Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 4:6
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they [unto him] an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
6. Ahasuerus ] R.V. margin ‘Or Xerxes. Heb. Ahashverosh’. The well-known Xerxes, the son of Darius, who reigned 20 years (485 465). He is generally identified with the Ahasuerus of the book ‘Esther’.
in the beginning of his reign ] i.e. on the death of Darius, who had favoured the Jews.
unto him ] R.V. omits these words, which are not found in the Hebrew.
an accusation ] Heb. ‘sitnah’, which occurs elsewhere only in Gen 26:21 as the name of a well called ‘sitnah’ or ‘enmity’ by Isaac on account of the opposition of the Philistines. Akin to the name ‘Satan’, opposer. The LXX. misunderstanding the original renders by .
the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem ] Another designation, cf. Ezr 4:1 ‘Judah and Benjamin’, Ezr 4:4 ‘the people of Judah’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ahasuerus – Or, Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. Persian kings had often two names.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. In the reign of Ahasuerus] This is the person who is called Cambyses by the Greeks. He reigned seven years and five months; and during the whole of that time the building of the temple was interrupted.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the reign of Ahasuerus; which is supposed by divers learned men to be from this time a common name to divers succeeding kings of Persia. And this makes it seem doubtful who this was. This was either,
1. Xerxes the fourth and rich king of Persia, as he is called, Dan 11:2. Or rather,
2. Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus, as may appear,
1. Because none but he and Smerdis were between Cyrus and this Darius.
2. Because Cambyses was known to be no friend to the Jewish nation nor religion; and therefore it is very improbable that these crafty, and malicious, and industrious enemies of the Jews would omit so great an opportunity when it was put into their hands.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. in the reign of Ahasuerus, in thebeginning of his reign, wrote they . . . an accusationAhasueruswas a regal title, and the king referred to was successor of Darius,the famous Xerxes.
Ezr4:7-24. LETTER TOARTAXERXES.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign,…. According to Jarchi, this was Ahasuerus the husband of Esther; but, as most think d, was Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus; so Josephus e; who was an enemy to the Egyptians; and, fearing the Jews might take part with them, was no friend to them; their enemies therefore took the advantage of the death of Cyrus, and the first opportunity after Cambyses reigned in his own right:
and wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem; full of hatred and enmity, spite and malice, charging them as a turbulent, disobedient, and rebellious people.
d Spanhem. Introduct. Chron. ad Hist. Eccl. p. 54. & Universal History, Vol. 5. p. 203. Prideaux, p. 175. e Ut supra, (Antiqu. l. 11. c. 4.) sect. 4, 6. Vid. R. David Ganz. Tzemach David, par. 2. fol. 8. 2. So Dr. Lightfoot, Works, vol. 1. p. 139.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Complaints against the Jews to Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. – The right understanding of this section depends upon the question, What kings of Persia are meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta? while the answer to this question is, in part at least, determined by the contents of the letter, Ezr 4:8-16, sent by the enemies of the Jews to the latter monarch.
Ezr 4:6-7 And in the reign of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. , not to mention the name of the well, Gen 26:21, occurs here only, and means, according to its derivation from , to bear enmity, the enmity; hence here, the accusation. belongs to , not to ; the letter was sent, not to the inhabitants of Judah, but to the king against the Jews. The contents of this letter are not given, but may be inferred from the designation . The letter to Artachshasta then follows, Ezr 4:7-16. In his days, i.e., during his reign, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions. , for which the Keri offers the ordinary form mrof yra , occurs only here in the Hebrew sections, but more frequently in the Chaldee (comp. Ezr 4:9, Ezr 4:17, Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:3, and elsewhere), in the sense of companions or fellow-citizens; according to Gesenius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) together with another, though Ewald is of a different opinion; see 117, b, note. The singular would be written (Ewald, 187, d). And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaean (i.e., with Aramaean characters), and interpreted in (i.e., translated into) Aramaean. is of Aryan origin, and connected with the modern Persian nuwishten , to write together; it signifies in Hebrew and Chaldee a letter: comp. Ezr 4:18, where is used for of Ezr 4:11. Bertheau translates , copy of the letter, and regards it as quite identical with the Chaldee , Ezr 4:11; he can hardly, however, be in the right. does not mean a transcript or copy, but only a writing (comp. Est 4:8). This, too, does away with the inference “that the writer of this statement had before him only an Aramaean translation of the letter contained in the state-papers or chronicles which he made use of.” It is not , the copy or writing, but , the letter, that is the subject of , interpreted in Aramaean. This was translated into the Aramaean or Syrian tongue. The passage is not to be understood as stating that the letter was drawn up in the Hebrew or Samaritan tongue, and then translated into Aramaean, but simply that the letter was not composed in the native language of the writers, but in Aramaean. Thus Gesenius rightly asserts, in his Thes. p. 1264, et lingua aramaea scripta erat ; in saying which does not receive the meaning concepit, expressit , but retains its own signification, to interpret, to translate into another language. The writers of the letter were Samaritans, who, having sprung from the intermingling of the Babylonian settlers brought in by Esarhaddon and the remnants of the Israelitish population, spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to Aramaean, which was spoken at the Babylonian court, and was the official language of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramaean tongue had also its own characters, differing from those of the Hebrew and Samaritan. This is stated by the words , whence Bertheau erroneously infers that this Aramaean writing was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps in Hebrew characters.
This letter, too, of Bishlam and his companions seems to be omitted. There follows, indeed, in Ezr 4:8, etc., a letter to King Artachshasta, of which a copy is given in Ezr 4:11-16; but the names of the writers are different from those mentioned in Ezr 4:7. The three names, Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel (Ezr 4:7), cannot be identified with the two names Rehum and Shimshai (Ezr 4:8). When we consider, however, that the writers named in Ezr 4:8 were high officials of the Persian king, sending to the monarch a written accusation against the Jews in their own and their associates’ names, it requires but little stretch of the imagination to suppose that these personages were acting at the instance of the adversaries named in Ezr 4:7, the Samaritans Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, and merely inditing the complaints raised by these opponents against the Jews. This view, which is not opposed by the of Ezr 4:7, – this word not necessarily implying an autograph, – commends itself to our acceptance, first, because the notion that the contents of this letter are not given finds no analogy in Ezr 4:6, where the contents of the letter to Ahashverosh are sufficiently hinted at by the word ; while, with regard to the letter of Ezr 4:7, we should have not a notion of its purport in case it were not the same which is given in Ezr 4:8, etc.
(Note: The weight of this argument is indirectly admitted by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 119) and Bertheau, inasmuch as both suppose that there is a long gap in the narrative, and regard the Aramaean letter mentioned in Ezr 4:7 to have been a petition, on the part of persons of consideration in the community at Jerusalem, to the new king, – two notions which immediately betray themselves to be the expedients of perplexity. The supposed “long gaps, which the chronicler might well leave even in transcribing from his documents” (Ew.), do not explain the abrupt commencement of Ezr 4:8. If a petition from the Jewish community to the king were spoken of in Ezr 4:7, the accusation against the Jews in Ezr 4:8 would certainly have been alluded to by at least a adversative, or some other adversative particle.)
Besides, the statement concerning the Aramaean composition of this letter would have been utterly purposeless if the Aramaean letter following in Ezr 4:8 had been an entirely different one. The information concerning the language in which the letter was written has obviously no other motive than to introduce its transcription in the original Aramaean. This conjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aramaean letter follows in Ezr 4:8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had been intended, the copulative would not more have been omitted here than in Ezr 4:7. The letter itself, indeed, does not begin till Ezr 4:9, while Ezr 4:8 contains yet another announcement of it. This circumstance, however, is explained by the fact that the writers of the letters are other individuals than those named in Ezr 4:7, but chiefly by the consideration that the letter, together with the king’s answer, being derived from an Aramaean account of the building of the temple, the introduction to the letter found therein was also transcribed.
Ezr 4:8 The writers of the letter are designated by titles which show them to have been among the higher functionaries of Artachshasta. Rehum is called , dominus consilii v. decreti , by others consiliarius , royal counsellor, probably the title of the Persian civil governor (erroneously taken for a proper name in lxx, Syr., Arab.); Shimshai, , the Hebrew , scribe, secretary. is interpreted by Rashi and Aben Ezra by , as we shall say; is in the Talmud frequently an abbreviation of or , of like signification with : as follows.
Ezr 4:9-11 After this introduction we naturally look for the letter itself in Ezr 4:9, instead of which we have (Ezr 4:9 and Ezr 4:10) a full statement of who were the senders; and then, after a parenthetical interpolation, “This is the copy of the letter,” etc., the letter itself in Ezr 4:11. The statement is rather a clumsy one, the construction especially exhibiting a want of sequence. The verb to is wanting; this follows in Ezr 4:11, but as an anacoluthon, after an enumeration of the names in Ezr 4:9 and Ezr 4:10 with . The sentence ought properly to run thus: “Then (i.e., in the days of Artachshasta) Rehum, etc., sent a letter to King Artachshasta, of which the following is a copy: Thy servants, the men on this side the river,” etc. The names enumerated in Ezr 4:9 and Ezr 4:10 were undoubtedly all inserted in the superscription or preamble of the letter, to give weight to the accusation brought against the Jews. The author of the Chaldee section of the narrative, however, has placed them first, and made the copy of the letter itself begin only with the words, “Thy servants,” etc. First come the names of the superior officials, Rehum and Shimshai, and the rest of their companions. The latter are then separately enumerated: The Dinaites, lxx , – so named, according to the conjecture of Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 676), from the Median city long afterwards called Deinaver (Abulf. Gegr. ed. Paris. p. 414); the Apharsathchites, probably the Pharathiakites of Strabo (15:3. 12) ( , Herod. i. 101), on the borders of Persia and Media, described as being, together with the Elymaites, a predatory people relying on their mountain fastnesses; the Tarpelites, whom Junius already connects with the dwelling east of Elymais (Ptol. vi. 2. 6); the Apharsites, probably the Persians ( with prosthetic); the Archevites, probably so called from the city , Gen 10:10, upon inscriptions Uruk, the modern Warka; the , Babylonians, inhabitants of Babylon; the Shushanchites, i.e., the Susanites, inhabitants of the city of Susa; , in the Keri , the Dehavites, the Grecians ( , Herod. i. 125); and lastly, the Elamites, the people of Elam or Elymais. Full as this enumeration may seem, yet the motive being to name as many races as possible, the addition, “and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper brought over and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river,” etc., is made for the sake of enhancing the statement. Prominence being given both here and Ezr 4:17 to the city of Samaria as the city in which Osnapper had settled the colonists here named, the “nations brought in by Osnapper” must be identical with those who, according to Ezr 4:2, and 2Ki 17:24, had been placed in the cities of Samaria by King Esarhaddon. Hence Osnapper would seem to be merely another name for Esarhaddon. But the names Osnapper (lxx ) and Asarhaddon (lxx ) being too different to be identified, and the notion that Osnapper was a second name of Asarhaddon having but little probability, together with the circumstance that Osnapper is not called king, as Asarhaddon is Ezr 4:2, but only “the great and noble,” it is more likely that he was some high functionary of Asarhaddon, who presided over the settlement of eastern races in Samaria and the lands west of the Euphrates. “In the cities,” or at least the preposition , must be supplied from the preceding before : and in the rest of the territory, or in the cities of the rest of the territory, on this side of Euphrates. , trans, is to be understood of the countries west of Euphrates; matters being regarded from the point of view of the settlers, who had been transported from the territories east, to those west of Euphrates. means “and so forth,” and hints that the statement is not complete.
On comparing the names of the nations here mentioned with the names of the cities from which, according to 2Ki 17:24, colonists were brought to Samaria, we find the inhabitants of most of the cities there named – Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava – here comprised under the name of the country as , Babylonians; while the people of Hamath and Sepharvaim may fitly be included among “the rest of the nations,” since certainly but few colonists would have been transported from the Syrian Hamath to Samaria. The main divergence between the two passages arises from the mention in our present verse, not only of the nations planted in the cities of Samaria, but of all the nations in the great region on this side of Euphrates ( ). All these tribes had similar interests to defend in opposing the Jewish community, and they desired by united action to give greater force to their representation to the Persian monarch, and thus to hinder the people of Jerusalem from becoming powerful. And certainly they had some grounds for uneasiness lest the remnant of the Israelites in Palestine, and in other regions on this side the Euphrates, should combine with the Jerusalem community, and the thus united Israelites should become sufficiently powerful to oppose an effectual resistance to their heathen adversaries. On the anacoluthistic connection of Ezr 4:11. , Ezr 4:11, Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:6; Ezr 7:11, and frequently in the Targums and the Syriac, written Est 3:14 and Est 4:8, is derived from the Zendish paiti (Sanscr. prati ) and enghana (in Old-Persian thanhana ), and signifies properly a counterword, i.e., counterpart, copy. The form with is either a corruption, or formed from a compound with fra; comp. Gildemeister in the Zeitschr. fr die Kunde des Morgenl. iv. p. 210, and Haug in Ewald’s bibl. Jahrb. v. p. 163, etc. – The copy of the letter begins with , thy servants, the men, etc. The Chethib is the original form, shortened in the Keri into . Both forms occur elsewhere; comp. Dan 2:29; Dan 3:12, and other passages. The , etc., here stands for the full enumeration of the writers already given in Ezr 4:9, and also for the customary form of salutation.
Ezr 4:12-16 The letter. Ezr 4:12 “Be it known unto the king.” On the form for , peculiar to biblical Chaldee, see remarks on Dan 2:20. “Which are come up from thee,” i.e., from the territory where thou art tarrying; in other words, from the country beyond Euphrates. This by no means leads to the inference, as Schrader supposes, that these Jews had been transported from Babylon to Jerusalem by King Artachshasta. answers to the Hebrew , and is used like this of the journey to Jerusalem. “Are come to us, to Jerusalem,” , to us, that is, into the parts where we dwell, is more precisely defined by the words “to Jerusalem.” “They are building the rebellious and bad city, and are setting up its walls and digging its foundations.” Instead of (with Kamets and Metheg under ) the edition of J. H. Mich. has , answering to the stat. abs. , Ezr 4:15; on the other hand, the edition of Norzi and several codices read , the feminine of . For Norzi has , from , a contraction of . For must be read, according to the Keri, . The Shaphel from , means to complete, to finish. , bases, foundations. may be the imperf. Aphel of , formed after the example of for , omitting the reduplication, . means to sew, to sew together, and may, like , be understood of repairing walls or foundations. But it is more likely to be the imperf. Aphel of , in Syriac hat, and in the Talmud, to dig, to dig out, fodit, excavavit – to dig out the foundations for the purpose of erecting new buildings.
Ezr 4:13 “Now be it known unto the king, that if this city be built up and … they will not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and it (the city) will at last bring damage to the king.” The three words occur again, Ezr 4:20 and Ezr 7:24, in this combination as designating the different kinds of imposts. , with resolved Dagesh forte, for (Ezr 4:20), signifies measure, then tax or custom measured to every one. , probably a duty on consumption, excise; , a toll paid upon roads by travellers and their goods. The word , which occurs only here, and has not been expressed by old translators, depends upon the Pehlevi word : it is connected with the Sanscrit apa , in the superl. apama , and signifies at last, or in the future; comp. Haug, p. 156. , a Hebraized form for , Ezr 4:15, is perhaps only an error of transcription.
Ezr 4:14 “Now, because we eat the salt of the palace, and it does not become us to see the damage of the king, we send (this letter) and make known to the king.” , to salt salt = to eat salt. To eat the salt of the palace is a figurative expression for: to be in the king’s pay. See this interpretation vindicated from the Syriac and Persian in Gesen. thes. p. 790.
(Note: Luther, in translating “all we who destroyed the temple,” follows the Rabbis, who, from the custom of scattering salt upon destroyed places, Jdg 9:45, understood these words as an expression figurative of destruction, and as the temple.)
, deprivation, emptying, here injury to the royal power or revenue. , participle of , answering to the Hebrew , means fitting, becoming.
Ezr 4:15 “That search may be made in the book of the chronicles of thy fathers, so shalt thou find in the book of the Chronicles that this city has been a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and countries, and that they have from of old stirred up sedition within it, on which account this city was (also) destroyed.” is used impersonally: let one seek, let search be made. , book of records, is the public royal chronicle in which the chief events of the history of the realm were recorded, called Est 6:1 the book of the records of daily events. Thy fathers are the predecessors of the king, i.e., his predecessors in government; therefore not merely the Median and Persian, but the Chaldean and Assyrian kings, to whose dominions the Persian monarchs had succeeded. , a verbal noun from the Ithpeal of , rebellion. , from the days of eternity, i.e., from time immemorial. is in the constructive state, plural, formed from the singular . This form occurs only here and Ezr 4:19, but is analogous with the Hebrew poetical form for .
Ezr 4:16 After thus casting suspicion upon the Jews as a seditious people, their adversaries bring the accusation, already raised at the beginning of the letter, to a climax, by saying that if Jerusalem is rebuilt and fortified, the king will lose his supremacy over the lands on this side the river. , on this account, for this reason, that the present inhabitants of the fortified city Jerusalem are like its former inhabitants, thou wilt have no portion west of Euphrates, i.e., thou wilt have nothing more to do with the countries on this side the river-wilt forfeit thy sway over these districts.
Ezr 4:17-22 The royal answer to this letter. – a word which has also passed into the Hebrew, Ecc 8:11; Est 1:20 – is the Zend. patigama, properly that which is to take place, the decree, the sentence; see on Dan 3:16. still depends upon : those dwelling in Samaria and the other towns on this side the river. The royal letter begins with , “Peace,” and so forth. is abbreviated from .
Ezr 4:18 “The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me.” part. pass. Peal, corresponds with the Hebrew part. Piel , made plain, adverbially, plainly, and does not signify “translated into Persian.”
Ezr 4:19 “And by me a command has been given, and search has been made; and it has been found that this city from of old hath lifted itself (risen) up against kings,” etc. , lifted itself up rebelliously, as (in Hebrew) in 1Ki 1:5.
Ezr 4:20 “There have been powerful kings in Jerusalem, and (rulers) exercising dominion over the whole region beyond the river” (westward of Euphrates). This applies in its full extent only to David and Solomon, and in a less degree to subsequent kings of Israel and Judah. On Ezr 4:20, comp. Ezr 4:13.
Ezr 4:21 “Give ye now commandment to hinder these people (to keep them from the work), that this city be not built until command (sc. to build) be given from me.” , Ithpeal of .
Ezr 4:22 “And be warned from committing an oversight in this respect,” i.e., take heed to overlook nothing in this matter ( , instructed, warned). “Why should the damage become great (i.e., grow), to bring injury to kings?”
Ezr 4:23 The result of this royal command. As soon as the copy of the letter was read before Rehum and his associates, they went up in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and hindered them by violence and force. with prosthetic only here, elsewhere (= ), arm, violence. Bertheau translates, “with forces and a host;” but the rendering of or by “force” can neither be shown to be correct from Eze 17:9 and Dan 11:15, Dan 11:31, nor justified by the translation of the lxx, .
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Jews Misrepresented. | B. C. 521. |
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. 7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this 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 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. 11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time. 12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. 13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. 14 Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 15 That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed. 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.
Cyrus stedfastly adhered to the Jews’ interest, and supported his own grant. It was to no purpose to offer any thing to him in prejudice of it. What he did was from a good principle, and in the fear of God, and therefore he adhered to it. But, though his reign in all was thirty years, yet after the conquest of Babylon, and his decree for the release of the Jews, some think that he reigned but three years, others seven, and then either died or gave up that part of his government, in which his successor was Ahasuerus (v. 6), called also Artaxerxes (v. 7), supposed to be the same that in heathen authors is called Cambyses, who had never taken such cognizance of the despised Jews as to concern himself for them, nor had he that knowledge of the God of Israel which his predecessor had. To him these Samaritans applied by letter for an order to stop the building of the temple; and they did it in the beginning of his reign, being resolved to lose no time when they thought they had a king for their purpose. See how watchful the church’s enemies are to take the first opportunity of doing it a mischief; let not its friends be less careful to do it a kindness. Here is,
I. The general purport of the letter which they sent to the king, to inform him of this matter. It is called (v. 6) an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The devil is the accuser of the brethren (Rev. xii. 10), and he carries on his malicious designs against them, not only by accusing them himself before God, as he did Job, but by acting as a lying spirit in the mouths of his instruments, whom he employs to accuse them before magistrates and kings and to make them odious to the many and obnoxious to the mighty. Marvel not if the same arts be still used to depreciate serious godliness.
II. The persons concerned in writing this letter. The contrivers are named (v. 7) that plotted the thing, the writers (v. 8) that put it into form, and the subscribers (v. 9) that concurred in it and joined with them in this representation, this misrepresentation I should call it. Now see here, 1. How the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his temple, with their companions. The building of the temple would do them no harm, yet they appear against it with the utmost concern and virulence, perhaps because the prophets of the God of Israel had foretold the famishing and perishing of all the gods of the heathen,Zep 2:11; Jer 10:11. 2. How the people concurred with them in imagining this vain thing. They followed the cry, though ignorant of the merits of the cause. All the several colonies of that plantation (nine are here mentioned), who had their denomination from the cities or countries of Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, c., whence they came, set their hands, by their representatives, to this letter. Perhaps they were incensed against these returned Jews because many of the ten tribes were among them, whose estates they had got into their possession, and of whom they were therefore jealous, lest they should attempt the recovery of them hereafter.
III. A copy of the letter itself, which Ezra inserts here out of the records of the kingdom of Persia, into which it had been entered and it is well we have it, that we may see whence the like methods, still taken to expose good people and baffle good designs, are copied.
1. They represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and greatly concerned for the honour and interest of it, and would have it thought that the king had no such loving faithful subjects in all his dominions as they were, none so sensible of their obligations to him, v. 14. Because we are salted with the salt of the palace (so it is in the margin), “we have our salary from the court, and could no more live without it than flesh could be preserved without salt;” or, as some think, their pay or pension was sent them in salt; or “Because we had our education in the palace, and were brought up at the king’s table,” as we find, Dan. i. 5. These were those whom he intended to prefer; they did eat their portion of the king’s meat. “Now, in consideration of this, it is not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour;” and therefore they urge him to stop the building of the temple, which would certainly be the king’s dishonour more than any thing else. Note, A secret enmity to Christ and his gospel is often gilded over with a pretended affection to Caesar and his power. The Jews hated the Roman government, and yet, to serve a turn, could cry, We have no king but Caesar. But (to allude to this), if those that lived upon the crown thought themselves bound in gratitude thus to support the interest of it, much more reason have we thus to argue ourselves into a pious concern for God’s honour; we have our maintenance from the God of heaven and are salted with his salt, live upon his bounty and are the care of his providence; and therefore it is not meet for us to see his dishonour without resenting it and doing what we can to prevent it.
2. They represent the Jews as disloyal, and dangerous to the government, that Jerusalem was the rebellious and bad city (v. 12), hurtful to kings and provinces, v. 15. See how Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. xlviii. 2), is here reproached as the scandal of the whole earth. The enemies of the church could not do the bad things they design against it if they did not first give it a bad name. Jerusalem had been a loyal city to its rightful princes, and its present inhabitants were as well affected to the king and his government as any of his provinces whatsoever. Daniel, who was a Jew, had lately approved himself so faithful to his prince that his worst enemies could find no fault in his management, Dan. vi. 4. But thus was Elijah most unjustly charged with troubling Israel, the apostles with turning the world upside down, and Christ himself with perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; and we must not think it strange if the same game be still played. Now here,
(1.) Their history of what was past was invidious, that within this city sedition had been moved of old time, and, for that cause, it was destroyed, v. 15. It cannot be denied but that there was some colour given for this suggestion by the attempts of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah to shake off the yoke of the king of Babylon, which, if they had kept close to their religion and the temple they were now rebuilding, they would never have come under. But it must be considered, [1.] That they were themselves, and their ancestors, sovereign princes, and their efforts to recover their rights, if there had not been in them the violation of an oath, for aught I know, would have been justifiable, and successful too, had they taken the right method and made their peace with God first. [2.] Though these Jews, and their princes, had been guilty of rebellion, yet it was unjust therefore to fasten this as an indelible brand upon this city, as if that must for ever after go under the name of the rebellious and bad city. The Jews, in their captivity, had given such specimens of good behaviour as were sufficient, with any reasonable men, to roll away that one reproach; for they were instructed (and we have reason to hope that they observed their instructions) to seek the peace of the city where they were captives and pray to the Lord for it, Jer. xxix. 7. It was therefore very unfair, though not uncommon, thus to impute the iniquity of the fathers to the children.
(2.) Their information concerning what was now doing was grossly false in matter of fact. Very careful they were to inform the king that the Jews had set up the walls of this city, nay, had finished them (so it is in the margin) and joined the foundations (v. 12), when this was far from being the case. They had only begun to build the temple, which Cyrus commanded them to do, but, as for the walls, there was nothing done nor designed towards the repair of them, as appears by the condition they were in many years after (Neh. i. 3), all in ruins. What shall be given, and what done, to these false tongues, nay, which is worse, these false pens? sharp arrows, doubtless, of the mighty, and coals of juniper,Psa 120:3; Psa 120:4. If they had not been perfectly lost to all virtue and honour they would not, and if they had not been very secure of the king’s countenance they durst not, have written that to the king which all their neighbours knew to be a notorious lie. See Prov. xxix. 12.
(3.) Their prognostics of the consequences were altogether groundless and absurd. They were very confident, and would have the king believe it upon their word, that if this city should be built, not only the Jews would pay no toll, tribute, or custom (v. 13), but (since a great lie is as soon spoken as a little one) that the king would have no portion at all on this side the river (v. 16), that all the countries on this side Euphrates would instantly revolt, drawn in to do so by their example; and, if the prince in possession should connive at this, he would wrong, not only himself, but his successors: Thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. See how every line in this letter breathes both the subtlety and malice of the old serpent.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Accusations, Verses 6-16
The context clearly implies that the Jews’ antagonists began their attempts at frustration of the building while Cyrus was still living, but it does not appear they succeeded in their intents. The Ahasuerus of verse 6 is likely the son and successor of Cyrus, who is known in history as Cambyses. Ahasuerus is the Hebrew form of the emperor’s title. Cambyses was beset with troubles during his reign of about nine years, including a campaign against Egypt. He died under mysterious circumstances, probably either murdered or a suicide. While it is not stated in the Scriptures what he did relative to the accusations against the Jews, they do show that the work was stopped (see Hag 1:1-6) on the temple. It must have been by his command.
Artaxerxes, in verse 7, is to be regarded as the successor of Cambyses. He was a usurper, named Smerdis, one of the Magian priests, who killed the legitimate heir to the throne. He was, himself, murdered after about eight months, but not before the Jews were commanded to cease the building. The informers against the Jews, to Artaxerxes, were Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, Persian officers. The Persian chancellor (probably the ruler of the area south of the Euphrates, here called the river), Rehum, and his secretary, Shimshai, also composed a letter warning the king against the work of the Jews. The various tribes named in verse 9 are those who were originally settled in the land by the Assyrian king following the fall of Samaria, some hundred and fifty years before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. “The great and noble Asnapper” appears to be Asshur-banipal, the son and successor of Esar-haddon, previously mentioned.
The letter which Rehum sent to the Persian king contained a number of charges and accusations against the Jews, some true and others evidently false. The first charge that the Jews were building the city again, having set up walls and joined the foundation, is not corroborated elsewhere by the Scriptures. If they did raise the walls again they must have been destroyed in some unknown way, for they were in desolation later when Nehemiah returned with permission from the king to restore them. It would seem this was merely an exaggeration to influence the king to interfere with further restoration of the temple.
The second charge, that Jerusalem was, or had been, a rebellious and bad city, was substantial. Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed it because they stubbornly refused to submit to him and repeatedly rebelled against him. Still further the history of Jerusalem would show that there had been a period when the kings of Israel had controlled all the lands south of the river (Euphrates) and had collected the tolls and tribute for themselves. This would have great weight against the Jews who returned to Jerusalem if it could be shown that they were refortifying and strengthening Jerusalem. The antagonists of the Jews suggested that the king search the archives, and he would find that their claim relative to the Jews’ former history were true. They made no reference to the Jews’ claim to be acting under the command and authority of the late emperor, Cyrus. Their purpose, they claimed, was to inform against the Jews out of loyalty to the king and a desire for the welfare of the empire.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. Israels enemies write letters to prevent rebuilding.
TEXT, Ezr. 4:6-16
6
Now in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
7
And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his colleagues, wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the text of the letter was written in Aramaic and translated from Aramaic.
8
Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes, as follows:
9
then wrote Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their colleagues, the judges and the lesser governors, the officials, the secretaries, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is, the Elamites,
10
and the rest of the nations which the great and honorable Osnappar deported and settled in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the region beyond the River. And now
11
this is the copy of the letter which they sent to him: To King Artaxerxes: Your servants, the men in the region beyond the River, and now
12
let it be known to the king, that the Jews who came up from you have come to us at Jerusalem; they are rebuilding the rebellious and evil city, and are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations.
13
Now let it be known to the king, that if that city is rebuilt and the walls are finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and it will damage the revenue of the kings.
14
Now because we are in the service of the palace, and it is not fitting for us to see the kings dishonor, therefore we have sent and informed the king,
15
so that a search may be made in the record books of your fathers. And you will discover in the record books, and learn that that city is a rebellious city and damaging to kings and provinces, and that they have incited revolt within it in past days; therefore that city was laid waste.
16
We inform the king that, if that city is rebuilt and the walls finished, as a result you will have no possession in the province beyond the River.
COMMENT
The Ahasuerus of Ezr. 4:6 is taken to be a title rather than a name; Youngs Analytical Concordance gives its meaning as King. He is identified as Cambyses in Persian history. The designation, Ahasuerus, is used again of a later king throughout the book of Esther, and of an earlier king in Dan. 9:1. No disposition of the letter mentioned here is recorded in the Bible; possibly it was ignored by the king.
Likewise in Ezr. 4:7, Artaxerxes may be a title meaning Great King, according to the same source. Another Artaxerxes will appear in Ezra 7, a generation later. These instances reinforce the likelihood that both of these are titles and not personal names.
The Artaxerxes of Ezr. 4:7 is thought to be Pseudo-Smerdis, who pretended to be a son of Cyrus and who usurped the throne for about seven months. We see the appropriateness, then, of the phrase, in the days of, in place of the phrase, in . . . his reign, applied to the former king in the previous verse. Thus the Bible subtly records the fact that the legitimacy of his rule was questioned. This dates the correspondence in 523 B.C., thirteen years after the work on the Temple had begun.
Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel are unidentified in any contemporary historical source. Tabeel, judging from his name (God is good) was a worshiper of God as the Samaritans would be. These three were apparently various officials of the Persian territory between the Euphrates River and the Mediterranean Sea (Ezr. 4:11). Their letter is reproduced in Ezr. 4:11-16. Reference is made to the text in Aramaic; the portion from Ezr. 4:8 to Ezr. 6:18 is in Aramaic, probably because the bulk of it is taken from official Persian documents, to which Ezra would have had access. The language used by the Persians for their international correspondence was Aramaic.
While Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew, as Dutch is to German or Portuguese is to Spanish, nevertheless they are different languages. During the Captivity the common people of Israel began to speak in Aramaic; only the government officials had been acquainted with it before (2Ki. 18:26). Consequently the Hebrew spoken in Judea in the N.T. was actually Aramaic, as can be observed from some of the words used by Jesus (Raca, Mat. 5:22; Bar-jonah, Mat. 16:17; Talitha Kum, Mar. 5:41; Ephphatha, Mar. 7:34).
Rehum, in Ezr. 4:8 f, is not to be identified with the man in Ezr. 2:2, who was a leader of the returnees. His title, commander, would make him a counsellor of the Persian king. The next name mentioned, Shimshai the scribe, would be the royal secretary. Obviously, then, the lesser officials named in Ezr. 4:7 (the rest of the colleagues in Ezr. 4:9) had gotten these more influential figures, closer to the king, to sign the actual letter.
Ezr. 4:9-10 are the salutation of the letter. Erech, Babylon, and Elam (with Susa as its capital) in Ezr. 4:9 were some of the conquered peoples whom the Assyrians settled in Samaria. Osnappar in Ezr. 4:10 is probably a shortened form of Ashurbanipal, known as Esar-haddons successor. The region beyond the river, as already noted, would be the territory ruled by Persia between the Euphrates River (Babylon) and the Mediterranean Sea, and under one general administration. The words, And now, are used in Aramaic correspondence of that age to mark the transition between the salutation and the body of a letter.[26]
[26] Interpreters Bible, Vol. III, p. 599.
Ezr. 4:11 summarizes the salutation and concludes again with the customary phrase, and now. Note that the writers identify themselves to the king as Your servants: a claim to loyalty in contrast to the disloyalty which they claimed to warn him against.
Ezr. 4:12 shows the bias and exaggeration of these foes. The words, rebellious and evil city, are intended solely to discredit; there was nothing in Israels conduct that warranted this judgmental title, at that time. The following words are of the same piece; Gods people are accused of rebuilding the city walls, when they were authorized only to rebuild the Temple. In fact, the accusation treats with silence the work being done on the Temple, Lies are the Devils progeny, as Jesus informs us (Joh. 8:44; Joh. 8:55). It is not until the time of Nehemiah, a half century later, that the Bible speaks of an organized effort to restore the city walls.
The exaggeration is all the more evident in that the words are finishing may be translated just as correctly have finished, as in the KJV. The falsehood is obvious. In Ezr. 4:13; Ezr. 4:16, the letter itself acknowledges that the walls had not actually been finished.
We do not mean that every example of exaggeration is an evidence that a person is deliberately working for the Devil; exaggeration is used for a variety of purposes. A well-meaning Christian on occasion may innocently or unintentionally use this device. But it is Gods nature that His speech coincides with reality and with constructiveness (Heb. 6:18 states this principle, and Gen. 1:3 gives an example); and the Christian seeks to be as much like God as possible (Lev. 11:44; 1Pe. 1:16).
What we have in the verse before us, however, is a designed misstatement intended for destructive purposes.
Ezr. 4:13 reveals the equally false assumptions drawn from the first falsehood. Tribute, custom, and toll are different forms of taxes.[27] The word revenue in Ezr. 4:13 is a conjectural translation. It is more likely that it should read at length; thus, at length (eventually) damage will be done to the king.[28] Their method thus was to aim at the kings self-concern.
[27] For more detail, see Word Studies, end of this chapter.
[28] Ellicotts Commentary on The Whole Bible, III, p. 467.
Ezr. 4:14 enlarges on this. The phrase, we are in the service of the palace, is most expressive; literally it reads, we eat the salt of the palace. This is first of all a recognition of their dependence on the king: our word salary incidentally comes from the Latin word for salt, and reflects the government policy of paying its servants with salt. But it is also a reference to the binding nature of a salt covenant (Num. 18:19; 2Ch. 13:5).[29] They were claiming that they were bound by covenant loyalty to reveal these threats to the king.
[29] . Oriental custom required that when persons had eaten salt together, they were brothers and must defend one another at all costs. Note what a long-standing and binding custom Judas violated when he broke bread with Jesus and went out and betrayed Him the very same hour (Joh. 13:21-30). Consider also the meaning of the churchs breaking bread together. More on this in Word Studies, end of this chapter.
In Ezr. 4:15 they assert that a check of the records will verify their charges. Est. 6:1 shows how carefully the events of the palace were recorded and consulted. Similar Babylonian records were also available, and are indicated by the phrase, your fathers (predecessors). The Babylonian Chronicle has been recovered, and even lists food rations for the captives from Judah, including Jehoiachin by name.
Observe that there is no charge of contemporary wrongdoing in this part of the letter, for which they claim any substantiation. It is all what they have done in past days; they charge that this was the reason Jerusalem was laid waste after its defeat, some sixty-five years before.
Ezr. 4:16 concludes that if Israel is allowed to continue its rebuilding, the result is that they would undermine the Persian governments control of the total area from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. That is crediting the people of Jerusalem with tremendous military power or influence far beyond reason. It might easily be argued that the building of an army could lead to military action or revolt; it is hard to see how defensive measures, such as building a wall, would be a threat to the peace of neighboring nations.
WORD STUDIES
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
TOLL: Halak: Ezr. 4:13; privilege to walk; hence, payment for passage through a land.
6.
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
(6) In the beginning of his reign.This Ahasuerus, another name for Cambyses, reigned seven years; and his accession to the throne was the time seized by the Samaritans for their accusation, of which we hear nothing more; suffice that the building languished.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Ahasuerus It is quite generally allowed that by this king we are to understand Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. Some, indeed, have sought to identify him with Xerxes, the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, but that hypothesis is utterly incompatible with the order of time evidently followed in this book. How Cambyses came to be called Ahasuerus by our author may not be now decided, but the difference in the names is not in itself sufficient to disprove the identity of the persons, and the son of Cyrus may have borne both these names. It appears that Smerdis was known by various names. See note on Ezr 4:7. And the writer of Esther (Ezr 1:1) is careful to define the Ahasuerus of his book, assuming that there was more than one Ahasuerus known to his readers. Cambyses is represented in all accounts that remain of him as one of the most passionate and tyrannical of kings. He early assassinated his brother Smerdis, being jealous of him as a rival. He is said to have married his own sisters, and to have brutally killed one of them in a fit of madness. He invaded and conquered Egypt, and this was the great deed of his reign. While absent upon this expedition he learned, according to Herodotus, that Smerdis the Magian had usurped his throne, and in his haste to mount his horse and return home to punish the impious pretender his sword accidentally struck his thigh, and he died soon after from the wound. So the Magian continued for a time in peaceable possession of the empire.
An accusation . This Hebrew word is the feminine form of the name of Satan, ( ,) the arch-adversary and accuser of mankind. This accusation against the Jews seems not to have accomplished any thing of note with this king of Persia, at least no result of it is recorded.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Subsequent History Of The Enmity Revealed Against The Returnees Up To The Time Of Nehemiah ( Ezr 4:6-23 ).
What follows up to Ezr 4:23 goes beyond the question of building the Temple. The writer now wishes to bring out precisely how dangerous these adversaries would in the future prove to be, and how long lasting was their enmity. Their attitude was to be seen as not just a temporary one, but as a constant one, which would grow ever more belligerent, would seek to frustrate all that the returnees tried to do, and would finally result in the intervention of the King of Persia himself. So he takes up the question of their continuing opposition, and ignoring chronology as being of secondary importance (he will turn back to the question of the building of the Temple in Ezr 4:24), he deals with the question of how their opposition would continue long after the building of the Temple.
What he is here dealing with and explaining is the continuing work of the hired experts who would go on with their activities for a long time, a work which had in view getting the returnees into trouble with the Persian authorities. This process would continue long after the building of the Temple. God’s people were to be allowed no rest. And the writer uses these examples because they were ones of which he had written details. We may presume hat he had no written evidence of earlier attempts. It is an indication of the hand of God at work that these attempts did not frustrate His purposes, although they did no doubt frustrate His suffering people. But one good thing it did do. It kept the returnees firmly to their purpose. There is nothing like opposition for the stiffening of resolve. Tribulation works patient endurance, and patient endurance produces expectancy, and that expectancy will not fail if it causes us to look truly to God (compare Rom 5:2-5).
Ezr 4:6
‘And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.’
The opposition continued on over a long period. One major attempt to put the returnees in the wrong was made in the reign of Ahasuerus, that is of Xerxes I (486-465 BC), who took Esther as one of his wives. This was at least thirty years after the building of the Temple had been completed. And at that time an accusation was written against the returnees. But it clearly came to nothing.
Ezr 4:7
‘And in the days of Artaxerxes (Hebrew: Artachshasta) wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, to Artaxerxes king of Persia, and the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic (characters), and set forth in the Aramaic (language)’
Another attack was made in the days of Artaxerxes, the king of Persia (old Persian arta-zxa-ra) (464-423 BC), who followed Xerxes I and was in the end the king who sent Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. It is clear that the writer had obtained full details of what had occurred. He even knew the names of the experts responsible. He describes them as ‘Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions’. Mithredath is a Persian name (see Ezr 1:8) while Tabeel is an Aramaic name (compare Isa 7:6).
Alternatively the word Bishlam, if repointed can signify ‘in peace’ (be shalom), and it is so translated in LXX. Thus we could render ‘in the days of Artaxerxes, with the agreement of Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his companions wrote to Artaxerxes –’.
These ‘wrote to Artaxerxes in Aramaic script using the Aramaic language’. But this information is rather superfluous. It would have been sufficient to say that it was written in Aramaic. Naturally someone using Aramaic would write in the Aramaic script. So alternately this may be translated as, ‘the writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic script but translated’, in other words it was translated into Hebrew using the Aramaic script. The change to using the Aramaic script for Hebrew records occurs around this time. It may be that it was because the copy he had was in Hebrew but in Aramaic script that he did not include its contents, not wanting to confuse his readers.
The second ‘Aramaic’ will then be a signpost standing on its own and indicating that what follows is in Aramaic, and is so until Ezr 6:18. This continued use of Aramaic may well have been because he wanted to present the original records which he will now call on, in the original Aramaic, but did not want to cause unnecessary confusion by switching to Hebrew for the explanatory verses. This would tie in with what we have suggested above about why the previous letter was not cited because it was a document translated into Hebrew but written in Aramaic script. We must remember that both he and his anticipated readers were equally fluent in Aramaic. In this regard we should note that the Aramaic section is in a Hebrew envelope. Ezr 4:1-7 is in Hebrew, as is Ezr 6:19-22. What comes in between is in Aramaic. This was much more tidy than a constant switching between Hebrew and Aramaic, and especially so if we see chapters 1-6 as the work of one writer, possibly even Ezra himself, with chapters 7-10 dealing with the work of Ezra, and including the Ezra first person memoirs (Ezr 7:27 to Ezr 9:15).
Furthermore there may be the intention of indicating that all that occurs in Ezr 4:8 to Ezr 6:18 does so at the behest of the Persian Empire. It is outside the control of the returnees. But in the end it is an indication that God controls the Persian Empire.
Once again nothing appears to have come of the accusation against the returnees, which appears to have petered out without any repercussions.
Written In Aramaic: Ezr 4:8 to Ezr 6:18 .
Ezr 4:8
‘Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this manner,’
The third attack was made by Rehum the chancellor (literally ‘lord commander’, high government official) and Shimshai the scribe (secretary). Rehum was probably a high official of a type typical of Persian rule, whose responsibility was to write directly to the king concerning matters that occurred in his area. He now wrote to Artaxerxes laying accusations against Jerusalem, no doubt stirred on by the adversaries spoken of earlier (Ezr 4:1), who had manufactured a case against the returnees. Artaxerxes was the king who sent Ezra the Scribe to the assistance of the returnees, and later Nehemiah himself, so he was not anti-Jewish.
Ezr 4:9-10
‘Then (wrote) Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions (colleagues), the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River.’
This would appear to be the preamble to the letter, a kind of official heading describing who were responsible for its contents. It would head up the letter, and is typical of Aramaic correspondence at the time.
‘Then.’ The word stands on its own and we might expect it to be followed by a verb like ‘wrote’. It may here, however, simply stand on its own and signify ‘this is the result’ or ‘as follows’.
Those responsible for the letter are then described. The names that follow Rehum and Shimshai are those of peoples who had been transported to the area by the Assyrians. They are here represented as having been transported by ‘the great and noble Os-napper’, (As-nipal as an abbreviation of Ashur-bani-pal, which is then revocalised, with r becoming l under Persian influence), but reference to such a transportation may have been a simplification (compare Ezr 4:2 where Esar-haddon was cited, presumably because those who led that deputation had been transported by Esar-haddon). A first transportation had taken place under Sargon II when the Israelites were replaced by peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avar, Hamath and Sepharvaim (2Ki 17:24), and a further transportation both in and out had occurred under Esarhaddon (see Ezr 4:2). The Assyrians believed that by moving people around they could stop them from establishing roots, and thus becoming a danger. But we certainly do know that Ashur-bani-pal campaigned in this area in 640-639 BC, against a rebellion that had broken out, and at such a time transportations, both in and out, were likely. It was continuing Assyrian policy. Thus the peoples described were what remained in the area after these different transportations, presented succintly as being transported by Ashur-bani-pal (they would not want to go into full detail).
‘The Dinaites.’ This can be repointed as meaning ‘the judges’ (there was no pointing in the ancient texts, only the consonants, so that it is not altering the original text). That would serve to bring out that the opposition was clearly high-powered. ‘And the Apharsathchites’. This may signify ‘the envoys’ or ‘the inspectors’. Thus two important groups of officials would be seen as adding their weight to the letter. It is an indication of how deep and widespread was the opposition to the Jews.
The names that follow are then listed without conjunctions, and are the names of peoples. Note among them the ‘Babylonians’ and ‘Elamites’, both well known from elsewhere. The aim is to bring out the widespread nature of the complainants. This was to be seen as no petty quarrel. All were to be seen as in agreement, and concerned for the welfare of the king as his noble subjects. Then comes the sweeping up statement, ‘and the rest of the nations’. By this time those ‘nations’ were a real mixture.
‘The great and noble Os-napper’. Os-napper is the Hebrew rendering of Ashur-bani-pal, and consists of As-nipal as an abbreviation of the name, which is then revocalised, with r becoming l under Persian influence. They wanted the king of Persia to know that they had never borne any grudge against their overlords, but rather respected and admired them, as, of course, they did him. They wanted him to think that they saw Ashur-bani-pal (Os-napper) as ‘great and noble’, implying by that, that that was also how as they saw the present king of Persia.
‘And set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest (of the land) beyond the River.’ These peoples had been set in Samaria and in the land west and south of the Euphrates. ‘Beyond the River’ was the name given to these lands which included Syria and Palestine. They were controlled by a Persian satrap, who was also at one stage satrap of Babylon, to whom the various ‘governors’ were responsible.
Ezr 4:11
‘And now this is the copy of the letter which they sent to Artaxerxes the king.’
These word introduce the main body of the letter. It is by these words written here in Ezr 4:11 a that the main body of the letter is distinguished from the preamble.
Ezr 4:11
“Your servants the men beyond the River.”
The preamble having provided the full details the opening address can be made in a few words. All the kings subjects were seen as his ‘servants’ from the greatest to the least, and they want him to know that it is as his ‘servants’ that they are writing. The aim will now be to demonstrate to the king how dangerous the returnees are. We must recognise that the details that we know would not be known to the king. All he would have to go on was past records and the advice passed on to him by these officials who represented a seemingly formidable group.
Ezr 4:12
“And now be it known to the king, that the Jews who came up from you are come to us to Jerusalem. They are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations.”
They want the king to realise what ‘the Jews who came up from you’ are doing. ‘The Jews who came up from you’ probably refers to the group who had come with Ezra which would still be at the back of his memory. They wanted him to see this group as a group of rebels who, as soon as they were out of the king’s sight, determined on rebellion. It would not have been so convincing to represent as rebels people who had already been there for over fifty years without causing any trouble, but a people stirred up to religious zeal by a formidable person like Ezra was a different matter. The point being made is that these newcomers have immediately set about building and fortifying Jerusalem. (Their charge would have had no teeth if it was the building of the Temple that was in mind).
Note their description of Jerusalem as ‘the rebellious and the bad city’. They wanted it immediately to have a tainted reputation. ‘And have finished the walls and repaired the foundation.’ This was no doubt an exaggeration. The reference to the repair of the foundations, would appear to indicate that the work on the walls was still going on, but they were far from finished, and it was, of course, due to behaviour like theirs that the walls were needed. It was they and their associates who threatened the peace of the people of Judah, not the other way round. We can compare with this the dangers from outside attack that Nehemiah would have to face when he rebuilt the walls, even though that was specifically under the authorisation of the king.
Their accusations would have been reinforced by the fact that the Persians had been experiencing trouble from the region. Ezra and his party had arrived in 458 BC. In 448 BC Megabyzus, the satrap of the province Beyond The River, raised up a revolt against Persia. If these people who were writing the letter, who may not have been involved in that rebellion, could give the impression that Jerusalem was intending to join in this revolt, it would clearly add emphasis to their letter. There was also trouble in Egypt which had been going on for some years, and was not finally put down until 454 B, four years after the arrival of Ezra. Jerusalem would be known from Babylonian records as often causing trouble in collusion with Egypt. In both cases tribute would have been withheld. Thus to a king ruling far away in Persia, who was uneasy about the region, any seemingly warlike act could have been seen as a danger.
Ezr 4:13
“Be it known now to the king, that, if this city is built, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or rent, and in the end it will be hurtful to the kings.”
They fed the king’s fears by pointing out that if the people of Jerusalem were allowed to make themselves secure by completing the defences, (thereby giving a clear indication that the walls were not yet finished), their next step would be to withhold ‘tribute, customs duties and rent’ (these are loan words from Akkadian and their exact equivalent is not known). And this would obviously be hurtful to the wellbeing and wealth of all future kings. The accumulation of wealth was one of the reasons for establishing an empire.
Ezr 4:14
“Now because we eat the salt of the palace (literally ‘because we have salted the salt of the palace’), and it is not fitting for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king,”
They wanted the king to recognise that they had no ulterior motive for their actions, and that they were writing solely due to their deep sense of loyalty to the king because having partaken of the royal benefits, they had a deep sense of what was owed to the king. To eat of someone’s salt, that is to receive their hospitality, was in ancient times to seal friendship, and give an assurance of peaceful intent. To act dishonourably after partaking of hospitality was deeply frowned on. Thus the king could be sure that their friendship and loyal support was genuine. Indeed, they wanted him to know, that it was precisely because they had such a deep sense of loyalty to him, that they had written to the king and certified what was going on. This does not necessarily signify that they had actually enjoyed hospitality at the king’s palace, although some of the leaders may well have done so when taking tribute, but simply to give that impression and indicate that they saw the benefits that they received from the king as putting them in the same position. Their words were enough to warm the heart. Who could refuse to be grateful for such touching loyalty? It was, of course, mainly pure pretence, but if they had in fact refrained from taking part in a rebellion (see above), it would have added emphasis to their claim.
In MT the words are ‘since we have salted the salt of the palace’, and this, repointed without altering the consonants, could be translated, ‘since our salt is the salt of the palace’. Solemn pledges were often linked with salt (Lev 2:13; Num 18:19; 2Ch 13:5), thus alternatively they may be saying, ‘because we have made a solemn covenant with you’.
Ezr 4:15
“That search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. So will you find in the book of the records, and know, that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time, which was the reason why this city was laid waste.”
They then unleashed their masterstroke. Let the king examine the ancient records (the records of the kings of Babylon. The Persians saw themselves as continuing the Babylonian empire). He would soon discover that Jerusalem had constantly been a rebellious city, and had caused damage to kings and provinces by their activity (especially in association with Egypt), and had been constantly involved in seditious activity. Indeed, that was the very reason why the walls of Jerusalem had been destroyed in the first place. And certainly history would have added some weight to their accusations, as three investments of Jerusalem would prove, but there was a huge difference between an established kingdom with its own army and a fierce sense of independence, and the motley group of returnees who were now in Jerusalem and rather had cause to be grateful to the kings of Persia, and were desperately seeking to protect themselves from the violent behaviour of the very people who had written the letter. The king, however, was not to know this. All he had to go on was past records, and a recognition of the instability of the region.
Ezr 4:16
“We certify to the king that, if this city be built, and the walls finished, by this means you will have no portion beyond the River.”
The writers then underlined their point with a grim (and ridiculous) warning. If the city was built no one who lived in Beyond The River would be safe. With mighty Jerusalem established the Persian empire might well find itself bereft of the province of Beyond The River. To any who know the facts such an idea was, of course, absurd. It was true that Egypt might well be a threat to the Empire with its struggle for independence. The rebellion of Megabyzus might also have been a potential danger. But little Jerusalem with its struggling immigrants was hardly in a position to affect either. They had no army, no chariots and no trained fighting men. That was why they wanted walls. The king, however, was not to know this.
The king could, of course have discovered all this by extensive enquiry, and perhaps he later did so. But for the present it was a simple matter just to make a quick check of the records and then to forbid the carrying on of the work. And that was what he did. Indeed, the fact that he stopped at that is evidence that he was not over duly concerned, simply being cautious lest there be any truth in it (it will be noted that he did not demand the dismantling of what had already been built).
Ezr 4:17
‘Then sent the king an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions who dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of Beyond the River:’
We are now given a copy of the king’s reply. This would, of course, have been produced by the recipients as evidence that they were acting on behalf of the king. The reply is addressed to those who had sent the previous letter.
Ezr 4:17
“Peace.”
A recognised form of greeting.
Ezr 4:17-19
“And now, the letter which you sent to us has been read before me word by word, and I decreed, and search has been made, and it is found that this city of old time has made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made in it.”
The king confirmed that the letter had been read to him in full and that he had accordingly initiated a search of the records. And he agreed that what they had claimed had been confirmed. Jerusalem had in the past been rebellious, and had been involved in sedition against its overlords.
Ezr 4:20
“There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all of Beyond the River, and tribute, customs duties, and rent, was paid to them.”
This picture of a mighty kingdom receiving tribute, customs duties and rent may suggest that in the records was some memory of the great days of David and Solomon, for they alone could have been described as ‘ruling over all of Beyond the River’, and indeed such a memory may have been conveyed by such men as Daniel who were high in the Babylonian, and then the Persian, hierarchy. But it might equally have been a rather exaggerated picture of the reign of kings like Hezekiah and Josiah. Either way the one time greatness of Jerusalem is brought out. The point behind the statement is that past kings of Jerusalem have indeed been mighty enough to trouble empires, reinforcing the idea of the danger that Jerusalem presented.
Alternately some see ‘the mighty kings’ as referring to the Babylonian and Persian kings, and suggest that by it the king is demonstrating that he has the same rights as his predecessor.
Ezr 4:21
“Now give an order to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not built, until a decree shall be made by me.”
So the king called on them to give an order (command) that the builders should cease work so that the city would not be fortified unless and until a decree came from him. It is not necessary to see this instruction to give an order as indicating an official decree (contrast Ezr 6:12). It is simply an instruction as to how to proceed. The word ‘order’, while of the same root as the one translated ‘decree’ in the latter half of the verse, is different from it. It is true that it is elsewhere used to indicate decrees, but that is when the orders are specifically made by the king. It is, however, also used of God ‘commanding’ where it is in contrast with the making of a decree (Ezr 6:14), whilst the same word is used of Rehum (Ezr 4:17) when he is called ‘lord commander’.
Note that there is no suggestion by the king that what had been built should be pulled down, and fortunately, in view of later events, the order was specifically described as only temporary, with a possibility of it being rescinded by a decree from the king. This may suggest that he was not altogether happy with the story that he had been told and intended that the matter should be looked into further, but, as Ezr 4:22 makes clear, he nevertheless wanted his instruction to be carried out swiftly so as to ensure there was no possibility of the king’s revenues being affected.
Ezr 4:22
“And take heed that you be not slack in this. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?”
So the king then called on them not to be slack in carrying out his instructions lest damage be caused both to his own treasury, and the treasury of his successors. They were to issue the decree immediately so as to ensure the prevention of what they feared. It will be noted that he made no reference to the use of force, although, of course, he would have expected the decree to be enforced if it was necessary. Thus they went beyond their remit in using force.
Ezr 4:23
‘Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.’
It would appear that the recipients of the letter went beyond the king’s command, for as soon as they had heard what the king had instructed they raced to Jerusalem and used violence in order to prevent the work continuing. The impression given is that, rather than issuing an order and seeing if it was carried out, they acted precipitously, probably in great glee. It was clearly a vindictive action. Neh 1:3 may well be seen as indicating that it was at this time that they demolished the wall and burned the gates.
Thus the writer ends the survey of history, the aim of which was to bring out how dangerous the adversaries would turn out to be.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
It should seem that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are both names of the same person: probably meaning the same as King. And it should seem that the enemies of the church caught at the first moment in the opening of this man’s reign to throw down the temple. There must have been a period of at least 12 years in this interval. And Reader! do not overlook (for it is a feature which hath in all ages marked the character of God’s enemies) how disaffection to government is urged by way of exciting the displeasure of the court against God’s faithful servants. And was not our Lord Jesus accused in the same manner as if he forbad to give tribute to Caesar? Whereas Jesus paid the tribute, and those that accused him hated the Roman government, under whom Judea was in tribute, and would not have paid it if they had dared to refrain. Witness their hatred to the tax-gatherers the publicans.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Ver. 6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus ] That is, of Cambyses, who is also called Artaxerxes in the next verse; for these two names were given to many kings of Persia; like as Pharaoh was to the kings of Egypt, as a title of honour. Ahasuerus signifieth a hereditary prince. Daniel calleth him the prince of the kingdom of Persia, Dan 10:13 , because he was viceroy in his father’s absence. Infamous he is for many lewd pranks (as that he killed his brother, and then his own sister, after he had first married her, and made a law that any man might do the like), yet was he not so ungracious a son to Cyrus as our Henry II’s eldest son was; whom he not only crowned king during his own life, but also, to do him honour at his coronation, renounced the name of a king for that day, and, as sewer, served at the table. For which he was thus requited, My father, said he, is not dishonoured by attending on me; for I am both a king’s and a queen’s son, and so is not he.
In the beginning of his reign
Wrote they an accusation
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 4:6
6Now in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
Ezr 4:6 now in the reign of Ahasuerus This chapter is very confusing unless one sees the Jewish mentality behind its structure. It is not in chronological order. Ezr 4:6-23 is a parenthesis which deals with a period of Samaritan opposition over many years covering not only the rebuilding of the second temple but the finishing of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah.
Ahasuerus Historians assert that this is the Hebrew name for Esther’s husband, who is known by his Greek name as Xerxes I, who was the son of Darius I. He reigned from 486 B.C. to 464 B.C. Notice that from Zerubbabel’s time (about 520 B.C., cf. Ezr 4:24) we have moved into the future (as we had moved into the past in Ezr 4:5) to show consistent opposition to the rebuilding of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem by the inhabitants of the Province Beyond the River.
SPECIAL TOPIC: Brief Outline of Historical Allusions to Persian Kings
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Ahasuerus = the venerable king. See App-57, and p. 618. An appellative, used here of Cyrus (Ezr 4:5), or retrospectively of Astyages; or, this verse may he retrospective, and should he in parenthesis.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Ezr 4:6-23
Ezr 4:6-23
SAMARITAN OPPOSITION CONTINUED UNTIL 446 B.C.
“And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel, and the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letters was written in the Syrian character, and set forth in the Syrian tongue. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth.
“This is the copy of the the letter they sent to Artaxerxes the king: Thy servants, the men beyond the River, and so forth. Be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations. Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful unto the kings. Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not meet for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore have we sent and certified the king: that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time; for which cause was this city laid waste. We certify the king that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, thou shalt have no portion beyond the River.
“Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. And I decreed, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. There have been mighty kings also over Jeruslaem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, custom, and toll was paid unto them. Make ye now a decree to cause these men to cease, and that the city be not builded, until a decree shall be made by me. And take heed that ye be not slack herein: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
“Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews and made them to cease by force and power.”
Here is the end of the long parenthesis. Note that this letter to Artaxerxes was followed promptly by his decree to shut down the building of Jerusalem (not the house of God; that had been finished long ago). “We must date this decree in 446 B.C.; and it was the news of this disaster which so shocked Nehemiah and forced him into mourning and prayers (Neh 1:3-4).” From this it is clear that the Samaritan opposition lasted from 535 B.C. to 446 B.C., a period of at least 89 years.
“Cause these men to cease … until a decree shall be made by me” (Ezr 4:21). This was a very important line in the letter, because, according to the foolish tradition of Persian kings, “Their laws of the Medes and the Persians could not be altered.” Artaxerxes, here, very wisely left the door open either for himself or a successor to change his mind and let the building of Jerusalem continue.
Having disposed of this long parenthesis in which he spelled out the Samaritan opposition, the author of Ezra at once resumed the narrative regarding the building of the temple, which had been delayed because of the Samaritan opposition, and as we learn from the Minor Prophets, because of the indifference of God’s people themselves. Thus, between Ezr 4:23 and Ezr 4:24 there is a retrogression in time from 446 B.C. to 520 B.C., which was the second year of Darius I. Thus, he leaps backwards in the narrative some 74 years!
E.M. Zerr:
Ezr 4:6. This Ahasuerus is at the head of the 2nd column of your chart. In this reign these adversaries continued their opposition to the work of erecting the temple. No further detail is given of what they did except to write a letter to the Persian king in power at that time, whose name was referred to above. The notation to be made in this column is, “Work on the temple is still hindered.”
Ezr 4:7. Artaxerxes is at the head of the 3rd column of your chart. His reign was short, but much was done in that 1 year. The letter written by the counsellors to the preceding Persian ruler had its desired effect by causing the work to be hindered. Those who did the writing in the preceding reign were the hired counsellors and referred to by the pronoun “they.” Whether the persons named in this and some following verses were the same men, we do not know. But we do know that they used their influence in behalf of the adversaries of the Jews. They wrote a letter to Artaxerxes the Persion king, who, we should bear in mind, was then in Babylon. The letter was written in the Syrian tongue, which was another form of Aramean. These two words are used somewhat interchangeably in the Bible, and yet there is a distinction that should be recognized at times, or confusion will result. I will quote from history a few paragraphs for the information of the reader, and he is requested to refer to this verse and its comments when there is occasion for the information. “Aramaic languages are so called from Aram, a geographical term which in old Semitic usage designates nearly the same districts as the Greek word, Syria. Aram, however, does not include Palestine while it comprehends Mesopotamia. (Heb. Aram of two rivers), a region which the Greeks frequently distinguish from Syria proper. Thus the Aramic languages may be geographically defined as the Semitic dialects originally current in Mesopotamia and the regions extending S. W. from the Euphrates to Palestine.” Britannica, Vol. 2, p. 307. “Etymologically, ‘Syria’ is merely an abbreviation of ‘Assyria,’ a name which covered the subject lands of the Assyrian empire, the subject-people being also called ‘Syrians.’ Afterwards, in the Graeco-Roman period, the shorter word came to be restricted to the territory west of the Euphrates, the designation ‘Syrians,’ however, being given to the great mass of the Semitic population dwelling between the Tigris and the Mediterranean, who are more accurately called Arameans.” Britannica, 22-821. “Aram, which occurs in Scripture with the same frequency as Asshur, is, like Asshur, a name concerning the application of which there is no doubt. Our translators almost always render the word, as did the Septuagint interpreters, by ‘Syria’ and the term though etymologically quite distinct, is beyond a doubt, in its use by the Hebrews, a near equivalent for the ‘Syria’ of the Greeks and Romans. It designates a people distinct from, yet closely allied with, the Assyrians, which, in the re motest times whereto history reaches, was established in the valley of the middle Euphrates, and in the tract between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean. This people, known to itself as Aramean, continued the predominant race in the country to the time of the Mohammedan conquest.” Rawlinson, Origin of Nations, p. 234. “Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the foot of the great mountain range of Kurdistan and Luristan intervenes a territory long famous in the world’s history, and the chief site of three out of five empires of whose history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or ‘Syria of the two rivers’; to the Greeks and Romans as Mesopotamia, or ‘the betweenriver country.’ ” Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Vol. 1, P. 2. See also, in same volume, pp. 43, 179, 236, 262. These men were subjects of the Persian power, but were of Syrian origin, hence they wrote their letter in that tongue . But since their king was a Persian, they realized they would have to send along also a Persian translation of the letter. That is what is meant by the words interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
Ezr 4:8-9. I do not know just how many different persons had a direct part in writing the letter, but evidently all of these who are named had something to do in forming the epistle A chancellor was an important official in the employ of a king. A scribe corresponded to our secretary. The difficult names in verse 9 are some of the groups that had been brought into that country after the 10 tribes were taken into captivity. The account of this transferring of the foreign clans is recorded in 2 Kings 17.
Ezr 4:10. In the account given by the writer of 2 Kings, Esarhaddon, an important king of the Assyrians, is said to have brought these people over to Samaria, while here it says Asnapper was the man who did it. But there is no difficulty on that subject. A king or other leading man is said to have done a deed, when he has it done by one of his officers. Smith’s Bible Dictionary has this to say on this matter: “Asnapper (swift), mentioned in Ezr 4:10 as the person who settled the Cuthaeans in the cities of Samaria. He was probably a general of Esarhaddon.” After giving all those names, representing the various groups of persons cooperating in sending this letter, the writer sums up by the words and at such times, which corresponds to our “etc.”
Ezr 4:11. This verse is the introduction to the letter, with a general salutation that includes without naming, the various groups of people joining in the epistle that is addressed to the king of Persia. Their introduction concludes with the same words that mean “etc.”
Ezr 4:12. Jerusalem had rebelled against the king of Babylon (2Ki 24:1), and had paid the penalty for it by being destroyed and its people taken into captivity. But that was over 80 years prior to this date. In that time the captivity had been ended and the captives had been given authority to do the very thing they were doing at the time this letter was planned. We should not become confused over mention of the walls as being set up. We know that it was in Nehemiah’s time (75 years later) that the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt. The walls mentioned here refer to the walls forming the foundation of the temple. It is true the adversaries feared that the entire city with its walls would be restored. But their immediate concern was for the walls of the foundation of the house. The language in Ezr 5:3; Ezr 5:9; Ezr 5:16 and Ezr 6:14 shows they used the word wall in connection with the house of the Lord.
Ezr 4:13. These adversaries complained that if the work of the Jews was allowed to go on to completion, then the city would become independent and break off all diplomatic relations with the king. It is remarkable how forgetful an envious mind can be. At the start of this work, these very adversaries proposed helping with it. Now they claimed that such work was in rebellion against the king. Before, they pretended they wished to join in the work because it was on behalf of the God whom they all served. Next they opposed having the work done at all because of their loyalty to the king of Persia. When a man so glaringly contradicts himself, it is evident that he does not have an honest basis for his activities.
Ezr 4:14. If either of the two motives these men stated was the true one, it was the first. Their support might be cut off if the king should lose some of his revenue. Selfishness was the true sentiment that prompted their ac tivities, but they pretended to be concerned about the king’s honor.
Ezr 4:15. The paragraph contained in this verse states some truth and some error. What truth it has is used in a way to make a false impression. It was true that the nation of which Jerusalem was the capital had opposed other provinces, but it was because of their evil ways. It is also true that the city was destroyed when it rebelled against the Babylonians. But in referring to those facts, the writers connected events that were many years apart, and which occurred by far different causes. When the city was destroyed, it was done by the nation that God caused to come against it. And that was done in punishment for their taking up the corrupt practices of the very kind of people who were writing this letter to the Persian king. In asking the king to search the official records, they went far enough back to omit the later accounts, that showed the authority for the present work that the Jews were doing. That record, however, will be brought to light before the case is ended.
Ezr 4:16. The previous warning was repeated and summed up in the words have no portion this side of the river (of Euphrates). They meant that if the government in Jerusalem was allowed to be reestablished, it would again take possession of all the territory west of the noted river.
Ezr 4:17. The warning and suggestion of the letter had the effect intended by its authors. The king of Persia was intimidated into having the official records examined. All kings and other rulers keep an account of the transactions within their realms, and of other countries in any way connected with them. But king Artaxerxes did not cause a complete search to be made; he looked only for the item that was suggested to him by the letter. Having done so, he sent an answer, and this verse is the formal salutation to the persons whose letter is being answered, the ones named in Ezr 4:8-9. Peace, and at such a time is a friendly expression as a part of the salutation. Moffatt’s translation condenses the whole phrase into “Greetings, etc.”
Ezr 4:18. Plainly read means the letter was interpreted to the king so that he could understand it in his (the Persian) language, it having been written in the Syrian tongue (Ezr 4:7). The whole performance as to the composition of this letter and the accompanying explanation, might well be described as the act of handing a student in a foreign language a sentence to translate, and with it handing him a vocabulary. The difference in this case is, the servants made the application of the vocabulary for the benefit of the king.
Verse 19. This verse repeats practically what the letter declared (in Ezr 4:15).
Ezr 4:20. This verse makes the report even stronger than did the letter. It admits that mighty kings had ruled in Jerusalem. A very important item in the Persian record is the declaration that the government at Jerusalem had ruled over all the countries beyond the (Euphrates) river. That was promised to Abraham (Gen 15:18), and actually realized by Solomon (1Ki 4:21). So it is interesting to find the Persian records corroborating those in our Bible.
Ezr 4:21. The command directed to be given would be a royal decree and effective at once. However, an intimation was made that the king was taking the subject under advisement for further investigation. He left open the prospects of another order that might change the one just given. We shall find. that it did take place, but not in the reign of this king.
Ezr 4:22. The urge for strict obedience of the edict was based on the welfare of the kings, meaning the kings of the Persian Empire. The question of what was right or wrong was not considered; only the advantages of these heathen rulers were given consideration in transmitting the royal decree.
Ezr 4:23. Here is another place to make a marking on the chart. In the 3rd column write as follows: “Work on the temple is stopped by order of the king.” The promptness of the men when they received the order is significant; they went up in haste. Another thing that should be noted is, they made the work to be stopped by force and power. The first word is from MBA and the definition of Strong is, “An orthographical variation for DEBA an arm, i. e. (figuratively) power.” The second is from CHAYIL and Strong defines it, “An army, or strength.” The thought is, they were compelled to stop by physical force that was backed by the military units of Persia. The Jews would not cease to work upon the mere order of these coun sellors. They had already had a test of that kind, when they had the proposal to help in the building project. (Vs. 2, 3.) There is no indication that the official letter was read or even shown to the Jews. They were told to cease a work that they knew had been ordered by a former king of Persia, hence were doing what they knew to be lawful. But when physical force was brought against them, the only thing that could be done was to stop.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Ahasuerus
The Cambyses of secular history (529-521 BC); not the Ahasuerus of Esther, who is the Xerxes of secular history (485 BC). (See Scofield “Dan 5:31”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
am 3475, bc 529
Ahasuerus: Heb. Ahashverosh, This was Cambyses, son of Cyrus, who succeeded his father, am 3475, and reigned seven years and five months.
wrote: Mat 27:37, Act 24:5-9, Act 24:13, Act 25:7, Rev 12:10
Reciprocal: Gen 26:21 – Sitnah Est 1:1 – Ahasuerus Dan 11:2 – three
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 4:6. In the reign of Ahasuerus A common name of divers kings of Persia. This Ahasuerus was probably Smerdis, one of the magi who seized the kingdom after Cambyses. Wrote they unto him an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem Importing that they intended to set up for themselves, and not to depend upon the king of Persia.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezr 4:6 f. These are two stray verses which have been left in the text here by mistake. This offers a good example of the way in which fragments of sources are jumbled together in our book. Ezr 4:6 refers to a letter (the writer is not mentioned) written to Xerxes, who is not mentioned elsewhere in the book, containing an accusation, not specified, against the Jews. Ezr 4:7 refers to another letter written in Aramaic by Mithredath (mentioned in Ezr 1:8 as the treasurer of Cyrus) and others to Artaxerxes; but it does not say what the letter was about. In Ezr 4:5 we are in the reign of Cyrus, 536, and Darius, 521; in Ezr 4:6 at the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, 485; in Ezr 4:7 in the days of Artaxerxes, 464424; in Ezr 4:8 ff. again in the days of Artaxerxes, but a different letter from that referred to in Ezr 4:7 is dealt with. This shows the inextricable tangle in which these verses are as they now stand. Scholars have suggested a number of solutions, but they differ from each other considerably.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
4:6 And in the reign of {d} Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they [unto him] an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
(d) He was also called Artaxerxes which is a Persian name, some think it was Cambises Cyrus’ son, or Darius, as in Ezr 4:5.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
THE COST OF AN IDEALISTS SUCCESS
Ezr 4:6-23
THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra contains an account of a correspondence between the Samaritan colonists and two kings of Persia, which follows sharply on the first mention of the intrigues of the enemies of Judah and Benjamin at the Persian court in the later days of Cyrus, and which precedes the description of the fortunes of the Jews in the reign of Darius. If this has its right chronological position in the narrative, it must relate to the interval during which the temple-building was in abeyance. In that case the two kings of Persia would be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus, and Pseudo-Bardes. But the names in the text are Ahasuerus (Ahashverosh) and Artaxerxes (Artahshashta). It has been suggested that these are second names for the predecessors of Darius. Undoubtedly it was customary for Persian monarchs to have more than one name. But elsewhere in the Biblical narratives these two names are invariably applied to the successors of Darius-the first standing for the welt-known Xerxes and the second for Artaxerxes Longimanus. The presumption therefore is that the same kings are designated by them here. Moreover, when we examine the account of the correspondence with the Persian court, we find that this agrees best with the later period. The opening verses of the fourth chapter of Ezra deal with the building of the temple; the last verse of that chapter and the succeeding narrative of the fifth chapter resume the same topic. But the correspondence relates to the building of the walls of the city. There is not a word about any such work in the context. Then in the letter addressed to Artaxerxes the writers describe the builders of the walls as “the Jews which came up from thee.” {Ezr 4:12} This description would not fit Zerubbabel and his followers, who migrated under Cyrus. But it would apply to those who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes. Lastly, the reign of Pseudo-Bardes is too brief for all that would have to be crowded into it. It only occupied seven months. Yet a letter is sent up from the enemies of the Jews; inquiry is made into the history of Jerusalem by Persian officials at the court; a reply based on this inquiry is transmitted to Palestine; in consequence of this reply an expedition is organised which effectually stops the works at Jerusalem, but only after the exercise of force on the spot. It is nearly impossible for all this to have happened in so short a time as seven months. All the indications therefore concur to assign the correspondence to the later period.
The chronicler must have inserted this section out of its order for some reason of his own. Probably he desired to accentuate the impression of the malignant and persistent enmity of the colonists, and with this end in view described the later acts of antagonism directly after mentioning the first outbreak of opposition. It is just possible that he perceived the unfavourable character of his picture of the Jews in their curt refusal of assistance from their neighbours, and that he desired to balance this by an accumulation of weighty indictments against the people whom the Jews had treated so ungraciously.
In his account of the correspondence with the Persian court the chronicler seems to have taken note of three separate letters from the unfriendly colonists. First, he tells us that in the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus they wrote an accusation against the Jews. {Ezr 4:6} This was before the mission of Ezra, therefore it was a continuance of the old opposition that had been seen in the intrigues that preceded the reign of Darius; it shows that after the death of that friendly monarch the slumbering fires broke out afresh. Next, he names certain men who wrote to Artaxerxes, and he adds that their letter was translated and written in the Aramaic language-the language which was the common medium of intercourse in trade and official affairs among the mixed races inhabiting Syria and all the regions west of the Euphrates. {Ezr 4:7} The reference to this language probably arises from the fact that the chronicler had seen a copy of the translation. He does not tell us anything either of the nationality of the writers or of the subject of their letter. It has been suggested that they were Jews in Jerusalem who wrote to plead their cause with the Persian king. The fact that two of them bore Persian names-viz., Bishlam and Mithredath-does not present a serious difficulty to this view, as we know that some Jews received such names, Zerubbabel, for example, being named Sheshbazzar. But as the previous passage refers to an accusation against the Jews, and as the following sentences give an account of a letter also written by the inimical colonists, it is scarcely likely that the intermediate colourless verse which mentions the letter of Bishlam and his companions is of a different character. We should expect some more explicit statement if that were the case. Moreover, it is most improbable that the passage which follows would begin abruptly without an adversative conjunction as is the case if it proceeded to describe a letter provoked by opposition to another letter just mentioned. Therefore we must regard Bishlam and his companions as enemies of the Jews. Now some who have accepted this view have maintained that the letter of Bishlam and his friends is no other than the letter ascribed to Rehum and Shimshai in the following verses. It is stated that the former letter was in the Aramaic language, and the letter which is ascribed to the two great officials is in that language. But the distinct statement that each group of men wrote a letter seems to imply that there were two letters written in the reign of Artaxerxes, or three in all.
The third letter is the only one that the chronicler has preserved. He gives it in the Aramaic language, and from Ezr 4:8, where this is introduced, to Ezr 6:18, his narrative proceeds in that language, probably because he found his materials in some Aramaic document.
Some have assigned this letter to the period of the reign of Artaxerxes prior to the mission of Ezra. But there are two reasons for thinking it must have been written after that mission. The first has been already referred to-viz., that the complaint about “the Jews which came up from thee” points to some large migration during the reign of Artaxerxes, which must be Ezras expedition. The second reason arises from a comparison of the results of the correspondence with the description of Jerusalem in the opening of the Book of Nehemiah. The violence of the Samaritans recorded in Ezr 4:23 will account for the deplorable state of Jerusalem mentioned in Neh 1:3, the effects of the invasion referred to in the former passage agreeing well with the condition of the dismantled city reported to Nehemiah. But in the history of Ezras expedition no reference is made to any such miserable state of affairs. Thus the correspondence must be assigned to the time between the close of Ezra and the beginning of Nehemiah.
It is to Ezras company, then, that the correspondence with Artaxerxes refers. There were two parties in Jerusalem, and the opposition was against the active reforming party, which now had the upper hand in the city. Immediately we consider this, the cause of the continuance and increase of the antagonism of the colonists becomes apparent. Ezras harsh reformation in the expulsion of foreign wives must have struck the divorced women as a cruel and insulting outrage. Driven back to their paternal homes with their burning wrongs, these poor women must have roused the utmost indignation among their people. Thus the reformer had stirred up a hornets nest. The legislator who ventures to interfere with the sacred privacy of domestic life excites the deepest passions, and a wise man will think twice before he meddles in so dangerous a business. Only the most imperative requirements of religion and righteousness can justify such a course, and even when it is justified nobody can foresee how far the trouble it brings may spread.
The letter which the chronicler transcribes seems to have been the most important of the three. It was written by two great Persian officials. In our English versions the first of these is called “the chancellor,” and the second “the scribe.” “The chancellor” was probably the governor of a large district, of which Palestine was but a provincial section, and “the scribe” his secretary. Accordingly it is apparent that the persistent enmity of the colonists, their misrepresentations, and perhaps their bribes, had resulted in instigating opposition to the Jews in very high places. The action of the Jews themselves may have excited suspicion in the mind of the Persian Satrap, for it would seem from his letter that they had just commenced to fortify their city. The names of the various peoples who are associated with these two great men in the title of the letter also show how far the opposition to the Jews had spread. They are given as the peoples whom Osnappar (Esar-bani-pal) had brought over and set in the city of Samaria, “and in the rest of the country beyond the river.” {Ezr 4:10} That is to say, the settlers in the vast district west of the Euphrates are included. Here were Apharsathchites- who cannot be the Persians, as some have thought, because no Assyrian king ever seems to have penetrated to Persia, but may be the Paraetaceni of Herodotus, (1, 101), a Median people: Tarpelites- probably the people named among the Hebrews after Tubal: {Gen 10:2} Apharsites- also wrongly identified by some with the Persians, but probably another Median people: Archeviles, from the ancient Erech (Uruk): {Gen 10:10} Babylonians, not only from the city of Babylon, but also from its neighbourhood, Shushanchites, from Shusan (Susa), the capital of Susiana, Dehaites- possibly the Dai of Herodotus, (1, 125) because, though these were Persians, they were nomads who may have wandered far, Elamites, from the country of which Susa was capital. A terrific array! The very names would be imposing. All these people were now united in a common bond of enmity to the Jews of Jerusalem. Anticipating the fate of the Christians in the Roman Empire, though on very different grounds, the Jews seem to have been regarded by the peoples of Western Asia with positive antipathy as enemies of the human race. Their anti-social conduct had alienated all who knew them. But the letter of indictment brought a false charge against them. The opponents of the Jews could not formulate any charge out of their real grievances sufficiently grave to secure an adverse verdict from the supreme authority.
They therefore trumped up an accusation of treason. It was untrue, for the Jews at Jerusalem had always been the most peaceable and loyal subjects of the Great King. The search which was made into the previous history of the city could only have brought to light any evidence of a spirit of independence as far back as the time of the Babylonian invasions. Still this was enough to supplement the calumnies of the irritated opponents which the Satrap and his secretary had been persuaded to echo with all the authority of their high position. Moreover, Egypt was now in revolt, and the king may have been persuaded to suspect the Jews of sympathy with the rebels. So Jerusalem was condemned as a “bad city”; the Persian officials went up and forcibly stopped the building of the walls, and the Jews were reduced to a condition of helpless misery.
This was the issue of Ezras reformation. Can we call it a success? The answer to such a question will depend on what kind of success we may be looking for. Politically, socially, regarded from the standpoint of material profit and loss, there was nothing but the most dismal failure. But Ezra was not a statesman; he did not aim at national greatness, nor did he aim even at social amelioration. In our own day, when social improvements are regarded by many as the chief ends of government and philanthropy, it is difficult to sympathise with conduct which ran counter to the home comforts and commercial prosperity of the people. A policy which deliberately wrecked these obviously attractive objects of life in pursuit of entirely different aims is so completely remote from modern habits of thought and conduct that we have to make a considerable effort of imagination if we would understand the man who promoted it. How are we to picture him?
Ezra was an idealist. Now the success of an idealist is not to be sought for in material prosperity. He lives for his idea. If this idea triumphs he is satisfied, because he has attained the one kind of success he aimed at. He is not rich, but he never sowed the seed of wealth. He may never be honoured; he has determined to set himself against the current of popular fashion; how then can he expect popular favour? Possibly he may meet with misapprehension, contempt, hatred, death. The greatest Idealist the world ever saw was excommunicated as a heretic, insulted by His opponents, and deserted by most of His friends, tortured and crucified. The best of His disciples, those who had caught the enthusiasm of His idea, were treated as the offscouring of the earth. Yet we now recognise that the grandest victory ever achieved was won at Calvary, and we now regard the travels of St. Paul, through stoning and scourging, through Jewish hatred and Christian jealousy, on to the block, as nothing less than a magnificent triumphant march. The idealist succeeds when his idea is established.
Judged by this standard-the only fair standard-Ezras work cannot be pronounced a failure. On the contrary, he accomplished just what he aimed at. He established the separateness of the Jews. Among ourselves, more than two thousand years after his time, his great idea is still the most marked feature of his people. All along the ages it has provoked jealousy and suspicion, and often it has been met by cruel persecution. The separate people have been treated as only too separate from the rest of mankind. Thus the history of the Jews has become one long tragedy. It is infinitely sad. Yet it is incomparably more noble than the hollow comedy of existence to which the absence of all aims apart from personal pleasure reduces the story of those people who have sunk so low that they have no ideas. Moreover, with Ezra the racial idea was really subordinate to the religious idea. To secure the worship of God, free from all contamination-this was his ultimate purpose. In accomplishing it he must have a devoted people also free from contamination, a priesthood still more separate and consecrated, and a ritual carefully guarded and protected from defilement. Hence arose his great work in publishing the authoritative codified scriptures of the Jews. To a Christian all this has its defects-formalism, externalism, needless narrowness. Yet it succeeded in saving the religion of the Jews, and in transmitting that religion to future ages as a precious casket containing the seed of the great spiritual faith for which the world was waiting. There is something of the schoolmaster in Ezra, but he is like the law he loved so devoutly-a schoolmaster who brings us to Christ. He was needed both for his times and also in order to lay the foundation of coming ages. Who shall say that such a man was not sent of God? How can we deny to his unique work the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The harshness of its outward features must not blind us to the sublimity of its inner thought or the beneficence of its ultimate purpose.