Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 4:24
Then ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
24. This verse resumes the thread of the narrative, which was dropped at the close of Ezr 4:5. It must be admitted that the words ‘then ceased’ refer most naturally to Ezr 4:23. The Compiler, who failed to observe that the preceding passage belonged to the generation of Ezra, and not to that of Zerubbabel, carries on the narrative in his own words.
so it ceased, &c.] R.V. and it ceased. The first clause expresses the fact of the cessation, the second its duration and continuance.
second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia ] b.c. 521.
The Samaritans had succeeded only too well in checking the progress of the work. Cyrus occupied in schemes of conquest had little leisure to attend to such matters. The suspicious temperament of Cambyses inclined him to listen to sinister reports. The disturbed condition of the Empire during his reign and that of Gomates, his successor, gave abundant opportunity for petty tyranny and for the withdrawal of state privileges.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It ceased – The stoppage of the building by the Pseudo-Smerdis is in complete harmony with his character. He was a Magus, devoted to the Magian elemental worship, and opposed to belief in a personal god. His religion did not approve of temples; and as he persecuted the Zoroastrian so would he naturally be hostile to the Jewish faith. The building was resumed in the second year of Darius (520 B.C.), and was only interrupted for about two years; since the Pseudo-Smerdis reigned less than one year.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. So it ceased unto the second year of – Darius] They had begun in the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536, to go up to Jerusalem, and they were obliged to desist from the building B.C. 522; and thus they continued till the second year of Darius, B.C. 519. See the chronology in the margin [Hag 1:1 (note) and Zec 1:1 (note)] and the following chapter [Ezr 5].
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then ceased the work of the house of God; for they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their kings prohibition, without a special command from the King of heaven, which they had, Ezr 5:1,2.
Darius king of Persia, to wit, Darius the son of Hystaspes, successor of Cambyses; not, as some would have it, Darius Nothus, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was not emperor till above one hundred years after Cyrus, and consequently from the beginning of the building of the temple to the finishing of it must be about one hundred and thirty years, which is not credible to any one that considers,
1. That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the foundations and finish the work, Zec 4:9.
2. That some of the same persons who saw the finishing of this second house, had seen the glory of the first house, Hag 2:3.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. Then ceased the work of thehouse of GodIt was this occurrence that first gave rise to thestrong religious antipathy between the Jews and the Samaritans, whichwas afterwards greatly aggravated by the erection of a rival templeon Mount Gerizim.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem,…. How far they had proceeded is not said, whether any further than laying the foundation of it; though probably, by this time, it might be carried to some little height; however, upon this it was discontinued:
so it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia; not Darius Nothun, as some think, for from the first of Cyrus to the sixth of his reign, when the temple was finished, was upwards of one hundred years; yea, according to some, about one hundred and forty; which would carry the age of Zerubbabel, who both laid the foundation of the temple, and finished it, and the age of those who saw the first temple, to a length that is not probable; but this was Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded Cambyses the son of Cyrus, there being only, between, the short usurpation of Smerdis for seven months.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“Then ceased the work of the house of God at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia.” With this statement the narrator returns to the notice in Ezr 4:5, that the adversaries of Judah succeeded in delaying the building of the temple till the reign of King Darius, which he takes up, and now adds the more precise information that it ceased till the second year of King Darius. The intervening section, Ezr 4:6, gives a more detailed account of those accusations against the Jews made by their adversaries to kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. If we read Ezr 4:23 and Ezr 4:24 as successive, we get an impression that the discontinuation to build mentioned in Ezr 4:24 was the effect and consequence of the prohibition obtained from King Artachshasta, through the complaints brought against the Jews by his officials on this side the river; the of Ezr 4:24 seeming to refer to the of Ezr 4:23. Under this impression, older expositors have without hesitation referred the contents of Ezr 4:6 to the interruption to the building of the temple during the period from Cyrus to Darius, and understood the two names Ahashverosh and Artachshasta as belonging to Cambyses and (Pseudo) Smerdis, the monarchs who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. Grave objections to this view have, however, been raised by Kleinert (in the Beitrgen der Dorpater Prof. d. Theol. 8132, vol. i) and J. W. Schultz ( Cyrus der Grosse, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 624, etc.), who have sought to prove that none but the Persian kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes can be meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, and that the section Ezr 4:6 relates not to the building of the temple, but to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, and forms an interpolation or episode, in which the historian makes the efforts of the adversaries of Judah to prevent the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Xerxes and Artaxerxes follow immediately after his statement of their attempt to hinder the building of the temple, for the sake of presenting at one glance a view of all their machinations against the Jews. This view has been advocated not only by Vaihinger, ”On the Elucidation of the History of Israel after the Captivity,” in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 87, etc., and Bertheau in his Commentary on this passage, but also by Hengstenberg, Christol. iii. p. 143, Auberlen, and others, and opposed by Ewald in the 2nd edition of his Gesch. Israels, iv. p. 118, where he embraces the older explanation of these verses, and A. Koehler on Haggai, p. 20. On reviewing the arguments advanced in favour of the more modern view, we can lay no weight at all upon the circumstance that in Ezr 4:6 the building of the temple is not spoken of. The contents of the letter sent to Ahashverosh (Ezr 4:6) are not stated; in that to Artachshasta (Ezr 4:11) the writers certainly accuse the Jews of building the rebellious and bad city (Jerusalem), of setting up its walls and digging out its foundations (Ezr 4:12); but the whole document is so evidently the result of ardent hatred and malevolent suspicion, that well-founded objections to the truthfulness of these accusations may reasonably be entertained. Such adversaries might, for the sake of more surely attaining their end of obstructing the work of the Jews, easily represent the act of laying the foundations and building the walls of the temple as a rebuilding of the town walls. The answer of the king, too (Ezr 4:17), would naturally treat only of such matters as the accusers had mentioned.
The argument derived from the names of the kings is of far more importance. The name (in Ezr 4:6) occurs also in the book of Esther, where, as is now universally acknowledged, the Persian king Xerxes is meant; and in Dan 9:1, as the name of the Median king Kyaxares. In the cuneiform inscriptions the name is in Old-Persian Ksayarsa, in Assyrian Hisiarsi, in which it is easy to recognise both the Hebrew form Ahashverosh, and the Greek forms and . On the other hand, the name Cambyses (Old-Persian Kambudshja) offers no single point of identity; the words are radically different, whilst nothing is known of Cambyses having ever borne a second name or surname similar in sound to the Hebrew Ahashverosh. The name Artachshasta, moreover, both in Est 7:1-10 and 8, and in the book of Nehemiah, undoubtedly denotes the monarch known as Artaxerxes ( Longimanus). It is, indeed, in both these books written with , and in the present section, and in Ezr 6:14, ; but this slight difference of orthography is no argument for difference of person, seeming to be a mode of spelling the word peculiar to the author of the Chaldee section, Ezra 4-6. Two other names, indeed, of Smerdis, the successor of Cambyses, have been handed down to us. According to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 7, and Ktesias, Pers. fr. 8-13, he is said to have been called Tanyoxares, and according to Justini hist. i. 9, Oropastes; and Ewald is of opinion that the latter name is properly Ortosastes, which might answer to Artachshasta. It is also not improbable that Smerdis may, as king, have assumed the name of Artachshasta, , which Herodotus (vi. 98) explains by . But neither this possibility, nor the opinion of Ewald, that Ortosastes is the correct reading for Oropastes in Just. hist. i. 9, can lay any claim to probability, unless other grounds also exist for the identification of Artachshasta with Smerdis. Such grounds, however, are wanting; while, on the other hand, it is priori improbable that Ps. Smerdis, who reigned but about seven months, should in this short period have pronounced such a decision concerning the matter of building the temple of Jerusalem, as we read in the letter of Artachshasta, Ezr 4:17, even if the adversaries of the Jews should, though residing in Palestine, have laid their complaints before him, immediately after his accession to the throne. When we consider also the great improbability of Ahashverosh being a surname of Cambyses, we feel constrained to embrace the view that the section Ezr 4:6 is an episode inserted by the historian, on the occasion of narrating the interruption to the building of the temple, brought about by the enemies of the Jews, and for the sake of giving a short and comprehensive view of all the hostile acts against the Jewish community on the part of the Samaritans and surrounding nations.
The contents and position of Ezr 4:24 may easily be reconciled with this view, which also refutes as unfounded the assertion of Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, i. p. 303, and Schrader, p. 469, that the author of the book of Ezra himself erroneously refers the document given, Ezr 4:6, to the erection of the temple, instead of to the subsequent building of the walls of Jerusalem. For, to say nothing of the contents of Ezr 4:6, although it may seem natural to refer the of Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 4:23, it cannot be affirmed that this reference is either necessary or the only one allowable. The assertion that is “ always connected with that which immediately precedes,” cannot be strengthened by an appeal to Ezr 5:2; Ezr 6:1; Dan 2:14, Dan 2:46; Dan 3:3, and other passages. , then (= at that time), in contradistinction to , thereupon, only refers a narrative, in a general manner, to the time spoken of in that which precedes it. When, then, it is said, then, or at that time, the work of the house of God ceased (Ezr 4:24), the then can only refer to what was before related concerning the building of the house of God, i.e., to the narrative Ezr 4:1. This reference of Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 4:1 is raised above all doubt, by the fact that the contents of Ezr 4:24 are but a recapitulation of Ezr 4:5; it being said in both, that the cessation from building the temple lasted till the reign, or, as it is more precisely stated in Ezr 4:24, till the second year of the reign, of Darius king of Persia. With this recapitulation of the contents of Ezr 4:5, the narrative, Ezr 4:24, returns to the point which it had reached at Ezr 4:5. What lies between is thereby characterized as an illustrative episode, the relation of which to that which precedes and follows it, is to be perceived and determined solely by its contents. If, then, in this episode, we find not only that the building of the temple is not spoken of, but that letters are given addressed to the Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, who, as all Ezra’s contemporaries would know, reigned not before but after Darius, the very introduction of the first letter with the words, “ And in the reign of Ahashverosh” (Ezr 4:6), after the preceding statement, “until the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezr 4:5), would be sufficient to obviate the misconception that letters addressed to Ahashverosh and Artachshasta related to matters which happened in the period between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis. Concerning another objection to this view of Ezr 4:6, viz., that it would be strange that King Artaxerxes, who is described to us in Ezra 7 and in Nehemiah as very favourable to the Jews, should have been for a time so prejudiced against them as to forbid the building of the town and walls of Jerusalem, we shall have an opportunity of speaking in our explanations of Neh 1:1-11. – Ezr 4:24, so far, then, as its matter is concerned, belongs to the following chapter, to which it forms an introduction.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(24) The second year.The record here returns to Ezr. 4:5, with more specific indication of time. The suspension of the general enterprisecalled the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalemlasted nearly two years. But it must be remembered that the altar was still the centre of a certain amount of worship.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Then ceased That is, as the evident connexion with the preceding section shows, when these enemies, by authority from the king, forcibly obliged them to stop work on the temple. This verse shows that the Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:23 cannot be the same as the one mentioned Ezr 6:14; Ezr 7:1, but is a king who preceded Darius.
Unto the second year of Darius Artaxerxes, the pseudo-Smerdis, who issued the edict for the work to cease, was assassinated in less than a year after he began to reign, and Darius Hystaspes immediately took the kingdom, so that the work of rebuilding was not made to cease for more than two years, probably not much more than one. See on Ezr 5:16. This Darius was the son of Hystaspes, and a descendant of the ancient Achaemenian kings. On the death of Cambyses, who died without issue; he was probably the hereditary heir to the throne, and this fact may have had much to do with his daring efforts to slay the Magian usurper. Having obtained the kingdom he instituted a general slaughter of the Magi, apparently aiming at their extermination. He restored the Zoroastrian temples and worship, which the Magian had attempted to destroy, and it was therefore very natural that he should revoke the edict which had caused the rebuilding of the Jewish temple to cease. His genealogy, and the principal acts of the first four years of his reign, are recorded in the celebrated Behistun inscription on the rocks of western Persia. Under him began those great struggles with the West which finally ended in the fall of the Persian empire before the arms of Alexander. “Darius Hystaspes was, next to Cyrus, the greatest of the Persian kings, and he was even superior to Cyrus in some particulars. To him, and him alone, the empire owed its organization. He was a skillful administrator, a good financier, and a wise and far-seeking ruler. Of all the Persian princes he is the only one who can be called ‘many sided.’ He was organizer, general, statesman, administrator, builder, patron of art and literature, all in one. Without him Persia would probably have sunk as rapidly as she rose, and would be known to us only as one of the many meteor powers which have shot athwart the horizon of the East.” RAWLINSON, Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii, p. 445.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
After A Period Of Stagnation Work Begins On The Rebuilding Of The House of God, Which Causes Some Concern To The Persian Governor ( Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 5:5 ).
Revealing that the work on the house of God ceased as a result of the activities of their adversaries the writer now describes how, as a result of the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah, the work on the Temple recommences, something which disturbs the Persian governor of the area because he is concerned about their use of valuable materials which could be being used for warlike purposes.
Ezr 4:24
‘Then the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem ceased, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.”
The repetition of phrases makes clear that this verse is resuming what has been spoken of in Ezr 4:5. It is a technical device found often in the Old Testament where it is necessary to indicate that what lies in between is a parenthesis. Thus Ezr 4:6-23 are such a parenthesis.
Attention is now drawn to the fact that as a result of the widespread local opposition of their enemies, the work that had begun on the Temple by laying foundations (Ezr 3:8 to Ezr 4:1) had come to a full stop. From the indications given we can probably understand why:
1) Part of the problem probably lay in acts of violence perpetrated on the new community in order to distract them (Ezr 4:4). This might have included threats, and even attacks, on their houses and families if they left them unprotected; their enemies setting fire to fields of grain, as Samson did in the times of the judges; and even vindictive attacks on the persons of the returnees themselves. All this would involve the returnees in having to take protective measures which could only prevent them from concentrating on building the Temple.
2) Furthermore, as we know, much of the timber had to be obtained from Sidon and Tyre (Ezr 3:7). This in itself would mean the work coming to a halt for a time, and with everyone against them we can imagine the difficulties that there would be in getting the supplies through. And once the work had halted for a time the initial enthusiasm would inevitably wane, especially as there were more immediate problems to be dealt with
3) The machination of counsellors who were hired to present a case against them, may well have made them afraid of what the consequences might be of continuing, with the threat of Persian interference hanging over their heads (Ezr 4:5; Ezr 5:3).
4) There were also the problems of erecting a Temple in the face of continual opposition, violently expressed against those who sought to build (Ezr 4:4).
5) Added to all this would be their own need to build their own homes and ensure the welfare of their families (Hag 1:4).
6) Later this situation would be further exacerbated by the local famines which meant that their time was directed elsewhere as they struggled to survive (Hag 1:6; Hag 1:9-11).
Taken together these things would have been sufficient to deter them from making the effort to build the Temple, which in itself was a difficult enough task. It thus took the activity of two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, to stir them into action so that they recommenced the work.
Ezr 5:1
‘Now the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem, in the name of the God of Israel (who was) over them (or ‘to them’).
Things came to a head when two prophets arose and prophesied to them in the Name of the God of Israel. Their names were Haggai and Zechariah, and their prophecies were to all those who were in Judah and Jerusalem, that is to the returnees and those who supported them. Haggai is always called ‘Haggai the prophet’ (compare Ezr 6:14) even in his own writings. This may well be because his antecedents were unimportant. Zechariah’s family was clearly more distinguished. He was the ‘son of Iddo’, a well known priestly ancestor. We have here a reminder that God takes people from all backgrounds for the carrying out of His purposes. It was Haggai who was the more direct, speaking with great bluntness (see his prophecy), whilst Zechariah was more visionary, although nevertheless at times speaking equally directly. We have a record of both their messages in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.
‘The God of Israel (Who was) over them.’ This may indicate ‘over the prophets’ or it may signify ‘over the people’. In the first case it would emphasise the position of the prophets as servants of YHWH. In the second it would be a reminder of what the people owed to their God as their Sovereign Lord.
Ezr 5:2
‘Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and with them were the prophets of God, helping them.’
The consequence of the preaching of the prophets was that the Jewish leaders, Zerubbabel the governor, and Jeshua the High Priest, spurred on the people to recommence the building of ‘the house of God which was at Jerusalem’, whilst the two prophets continued with their urging, stirring them up and encouraging them to carry on, giving them every assistance by their words. The fact that this continued activity of the prophets had to be mentioned brings out the strength of the opposition to the project. It took all the authority of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, both political and religious, together with all the urgings of the prophets, to ensure that the work carried on. And the problems were exacerbated when the opposition dropped a word in the ear of the Persian the Governor of the Province of Beyond the River, no doubt with deceptive inferences, in order to force him to look into what they were doing. A report of people who were building with ‘massive stones’ would be enough in itself to force him to take an interest.
Ezr 5:3
‘At the same time came to them Tattenai, the governor of Beyond the River, and Shethar-bozenai, and their companions, and said thus to them, Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to shape and fashion for use (literally ‘finish’) this material?’
We can well imagine the consternation of the returnees when no less a person than Tattenai, Governor of the Province of Beyond the River, arrived, supported by a group of Persian inspectors, enquiring as to who had given them the order to commence this work and what were the names of the persons involved. It appears to have been a genuine enquiry rather than an accusation, as is evidenced by the fact that the work was allowed to continue while a decision was reached. He could see that they were building a Temple. The ‘material’ was probably the cedar wood from Sidon and Tyre which had presumably arrived a considerable time before, together with timber from the local forests (Ezr 3:7; Hag 1:8). This would have been piled up in readiness for use, although there may also be in it a reference to the blocks of stone which would also have been needed. The word used for ‘material’ is used in Scripture only here and in Ezr 4:9, (translated in LXX as material) and earlier guesses were that it meant ‘wall’, but external Aramaic sources have confirmed that it in fact indicates ‘building materials’.
A similar name to Tattenai (Tattani), together with his designation as ‘Governor of Eber-nari (Beyond the River), has been found in a Babylonian record dated 502 BC. He was under-governor to Ushtani the satrap of Babylon. Shethar-bozenai has been demonstrated from Aramaic papyri to be a good Persian name. The companions were probably Persian inspectors (OP frasarka). This may suggest that tight control was kept by the Persians over the use of valuable building materials. It was with such that prospective rebels made strong fortifications.
Ezr 5:4
‘Then we said to them in this way, what the names of the men were who were making this building.’
The change to ‘we’ is unexpected. It may well suggest a personal reminiscence of the writer as one who was present at the scene, either asserting boldly that ‘we were not afraid to identify ourselves’, or possibly indicating apprehension at having to provide names to the Persian authorities, or both. It would be in answer to a question posed to them as described in Ezr 4:10. The ‘we’ may also be emphasising that ‘all of us’ were involved in the reply, not just the elders. It was thus a declaration of faith, for giving their names might easily have turned against them. But their confidence was in God, and so they were not afraid. The idea would appear to be that in response to the question in Ezr 4:3 the whole party of builders attempted to hide nothing, but boldly and personally took responsibility for what they were doing.
Alternately it may be a direct reflection of Ezr 4:10, while taking up the reference to Tattenai and his inspectors in Ezr 4:3, it being stated in the first person with the purpose of making the background to the question ‘what are the names of the men who are making this building?’ more vivid. Indeed, if Ezr 4:3-4 were being constructed by the writer on the basis of the letter sent to Darius, he may well have been so involved in the spirit of the letter that he utilised the same ‘person’ in relation to the question as was used in Ezr 4:10.
Ezr 5:5
‘And the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews, and they did not make them cease, till the matter should come to Darius, and then answer should be returned by letter concerning it.’
The writer then returns to the third person and gives credit to the God of the elders of the Jews for the fact that they were not made to stop working while the matter was being referred to Darius. While the eye of Persia may have been upon them in the person of the inspectors, the eye of God was also upon them too, overruling the eye of the inspectors. And the consequence was that the inspectors did not interfere with the work, but allowed them to continue their work until they had received a reply from Darius. For as Zechariah had made clear, ‘the eyes of YHWH run to and fro throughout the whole earth’ (Zec 4:10) ensuring the fulfilling of His purposes, and this in the direct context of the completing of the building of the Temple.
This reference to the eye of God being on them may be seen as supporting the idea that Ezr 4:4 was meant to be seen as a bold reply to the question posed in Ezr 4:3, put in such a way as to impress the Persian governor.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Eventual Building Of The Temple And The Observance Of The Passover ( Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 6:22 ).
This passage now returns to take up the account of the building of the Temple from Ezr 4:5 where reference was made to the hired counsellors who sought to frustrate the building of the Temple ‘all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even unto the reign of Darius, king of Persia’ It commences in Ezr 4:24 by indicating that their attempts were successful to the extent that work on the Temple ceased ‘until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.’ Then from Ezr 5:1 inwards we are told of how the work on the Temple once more began, finally being confirmed by a decree of Darius in which he commanded that all assistance be given for that rebuilding from the revenues of the Province of Beyond The River. In consequence the House was finally built and the Passover observed. The verses in Ezr 4:6-23 are to be seen as a parenthesis, dealing with later matters concerning the building of the defensive walls of Jerusalem.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
REFLECTIONS
WE have a very beautiful instruction given us by the Holy Ghost, in what this chapter holds forth to us of the opposition the people of God receive from false friends, as well as open enemies, in the progress of the divine life. They that will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution. It is a mark of the Christian character, and impossible wholly to avoid it. But, my brother, in the spiritual building, whether far advanced in the superstructure, or whether the foundation be but just laid, yet if Jesus be the foundation stone, depend upon it, it is a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, to all carnal characters around you. Do not forget therefore, your high calling; but seek grace to go on with the building, being more and more established in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. Look daily to your foundation, even to Jesus; for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, Jesus Christ. On him rest the whole weight and burden of your salvation, and let him too bear all the glory. And as stones highly polished, let one grace be added to another, and one ordinance make way for another. In nothing being terrified by your adversaries; but living upon, walking with, rejoicing in, the Lord Jesus Christ. And depend upon it, however apparently the work may seem hindered, yet Jesus is secretly carrying it on, and his people are growing unto an holy temple in the Lord, for an habitation of God through the Spirit. And as the apostle in his sweet consolation speaks, the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through grace, will comfort our hearts, and stablish us in every good word and work.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 4:24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Ver. 24. Then ceased the work of the house of God ] And now the adversaries have got the ball on the foot, thinking to carry the game before them; but “the triumphing of the wicked is short,” Job 20:5 , and that they prosper at all in their designs it is non ad exitium, sed ad exercitium Sanctorum, not for the ruin of the Church, but for the exercise of the faith and patience of God’s people.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 4:24
24Then work on the house of God in Jerusalem ceased, and it was stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Ezr 4:24 This relates to Ezr 4:5. The temple commissioned by Cyrus was completed under Darius I. It must be remembered that Ezr 4:6-23 is a historical parenthesis describing the continual opposition of the Samaritans throughout the rebuilding period of the temple (Ezra 1-5) and the city (Ezra 7-10; Nehemiah).
Darius I This is not the Darius of the book of Daniel (cf. Dan 5:31; Dan 6:1-27). This is Darius I Hastrapes, the Persian ruler from 522 to 486 B.C.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought provoking, not definitive.
1. Why is the chronology of this chapter so confusing?
2. Why were the returning Jews unhappy with the locals claiming to have been sacrificing to YHWH?
3. List the kings and their nationality mentioned in Ezra 4.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
GOD. Chaldee. ‘elaha’ (ha, emphatic), singular, same as Hebrew Eloah. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Ezr 4:24
Ezr 4:24
“Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased until the second year of Darius I the king of Persia.”
Chronologically, this verse comes exactly after Ezr 4:5, above, where it was stated that, “The people of the land hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose … all the days of Cyrus king of Persia.” In fact, this lobbying against the rebuilding of the temple went on throughout the remainder of the reign of Cyrus, through all the days of Cambyses, and until the second year of Darius I (520 B.C.).
A little later in Ezra (Ezra 6) we shall have a detailed report of how the opposition of the Samaritans was successfully checkmated and how Darius I ordered the temple to be rebuilt.
One of the significant revelations of the chapter is the racial makeup of what we have loosely called the “Samaritans.” A remnant of those people was descended from the ten northern tribes of Israel; but as the letter to Artaxerxes shows, there were not less than nine different nationalities besides Israelites who constituted the population of Samaria.
“The great and noble Osnappar” (Ezr 4:10). This is the only mention in the Bible of this name. Rawlinson supposed that he was an officer of Esarhaddon; Oesterley identified him as, “Ashurbanipal (668-626 B.C.), the son and successor of Esarhaddon.”
E.M. Zerr:
Ezr 4:24. This verse gives the authority for the notation just made in the 3rd column of the chart. By comparing the dates at the head of the chart, it will be seen that the work lay idle for two years.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
So: Neh 6:3, Neh 6:9, Job 20:5, 1Th 2:18
Darius: This was Darius Hystaspes, one of the seven princes who slew the usurper Smerdis: he ascended the throne of Persia, am 3483, bc 521, and reigned 36 years. Ezr 5:5, Ezr 6:1, Hag 1:15
Reciprocal: Ezr 4:5 – Darius Ezr 6:14 – Cyrus Dan 9:25 – from Dan 10:13 – the prince Hag 1:2 – This Hag 2:15 – from before Zec 1:1 – the eighth
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 4:24. Then ceased the work of the house of God For they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their kings prohibition, without a special command from the King of heaven, which, however, they afterward received. But even then they were cold and indifferent about it, and were accordingly reproved by the Prophets Haggai and Zec 5:1, compared with Hag 1:2. So that the work, in a great measure, stood still until the second year of the reign of Darius This, as was intimated on Ezr 4:6, was Darius the son of Hystaspis, successor of Cambyses; not, as some would have it, Darius Nothus, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus: for he was not emperor till above one hundred years after Cyrus, and, if he had been the Darius here intended, there must consequently have been about one hundred and thirty years from the beginning of the building of the temple to the finishing of it; which is not credible to any one that considers, 1st, That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the foundation, and finish the work, Zec 4:9. 2d, That some of the same persons who saw the finishing of this second house; had seen the glory of the first house, Hag 2:3.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 5:17. The narrative which was broken off at the end of Ezr 4:5 is now resumed. There is silence regarding the period 536520 B.C.; in 516, however, it is said that the building had been proceeding during the whole of this time. Owing to the action of Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews are once more roused to undertake the work, which had been interrupted sixteen years before, of rebuilding the Temple (so according to our present text). This time there is no objection; on the contrary, application is made to Darius by the governor, who is supported herein by some of the Samaritans (the Apharsachites), to permit the Jews to go on with their work (which is continued, however, pending the arrival of the kings reply) on the ground that a former king (i.e. Cyrus) had given permission for the work to be undertaken. The reply is favourable. The very different attitude from that spoken of in Ezr 4:1-5, adopted by the Samaritans (the Apharsachites are mentioned in both passages, possibly this word means eparchs, i.e. rulers, but this would not affect the point) shows that the relationship between them and the Jews had undergone a change for the better. Presumably during the sixteen years of which nothing is recorded, a more friendly feeling had by degrees sprung up, and this resulted in the intermarriages so bitterly resented by Ezra and Nehemiah later on. We must suppose that it was owing to this change of feeling that, so far from antagonism, the governor, supported by the Samaritans themselves, now seeks permission on behalf of the Jews to build, and even raises no objection to their continuing operations pending the arrival of the reply to his letter. The governor regarded it as his duty to get legal sanction from headquarters for this building, seeing that it had previously been specifically forbidden; otherwise we may well suppose he would have permitted it to go on without taking further official notice of it.
Ezr 4:24. the second year of Darius: 520 B.C.
Ezr 5:1. Now the prophets . . .: cf. Hag 1:1, Zec 1:1.in the name of . . . : read in the name of the God of Israel which was upon them, cf. Deu 28:10.
Ezr 5:3. this work: i.e. of the Temple.
Ezr 5:4. Then spake we . . .: read Then spake they unto them.
Ezr 5:11. a great king of Israel . . .: i.e. Solomon (see 1Ki 6:1).
Ezr 5:15. put them in the temple that is in Jerusalem: these words are so directly contrary to what immediately follows that they can only be regarded as an unskilful gloss; they should be deleted.
Ezr 5:16. since that time . . .: clearly out of harmony with Ezr 4:24. What is said of Sheshbazzar here does not agree with Ezr 3:8; Ezr 3:10.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
4:24 Then {n} ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
(n) Not altogether for the prophets exhorted them to continue but they used less diligence because of the troubles.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
5
THE LIMITS OF COMPREHENSION
Ezr 4:1-5; Ezr 4:24
THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra introduces the vexed question of the limits of comprehension in religion by affording a concrete illustration of it in a very acute form. Communities, like individual organisms, can only live by means of a certain adjustment to their environment, in the settlement of which there necessarily arises a serious struggle to determine what shall be absorbed and what rejected, how far it is desirable to admit alien bodies and to what extent it is necessary to exclude them. The difficulty thus occasioned appeared in the company of returned exiles soon after they had begun to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. It was the seed of many troubles. The anxieties and disappointments which overshadowed the subsequent history of nearly all of them sprang from this one source. Here we are brought to a very distinguishing characteristic of the Persian period. The idea of Jewish exclusiveness which has been so singular a feature in the whole course of Judaism right down to our own day was now in its birth-throes. Like a young Hercules, it had to fight for its life in its very cradle. It first appeared in the anxious compilation of genealogical registers and the careful sifting of the qualifications of the pilgrims before they left Babylon. In the events which followed the settlement at Jerusalem it came forward with determined insistence on its rights, in opposition to a very tempting offer which would have been fatal to its very existence.
The chronicler introduces the neighbouring people under the title “The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin”; but in doing so he is describing them according to their later actions; when they first appear on his pages their attitude is friendly, and there is no reason to suspect any hypocrisy in it. We cannot take them to be the remainder of the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom who had been permitted to stay in their land when their brethren had been violently expelled by the Assyrians, and who were now either showing their old enmity to Judah and Benjamin by trying to pick a new quarrel, or, on the other hand, manifesting a better spirit and seeking reconciliation. No doubt such people existed, especially in the north, where they became, in part at least, the ancestors of the Galileans of New Testament times. But the men now referred to distinctly assert that they were brought up to Palestine by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. Neither can they be the descendants of the Israelite priests who were sent at the request of the colonists to teach them the religion of the land when they were alarmed at an incursion of lions; {2Ki 17:25-28} for only one priest is directly mentioned in the history, and though he may have had companions and assistants, the small college of missionaries could not be called “the people of the land” (Ezr 4:4). These people must be the foreign colonists. There were Chaldaeans from Babylon and the neighbouring cities of Cutha and Sepharvaim (the modern Mosaib), Elamites from Susa, Phoenicians from Sidon-if we may trust Josephus here (Ant., 12, v. 5) – and Arabs from Petra. These had been introduced on four successive occasions-first, as the Assyrian inscriptions show, by Sargon, who sent two sets of colonists; then by Esarhaddon; and, lastly, by Ashurbanipal. (The “Onsnappar” of Ezr 4:10) The various nationalities had had time to become well amalgamated together, for the first colonisation had happened a hundred and eighty years, and the latest colonisation a hundred and thirty Years, before the Jews returned from Babylon. As the successive exportations of Israelites went on side by side with the successive importations of foreigners, the two classes must have lived together for some time; and even after the last captivity of the Israelites had been effected, those who were still left in the land would have come into contact with the colonists. Thus, apart from the special mission of the priest whose business it was to introduce the rites of sacrificial worship, the popular religion of the Israelites would have become known to the mixed heathen people who were settled among them.
These neighbours assert that they worship the God whom the Jews at Jerusalem worship, and that they have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon, the Assyrian king to whom, in particular, they attribute their being brought up to Palestine, possibly because the ancestors of the deputation to Jerusalem were among the colonists planted by that king. For a century and a half they have acknowledged the God of the Jews. They therefore request to be permitted to assist in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. At the first blush of it their petition looks reasonable and even generous. The Jews were poor; a great work lay before them; and the inadequacy of their means in view of what they aimed at had plunged the less enthusiastic among them into grief and despair. Here was an offer of assistance that might prove most efficacious. The idea of centralisation in worship of which Josiah had made so much would be furthered by this means, because instead of following the example of the Israelites before the exile who had their altar at Bethel, the colonists proposed to take part in the erection of the one Jewish temple at Jerusalem. If their previous habit of offering sacrifices in their own territory was offensive to rigorous Jews, although they might speak of it quite naively, because they were unconscious that there was anything objectionable in it and even regard it as meritorious, the very way to abolish this ancient custom was to give the colonists an interest in the central shrine. If their religion was defective, how could it be improved better than by bringing them into contact with the law-abiding Jews? While the offer of the colonists promised aid to the Jews in building the temple, it also afforded them a grand missionary opportunity for carrying out the broad programme of the Second Isaiah, who had promised the spread of the light of Gods grace among the Gentiles.
In view of these considerations we cannot but read the account of the absolute rejection of the offer by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the twelve leaders with a sense of painful disappointment. The less pleasing side of religious intensity here presents itself. Zeal seems to be passing into fanaticism. A selfish element mars the picture of whole-hearted devotion which was so delightfully portrayed in the history of the returned exiles up to this time. The leaders are cautious enough to couch their answer in terms that seem to hint at their inability to comply with the friendly request of their neighbours, however much they may wish to do so, because of the limitation imposed upon them in the edict of Cyrus which confined the command to build the temple at Jerusalem to the Jews. But it is evident that the secret of the refusal is in the mind and will of the Jews themselves. They absolutely decline any co-operation with the colonists. There is a sting in the carefully chosen language with which they define their work; they call it building a house “unto our God.” Thus they not only accept the polite phrase “Your God” employed by the colonists in addressing them; but by markedly accentuating its limitation they disallow any right of the colonists to claim the same divinity.
Such a curt refusal of friendly overtures was naturally most offensive to the people who received it. But their subsequent conduct was so bitterly ill-natured that we are driven to think they must have had some selfish aims from the first. They at once set some paid agents to work at court to poison the mind of the government with calumnies about the Jews. It is scarcely likely that they were able to win Cyrus over to their side against his favourite proteges. The king may have been too absorbed with the great affairs of his vast dominions for any murmur of this business to reach him while it was being disposed of by some official. But perhaps the matter did not come up till after Cyrus had handed over the government to his son Cambyses, which he did in the year B.C. 532-three years before his death. At all events the calumnies were successful. The work of the temple building was arrested at its very commencement-for as yet little more had been done beyond collecting materials. The Jews were paying dearly for their exclusiveness.
All this looks very miserable. But let us examine the situation.
We should show a total lack of the historical spirit if we were to judge the conduct of Zerubbabel and his companions by the broad principles of Christian liberalism. We must take into account their religious training and the measure of light to which they had attained. We must also consider the singularly difficult position in which they were placed. They were not a nation; they were a Church. Their very existence, therefore, depended upon a certain ecclesiastical organisation. They must have shaped themselves according to some definite lines, or they would have melted away into the mass of mixed. nationalities and debased eclectic religions with which they were surrounded. Whether the course of personal exclusiveness which they chose was wisest and best may be fairly questioned. It has been the course followed by their children all through the centuries, and it has acquired this much of justification-it has succeeded. Judaism has been preserved by Jewish exclusiveness. We may think that the essential truths of Judaism might have been maintained by other means which would have allowed of a more gracious treatment of outsiders. Meanwhile, however, we must see that Zerubbabel and his companions were not simply indulging in churlish unsociability when they rejected the request of their neighbours. Rightly or wrongly, they took this disagreeable course with a great purpose in mind.
Then we must understand what the request of the colonists really involved. It is true they only asked to be allowed to assist in building the temple. But it would have been impossible to stay here. If they had taken an active share in the labour and sacrifice of the construction of the temple, they could not have been excluded afterwards from taking part in the temple worship. This is the more clear since the very grounds of their request were that they worshipped and sacrificed to the God of the Jews. Now a great prophet had predicted that Gods house was to be a house of prayer for all nations. {Isa 56:7} But the Jews at Jerusalem belonged to a very different school of thought. With them, as we have learnt from the genealogies, the racial idea was predominant. Judaism was for the Jews.
But let us understand what that religion was which the colonists asserted to be identical with the religion of the returned exiles. They said they worshipped the God of the Jews, but it was after the manner of the people of the Northern Kingdom. In the days of the Israelites that worship had been associated with the steer at Bethel, and the people of Jerusalem had condemned the degenerate religion of their northern brethren as sinful in the sight of God. But the colonists had not confined themselves to this. They had combined their old idolatrous religion with that of the newly adopted indigenous divinity of Palestine. “They feared the Lord, and served their own gods.” {Isa 56:7} Between them, they adored a host of Pagan divinities, whose barbarous names are grimly noted by the Hebrew historian-Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, etc. {2Ki 17:30-31} There is no evidence to show that this heathenism had become extinct by the time of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. At all events, the bastard product of such a worship as that of the Bethel steer and the Babylonian and Phoenician divinities, even when purged of its most gross corruption, was not likely to be after the mind of the puritan pilgrims. The colonists did not offer to adopt the traditional Torah, which the returned exiles were sedulously observing.
Still it may be said, if the people were imperfect in knowledge and corrupt in practice, might not the Jews have enlightened and helped them? We are reminded of the reproach that Bede brings so sternly against the ancient British Christians when he blames them for not having taught the gospel to the Saxon heathen who had invaded their land. How far it would have been possible for a feeble people to evangelise their more powerful neighbours, in either case, it is impossible to say.
It cannot be denied, however, that in their refusal the Jews gave prominence to racial and not to religious distinctions. Yet even in this matter it would be unreasonable for us to expect them to have surpassed the early Christian Church at Jerusalem and to have anticipated the daring liberalism of St. Paul. The followers of St. James were reluctant to receive any converts into their communion except on condition of circumcision. This meant that Gentiles must become Jews before they could be recognised as Christians. Now there was no sign that the mixed race of colonists ever contemplated becoming Jews by humbling themselves to a rite of initiation. Even if most of them were already circumcised, as far as we know none of them gave an indication of willingness to subject themselves wholly to Jewish ordinances. To receive them, therefore, would be contrary to the root principle of Judaism. It is not fair to mete out a harsh condemnation to Jews who declined to do what was only allowed among Christians after a desperate struggle, which separated the leader of the liberal party from many of his brethren and left him for a long while under a cloud of suspicion.
Great confusion has been imported into the controversy on Church comprehension by not keeping it separate from the question of tolerance in religion. The two are distinct in many respects. Comprehension is an ecclesiastical matter; tolerance is primarily concerned with the policy of the state. Whilst it is admitted that nobody should be coerced in his religion by the state, it is not therefore to be assumed that everybody is to be received into the Church.
Nevertheless we feel that there is, a real and vital connection between the ideas of tolerance and Church comprehensiveness. A Church may become culpably intolerant, although she may not use the power of the state for the execution of her mandates; she may contrive many painful forms of persecution, without resorting to the rack and the thumb-screw. The question therefore arises, What are the limits to tolerance within a Church? The attempt to fix these limits by creeds and canons has not been wholly successful, either in excluding the unworthy or in including the most desirable members. The drift of thought in the present day being towards wider comprehensiveness, it becomes increasingly desirable to determine on what principles this may be attained. Good men are weary of the little garden walled around, and they doubt whether it is altogether the Lords peculiar ground; they have discovered that many of the flowers of the field are fair and fragrant, and they have a keen suspicion that not a few weeds may lurk even in the trim parterre; so they look over the wall and long for breath and brotherhood, in a large recognition of all that is good in the world. Now the dull religious lethargy of the eighteenth century is a warning against the chief danger that threatens those who yield themselves to this fascinating impulse. Latitudinarianism sought to widen the fold that had been narrowed on one side by sacerdotal pretensions and on the other side by puritan rigour. The result was that the fold almost disappeared. Then religion was nearly swallowed up in the swamps of indifference. This deplorable issue of a well-meant attempt to serve the cause of charity suggests that there is little good in breaking down the barriers of exclusiveness unless we have first established a potent centre of unity. If we have put an end to division simply by destroying the interests which once divided men, we have only attained the communion of death. In the graveyard friend and foe lie peaceably side by side, but only because both are dead. Wherever there is life two opposite influences are invariably at work. There is a force of attraction drawing in all that is congenial, and there is a force of a contrary character repelling everything that is uncongenial. Any attempt to tamper with either of these forces must result in disaster. A social or an ecclesiastical division that arbitrarily crosses the lines of natural affinity creates a schism in the body, and leads to a painful mutilation of fellowship. On the other hand, a forced comprehension of alien elements produces internal friction, which often leads to an explosion, shattering the whole fabric. But the common mistake has been in attending to the circumference and neglecting the centre, in beating the bounds of the parish instead of fortifying the citadel. The liberalism of St. Paul was not latitudinarian, because it was inspired by a vital principle which served as the centre of all his teaching. He preached liberty and comprehensiveness, because he had first preached Christ. In Christ he found at once a bond of union and an escape from narrowness. The middle wall of partition was broken down, not by a Vandal armed with nothing better than the besom of destruction, but by the Founder of a new kingdom, who could dispense with artificial restrictions because He could draw all men unto Himself.
Unfortunately the returned captives at Jerusalem did not feel conscious of any such spiritual centre of unity. They might have found it in their grandly simple creed, in their faith in God. But their absorption in sacrificial ritual and its adjuncts shows that they were too much under the influence of religious externalism. This being the case, they could only preserve the purity of their communion by carefully guarding its gates. It is pitiable to see that they could find no better means of doing this than the harsh test of racial integrity. Their action in this matter fostered a pride of birth which was as injurious to their own better lives as it was to the extension of their religion in the world. But so long as they were incapable of a larger method, if they had accepted counsels of liberalism they would have lost themselves and their mission. Looking at the positive side of their mission, we see how the Jews were called to bear witness to the great principle of separateness. This principle is as essential to Christianity as it was to Judaism. The only difference is that with the more spiritual faith it takes a more spiritual form. The people of God must ever be consecrated to God, and therefore separate from sin, separate from the world-separate unto God.
NOTE.-For the section Ezr 4:6-23 see Chapter 14. This section is marked by a change of language; the writer adopts Aramaic at Ezr 4:8, and he continues in that language down to Ezr 6:18. The decree of Artaxerxes in Ezr 7:12-26 is also in Aramaic.