jews. Learned men cannot fully clear up the names and time that each of the Persian kings reigned. See the notes on chapters 5. 6.

Ezr 4:8. Wrote a letter against Jerusalem, in the Chaldaic language, and the answer is returned in the same tongue. Therefore Ezra inserts them here untranslated.

Ezr 4:16. On this side the river; not the Jordan, but the Euphrates.

Ezr 4:24. Darius king of Persia. This prince is surnamed Bastard by the historians.

REFLECTIONS.

How great and grievous is the policy and the wickedness of the human heart. No sooner did the Samaritans see Judah and Benjamin likely to recover from their calamities, and to rise as a nation, than they claimed kindred and covenant with them. They afterwards continued to claim it, when they prospered, but disowned them in adversity. The request to join in worship, and partially to unite as a nation, the Jews could not grant; for Samaria was full of idols, and the small remnant of the ten tribes, apostate before their Syrian captivity, were now dissolute in morals, and so completely intermarried with the heathen, before any of the heathen had been regularly proselyted, that they could not possibly be joined to the Jewish church. Christian, if the world caress you in prosperity, learn of the faithful Jews to give them this short answer, Ye have nothing to do to build with us.

The firm refusal of civil and religious connections with the Samaritans was a very strong argument that the Jews had profited by their great affliction in Babylon. They well knew that the morals and worship of the Samaritans would corrupt their young people; and that such an imprudent step would forfeit the covenant which at all times had been their only hope. Christian ministers and elders have here a fine example. They are taught to reject every candidate for church fellowship whose motives are not pure, or whose hearts are not sincere. Increase of number is a curse to the church when the candidates are neither sanctified in their affections, nor holy in their lives.

The Samaritans, disappointed of participating in the prosperity of the Jews, and unable to bear the sight of their rising hopes and distinguished favours, next sought their ruin by daring menaces and open war; but being now all subject to the same monarch, they did not dare to fight in any extensive way. They contented themselves for the present with burning the gates of the city; and the moment an opening presented itself by a change on the throne, they wrote a most false and wicked letter to the king. They said Jerusalem was of old a rebellious city; they pleaded loyalty and gratitude, that having a maintenance from the kings table it was not meet to see a rebellion fostered to his dishonour. These too are the men who claimed kindred and connection with the Lords people but a little before; and yet could pretend to seek the consolations of piety, with malice and murder in their hearts. Yes, they are the same people. And not only the Samaritans, but men in our own age are both ready and willing to slander the purest piety as seditious, and dangerous to the state. They would if possible gain the royal ear, and bring the last of calamities on their christian brethren. Let them remember however, that God has never pardoned the blood of his saints to an impenitent world. Look at Ahaz, at Herod, at Pilate, at Nero; look at certain illustrious houses in Europe, and see what God has done. There is no purging the blood of the saints but by the blood of posterity.

The wicked opposing the righteous are sometimes permitted to succeed. So here: the house of the Lord was stopped when half built; but his altar was not without a sacrifice. Samaria could look on and laugh, but not long. A new king arose, and permitted the work to proceed; and according to prophecy and faith, the headstone was brought forth with shouting, grace, grace unto it. So, believer, will the God of Israel defend and comfort thy soul in all thine afflictions. The measure of thy chastisement and the malice of thy foes have their limits. Thy heaven shall not always be shrouded with darkness, nor thy feet stick fast in the mire and clay. He will turn thy captivity as the rivers of the south, and show thee the light of his countenance in the land of the living.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Ezr 4:1-5. The Rebuilding of the Temple Opposed.

Ezr 4:1. the adversaries: i.e. the northern Israelites of mixed race, Samaritans; they are called adversaries by anticipation, as they did not oppose the building of the Temple until their co-operation had been refused.builded a temple: better were building, note that while here the building of the Temple is in question the next section deals with the building of the walls.

Ezr 4:2. we seek your God: the words show that these people were not true worshippers of Yahweh, whatever their intention for the future might be.and we do sacrifice unto him: but the Massoretic text reads (cf. mg.), we have not offered sacrifice.the days of Esarhaddon: cf. 2Ki 19:37*; he was king of Assyria from 681668 B.C. (pp. 59f.)which brought us up hither: they were, therefore, not Israelites; they had, in some sort, accustomed themselves to the worship of the land because they had been in danger of wild beasts (see 2Ki 17:28); but it was not, according to 2Ki 17:41, of a genuine character, and they evidently soon reverted to their ancestral worship.

Ezr 4:3. Ye have nothing to do with US . . . : this refusal is quite comprehensible since these mixed people were, for the most part, non-Israelites; so that neither in relation to race nor worship could there be any bond of sympathy between them and the Jews.as king Cyrus . . . hath commanded us (cf. Ezr 1:1-3).

Ezr 4:4. the people of the land: in Heb. am haaretz, the name given in post-exilic times to those dwelling in Palestine who were of non-Israelite extraction. M. Friedlnder (Die religisen Bewegungen, pp. 78ff.) in writing of somewhat later times, has shown how erroneous it is to maintain that the expression people of the land became a synonym for the unlearned and ignorant; the passage usually quoted in support of this idea (Joh 7:49) refers to the multitude in Jerusalem, and does not mention the am haaretz, which became a recognised name for those of anti-Pharisaic tendency.troubled them in building: read terrified them from building.

Ezr 4:5. all the days of Cyrus . . .: since what is recounted in the previous verses presumably took place in the second year of Cyrus (see Ezr 3:8), i.e. 536 B.C., and Darius came to the throne in 521 (though it was not until the second year of his reign that the building recommenced), there is, according to the text, a period of about sixteen years during which nothing was done; there is clearly a displacement of the text.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

PRETENDED FRIENDSHIP AND OPPOSITION

(vv. 1-5)

Satan is subtle in the way he attacks a work of God. He appears to be friendly, as is seen in the way the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin came to Zerubbabel and other leaders of Judah, offering to help them to build the temple. They say they have been brought there by the King of Assyria (which was true), and that they had sacrificed to the Lord since that time (v. 2).This may have some semblance of truth in it, but they were Gentiles who had come into the land and adopted some of Israel’s forms of worship, but we are told, “They feared the Lord, yet served their own gods” (2Ki 17:33).

Zerubbabel and Jeshua discerned their true character and told them firmly that they could not accept their help, but they alone (Judah and Benjamin) would do this work according to the decree of Cyrus, king of Persia (v. 3). Believers today too must not accept the help of unbelievers (however friendly they seem) in building that which speaks of the recovery of the truth of the Assembly of God.

Then the people of the land changed their tactics, showing that their offer of help in building was deceitful, for they did not want the temple rebuilt at all.They tried to discourage the Jews from their work, causing all the trouble they could and even hiring counselors with the object of frustrating their labors. Their opposition continued throughout the reign of Cyrus until Darius king of Persia.

LETTER OF ACCUSATION AGAINST JUDAH

(vv. 6-16)

The friction was long continued, for inverse 6 we read of these adversaries writing a letter to King Ahasuerus, accusing the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, though nothing is said about the results of their letter, But in the days of Artaxerxes also, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel and others wrote a letter to that current king of Persia (v.7). It seems this was in addition to the letter of Rehum the commander and Shimshi the scribe, whose letter is quoted in verses 11 to 16. They speak of themselves as representatives of a number of peoples who had been taken captive by Osnapper and settled in the cities of Samaria (vv. 9-10).Whether they actually represented those nations in writing as they did, maybe very questionable, but they wanted their letter to appear convincing.

They first remind the Persian king that the Jews now in Jerusalem had come up from Persia and were building what they call “the rebellious and evil city,” finishing its walls and repairing its foundations (v. 12).They did not inquire of Artaxerxes as to the reason for Cyrus sending the Jews back, nor did Artaxerxes think of inquiring into this himself. But they write positively to the effect that if the city was rebuilt the inhabitants would not pay tax, tribute or custom to Persia (v. 13).Were they really concerned about Persia? Only insofar as they could benefit through Persia.This was like the Pharisees telling Pilate concerning the Lord Jesus, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend” (Joh 19:12). They had no love for Caesar, but used his name to frighten Pilate. But these adversaries of Judah only wanted Artaxerxes to surmise that the Jews would not pay tribute to Persia. They suggest a mere pleasing platitude to the king when they wrote that it was not proper for them to see the kings’s dishonor (v. 14).

They asked the king for a search of there cords to find out that Jerusalem was a rebellious city, causing harm to kings (of course such Gentile kings as Nebuchadnezzar).It was true that Zedekiah had rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar after having sworn allegiance to him, and for this reason Jerusalem was destroyed. But they did not ask for records of Cyrus having sent the Jews back to rebuild the temple. Instead they declare that if Jerusalem was rebuilt the king would lose his dominion on the west side of the River Euphrates (v. 16).

THE KING’S ANSWER

(vv.17-24)

Artaxerxes replied to this letter,telling Rehum, Shimshi and their companions that their letter had beenclearly read to him, so the he gave command to search the records, whichconfirmed the fact that Jerusalem had on occasion revolted against Gentilekings and also that Jerusalem had had mighty kings whocollected tax, tribute and custom from others (v. 20). Since this wastrue, the king did not want to see Jerusalem revive in such a way as torequire tribute from others rather than to pay tribute to Persia.

Therefore, he commanded that the Jews beforced to cease their building until a command should be given by him toallow it (v. 21). His reason was simply that he was thus guarding againstany damage the kings might suffer (v. 22). He ought to have realized that any rebellion against Persia was extremelyunlikely, for the Jews were reduced so greatly to a state of weakness thattheir former state would never be recovered.

Having this authority from the king,these adversaries went immediately to Jerusalem and by force of armsstopped their work. Thus the work of rebuilding was discontinued until thesecond year of Darius king of Persia. This connects with verse 5 of this chapter. Thus Satan gained his object for the time,but God was not defeated.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

4:1 Now when {a} the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel;

(a) Meaning, the inhabitants of Samaria, whom the king of Assyria had placed in the place of the ten tribes, 2Ki 17:24; 2Ki 19:37. They professed God but worshipped idols and therefore were the greatest enemies to the true servants of God.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Opposition during Cyrus’ reign 4:1-5

The Assyrian government encouraged its residents to move to Israel and to settle there after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. This was official government policy during the reigns of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (680-669 B.C.; 2Ki 17:24) and Ashurbanipal (668-ca. 630 B.C.; Ezr 4:10). These immigrant people worshipped pagan idols (2Ki 17:30-31), but also started worshipping Yahweh, whom they regarded as the god of the land in which they now lived (2Ki 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. Joh 4:9). It was these people of the land who approached Zerubbabel and offered to help the Jews rebuild their temple (Ezr 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." [Note: Dumbrell, p. 67. Cf. R. J. Coggins, "The Interpretations of Ezra IV. 4," Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965):124-27.]

Zerubbabel refused their offer because, even though they worshipped Yahweh, they did not worship Him exclusively, as the Mosaic Law specified (Exo 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." [Note: Breneman, p. 97.]

"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." [Note: Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 107.]

The fact that these neighbors had no sincere interest in helping the Jews became obvious very quickly (Ezr 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." [Note: Fensham, The Books . . ., p. 68.]

Persian Kings of the Restoration Period

Kings	Reigns	Scripture
Cyrus II (the Great)	559-530	Ezr 1:1; Ezr 4:5
Cambyses	530-522
Smerdis	522
Darius I	521-486	Ezra 5-6; Haggai; Zechariah
Xerxes (Ahasuerus)	486-464	Ezr 4:6; Esther
Artaxerxes I (Artashasta)	464-424	Ezr 4:7-23; chs. 7-10; Nehemiah; Malachi
Darius II	423-404	Neh 12:22

Opposition during Ahasuerus’ reign 4:6

"When he [the writer] discussed the problems of the building of the temple in Ezr 4:1-5, it reminded him of later similar troubles with the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, and Son 4:6-16 has been inserted, almost parenthetically, before the argument of the building of the temple has again been taken up in Ezr 4:24 ff. (already noted by C. F. Keil in the last [nineteenth] century)." [Note: Ibid., p. 70. See C. F. Keil, The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, pp. 62-65.]

This king of Persia, whose Greek name was Xerxes, was the man Esther married. He ruled from 486 to 464 B.C. Since the restoration Jews completed the temple in 515 B.C. (Ezr 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 and 6) nor the dangers hidden in the mixed marriages which Ezra would set himself to stamp out (chaps. 7-10)." [Note: Kidner, p. 48.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE LIMITS OF COMPREHENSION

Ezr 4:1-5; Ezr 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 Northern 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. No doubt such people existed, especially in the north, where they became, in part at least, the ancestors of the Galileans of New Testament times. But the men now referred to distinctly assert that they were brought up to Palestine by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. Neither 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; {2Ki 17:25-28} for only one priest is directly mentioned in the history, and though he may have had companions and assistants, the small college of missionaries could not be called “the people of the land” (Ezr 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 Ezr 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 Gods 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 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 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. Now a great prophet had predicted that Gods house was to be a house of prayer for all nations. {Isa 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 Northern 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.” {Isa 56:7} Between them, they adored a host of Pagan divinities, whose barbarous names are grimly noted by the Hebrew historian-Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, etc. {2Ki 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. Now 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 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.

Nevertheless 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 Lords 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. Now 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 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.

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

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles