Deeper Commentary
Ezra 4:1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were building a temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel- This opposition was real and actual; LXX "And they that afflicted Juda and Benjamin...". They were opposed to the newcomers and were against the idea of a temple being built. This opposition was not at all the scenario presented in the restoration prophets. I noted on the preceding Ezra 3:8-12 that the returnees had no intention of building the city or temple structure according to the dimensions commanded them in Ez. 40-48. And they had rejected the offer of a new covenant deal, instead attempting to still keep the old covenant, however imperfectly, even though they had broken it. And so God as it were reflected His opposition to them through these local adversaries. But as the vision of Zech. 3:1 makes clear, if they had faith then even this 'satan' or adversary would have been removed.
The adversaries included the Israelites already living in Judah as well as the Samaritans, the peoples moved in to live in Judah after the Jews had been deported. The returnees naturally wanted to reclaim their ancestral land and homes- where the Samaritans were living. Samaria was the local capital, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem would suggest this was now going to be shifted to a Jewish-controlled Jerusalem. Hence they claim that if this happens, tax will likely not be collected for the empire (:14) as the capital city was used as a centre for taxation. The Samaritans had a good argument. It was only God's hand that overturned it. Their argument about Jerusalem's history in :15,20 was correct. Her kings like Solomon had indeed dominated territory up to the Euphrates and had tax paid to them. Their suspicion was that the Jews wanted to take control of all land up to the Euphrates (:16). And that was indeed the land promised to Abraham which they felt was rightfully theirs. The subsequent history of the Jews in the time of the Maccabees shows that indeed they did seek to rebel and gain independence.
Even after the temple had been destroyed, it seems those left
in the land still worshipped there and there was some kind of altar there:
"there came men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria... with meal
offerings and frankincense in their hand, to bring them to the house of
Yahweh" (Jer. 41:5). These were perhaps those who wanted to help rebuild
the temple, protesting they had been sacrificing to Yahweh during the
captivity. This also shows that the setting up of the altar was more like
restoring whatever was already being used.
Ezra 4:2 then they drew near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of fathers’
households and said to them, Let us build with you; for we seek your God,
as you do; and we sacrifice to Him since the days of Esar Haddon king of
Assyria, who brought us up here- These people may have been
Israelites who were sent to Judah not at the time of the exile of the ten
tribes into Assyria, but later Because Esar Haddon was some time after
Sennacherib. They ended up being adversarial specifically to Judah and
Benjamin (:1), although they were Israelites from other tribes. Or quite
possibly these people were sincere proselytes who had been taught the way
of Yahweh by the poor Jews who remained in the land after the exile (see
on :4). In this case, it was perhaps wrong and elitist to refuse their
assistance. The community of returnees would have argued that Cyrus'
decree gave them exclusive command and power to rebuild the temple,
applying only to those in the list of Ezra 2. I will discuss on :3 as to whether
or not this refusal of Gentile help was correct. These people were
Gentiles who had been brought to Palestine after the Assyrian deportation
of the ten tribes. But the desolated land meant lions running wild, and
they assumed this was because they were not worshipping the "god of the
land", Yahweh (2 Kings 17:26). And so they had been taught to worship
Yahweh as the ten tribes had- which meant worshipping the local idols in
the name of Yahweh worship. The Jews in Babylon were doing the same, as
Ezekiel's criticisms of them make clear. And we note how later when Persia
took over, both Esther and Mordecai had names reflective of idol worship.
So indeed they did worship Yahweh "as you do". So the objection to working
with them was not on religious grounds.
Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’
households of Israel, said to them- Zerubbabel was the ‘head’ of the house of David (Ezra 4:3; Hag. 2:23;
Zech. 3:8; 6:12,13), as was his descendant Hattush (Ezra 8:1-3 cp. 1
Chron. 3:22). As the grandson of Jehoiachin, Judah's exiled king,
Zerubbabel would've been the legitimate king of Judah. Potentially, Hos.
1:11 could have come true: “Judah and… Israel shall be gathered together,
and they shall appoint for themselves one head [Zerubbabel?]; and they
shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel” (RSV).
And perhaps as head of the house of David, Zerubbabel was intended to be
the “David my servant” who would be the one king and one shepherd who
would lead Israel back to the land from exile (Ez. 37:22,24).
Significantly, Neh. 7:7 describes Zerubbabel as being at the head of
twelve leaders of the returning exiles, who are called “the people of
Israel” (cp. Ezra 2:2). And yet he let the baton drop. The prophecies and
potentials were therefore reapplied and rescheduled for fulfilment in the
Lord Jesus.
You have nothing in common with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves together will build to Yahweh, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us- See on :2. It could be that their refusal of Gentile help to build the temple, insisting that only Jews work in it (Ezra 4:3 cp. Neh. 2:20), was actually going too far; by being so exclusive, they were disallowing the fulfilment of the prophecies both in Zech. 6:15 and in Isaiah 60:10, that Gentiles would help in the final rebuilding of Zion. As with some of us, their refusal to allow “the adversaries of Judah” (Ezra 4:1) to fellowship with us in the work can lead us to an exclusive approach to fellowship, that actually disallows the essentially outgoing and inclusive spirit of the God we serve. The Jews returned from Babylonian having swung to the opposite extreme from their earlier worldliness; they returned proud and refusing contact with the Gentile world, considering themselves saved by their own strength. And this is perhaps reflected in the way they refused on principle to allow any Gentiles to help them in the building work. Is. 60:10,11 had foretold: “And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee [as in the decree of Cyrus]... Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night”; and them as Ez. 43 had also described, “I will glorify the house of my glory” (Is. 60:7).
The stress perhaps is on "commanded us... you have nothing to do with us". They felt that only the returnees had been commissioned to build the temple, and so they rejected the help offered by the Jews or Israelites who had remained in the land after the deportations. And here we have the seeds of exclusivism that led to the extreme elitism at the Lord's time.
Ezra 4:4 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of
Judah, and troubled them in building- Hands becoming feeble /
weakened is the phrase used of Divine judgment (Is. 13:7; Jer. 6:24;
49:24; 50:43; Ez. 7:17). The restored Zion would not have such weakened
hands (Zeph. 3:16 "In that day it will be said to Jerusalem, Don’t
be afraid, Zion. Don’t let your hands be weak"). The builders were 'terrified' (Heb.). Clearly, the
rebuilding was not even beginning with God's blessing but rather His
displeasure.
“The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things in the kingdom of God which could have been restored in Israel (Ez. 45:16,22; 46:3,9), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (Ezra 4:4; 10:2,11; Neh. 9:24; 10:30,31). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5 criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not.
It could also be considered that "the people of the land" were not only the Samaritans, but also those very poor Jews who had remained behind in the land after the exile. In this case, the exiles disliked them and didn't want their participation in rebuilding the temple. Perhaps those "people of the land" had inhabited property and land belonging to the exiles who had now returned. If those exiles had lived in Jerusalem as commanded, then this point of conflict would not have existed. We note the phrase is used several times about those Jews left in Judah: "the poorest sort of the people of the land [remained]... people who were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left... the people who were left in the land" (2 Kings 24:14; 25:22; Jer. 40:6). And "the people of the land" is a term used very many times for God's people in Judah. Ezra and Nehemiah make no mention of these people joining in the community of the returned exiles. That community clearly saw themselves as the exclusive people of God- originally because they returned from economic motives and wanted all the land for themselves, perceiving the local Jewish population as poor whereas they had come from the wealth of Persia and Babylon. The closest we get to seeing any acceptance of the other Jews is in Ezra 6:21,22: "The sons of Israel who had returned from the exile ate, along with all those [i.e. other sons of Israel] who had separated themselves from the impurity of nations of the land to them to seek Yahweh God of Israel". This community are specifically referred to multiple times, in titles like "the children of the exile", "those who returned".
Ezra 4:5 And hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose,
all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king
of Persia-
Ezra 4:6 In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they
wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem-
RVmg. "Xerxes". The well-known Xerxes, the son of Darius, who reigned 20
years (BC 485–465). He is generally identified with the Ahasuerus of the
book of Esther.
Ezra 4:7 In the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and
the rest of his companions, to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing
of the letter was written in Syrian, and set forth in the Syrian language-
This Artaxerxes could have been the son of Ahasuerus / Xerxes of :6; so
this would refer to a second letter to that in :6. Or it could be the same
king; for 'Arta' means 'great', 'the great Xerxes', of :6 (see note
there). The reference to it being "set forth" suggests Ezra saw it and
remembered it exactly as seen, as if traumatized by it. Another
view is that this Artaxexes is Cyrus, as the names each have the same
numerical vakue [520]. In this case, we have a backtrack in order to make
the point that complaints were made in the time of Ahasuerus (:6) just as
they had been in the time of Cyrus. In this case they sent a letter to
Cyrus (:11) and he replied repealing his decree made in Ezra 1:1. He
failed to live up to the potential as Judah's deliverer according to the
prophecies of Isaiah about him.
Ezra 4:8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter
against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this way- Rehum and
Shimshai were the local Persian officials, who now took the side of the
Samaritan opposition of :7, probably having been bribed or manipulated by
them. It could be that they wrote separately, or were giving a stamp of
approval to the letter of :7.
Ezra 4:9 then Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest
of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the
Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the
Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites- This list of nine nations
along with the local "people of the land" makes ten nations. This is not a
literal number because there were other nations there too (:10), but we
note a similar ten neighbouring nations against Israel in Ps. 83 and Ez.
38, and these are the historical basis for the ten toes of Dan. 2 and the
ten horns of the beast. These nations are geographically
throughout the Persian and Babylonian empires. It could be argued that had
the returnees allowed these nations to be involved with the temple, then
the restoration prophecies of all nations worshipping in Zion could have
come true.
Ezra 4:10 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, wrote- Assur-bani-pal, the
great Assyrian king, is probably the king in view; for it was he had
conquered and deported the peoples of :9. "He was the only Assyrian king
who captured Susa and could carry off ‘Susanchites’; no king so fully
deserved the titles of ‘great and noble’; this name (‘Assur the father of
the son’) by a strong contraction of the middle word, is not so far
removed from the sound of ‘Osnappar’, especially if the final ‘l’ of ‘pal’
is changed to ‘r’ (cf. ‘Porus’ for ‘Pul’, or ‘Babiru’ for ‘Babilu’), and
the ‘r’ of ‘Assur’ is weakened to ‘n’ (cf. Nebuchadrezzar and
Nebuchadnezzar)".
Ezra 4:11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent to Artaxerxes the
king: Your servants the men beyond the River, and so forth-
Zech. 9:8-10 is a prophecy of Zerubbabel or Joshua which had to have its
real fulfilment deferred until the coming of Jesus: “Rejoice greatly, O
daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh
unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an
ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass [Did Zerubbabel / Joshua like
Nehemiah enter Jerusalem on a donkey?]. And I will cut off the chariot
from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem [the opposing Samaritans], and
the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the
heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the
river even to the ends of the earth”. This latter phrase contrasts with
the repeated reminder that the Persians had dominion “on this side the
river” (Ezra 4:10,11,16; 5:3,6; 6:13; 8:36; Neh. 3:7). The coming King
(and Joshua was prophesied as a king) was to free Judah from Persia’s
dominion, and establish God’s Kingdom, with boys and girls playing in the
streets of Jerusalem (Zech. 8:5).
Ezra 4:12 Be it known to the king, that the Jews who came up from you have
come to us to Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad
city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations-
There had been three or four revolts against Babylon (2 Kings
24:1,9,10,20; 25:1-30) and two against Assyria (2 Kings 18:7; 2 Chron.
33:11). The walls were not finished until Nehemiah's time, so the
accusation was false and exaggerated. It was designed to provoke the
Persian authorities, and to give the impression that the Jews were far
exceeding the instructions of Cyrus’s decree, which limited them to the
rebuilding of the Temple.
Ezra 4:13 Be it known now to the king that if this city is built, and the
walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end
it will be hurtful to the kings- "Tribute" = the contribution of
provinces / districts to the central budget; "custom" = tax on goods or on
agricultural produce; "toll" = travel tolls levied for maintenance of the
infrastructure and roads.
Ezra 4:14 Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not right
for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and informed
the king- Throughout the Biblical record, the kings of Babylon and
Persia are presented as naive despots whose pride makes them easy prey for
vain flatterers. Those writing the letter had themselves been the enemies
of the empire not so long ago, and their complaints surely ought to have
led to an investigation which revealed the very recent decree of Cyrus.
Persian satraps had no salaries, but taxed their provinces for the
support of themselves and their courts. This was another obvious reason
why the locals were against any restored Jerusalem.
Ezra 4:15 that search may be made in the book of the records of your
fathers: so you shall 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 made rebellion within the same city from old time; for which
cause this city was laid waste- "From old time" was only 70 years
previously; any serious investigation would have sensed major exaggeration
in the complaints, and sought to investigate deeper before making a rash
decision. But again the rulers are presented as always acting too hastily
and being prone to flattery. For the abiding lesson from them which the
Bible presents is their pride.
Ezra 4:16 We inform the king that if this city be built and the walls
finished, because of this you shall have no portion beyond the River-
We note the contradiction with their statement in :12 that the walls were
already finished. Their exaggerations were such that they couldn't be
hidden, as with all lies against God's people.
Ezra 4:17 Then the king sent 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 the country beyond the River: Peace, and so
forth- We notice that the opposition was based in Samaria, in the
former ten tribe area; and they opposed the rebuilding of Jerusalem by the
people of Judah. Not all the ten tribes were taken into captivity. Those
who remained still may have retained this sectarian spirit, believing
Samaria to be the preferred dwelling of God rather than Jerusalem. The
Samaritan opposition may well have been fuelled by those local Israelites.
This is all so far from the prophetic vision of a repentant Judah and
Israel being united together with repentant Gentiles in a new multiethnic
people of God in the reestablished Kingdom. Human pride, impenitence and
sectarian thinking precluded so much that was possible then, just as it
does today.
Ezra 4:18 The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me-
The Biblical record again seems to emphasize the relative simplicity of
these powerful kings; for he was illiterate and needed to have the letter
read before him (as in Esther 6:1).
Ezra 4:19 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 Babylonian records would only
have covered the rebellions of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah (2
Kings 24:1,10,20). And these were only around 80 years previously. So the
king is presented as making an exaggerated response just as the complaints
had been exaggerated. And apparently they didn't search in the record
house in Babylon mentioned in Ezra 5:17. And yet the accusations
were true- highlighting how it was God's hand alone that made this decree
to cease be overturned.
Ezra 4:20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, who have ruled
over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, custom, and toll, was
paid to them- Again an exaggeration, as this was only really true in
Solomon's time. But the king wishes to give a nod toward the apparent
concern about loss of taxation.
Ezra 4:21 Make a decree now to cause these men to cease, and that this
city not be built, until a decree shall be made by me- The king is
presented as hopelessly proud, speaking of how he made a decree to
research the matter (:19) and now decreed the work should stop until he
were to make another decree. The decree to rebuild Zion had of course been
given by God, and in this we see the word of God and the word of man
compared. The very decrees the king so prided himself in making were all
subject to God's decrees, finally.
Ezra 4:22 Take heed that you not be slack herein: why should damage grow
to the hurt of the kings?- The king surely realized that the authors
of the letter had their own agenda as to why they wanted the rebuilding to
cease. And so this urging of speedy response is clearly tongue in cheek.
He knows this is what they are wanting to hear.
Ezra 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- LXX
"with horses and force". The broken down state of the walls in Nehemiah's
time may partly have been due to this use of force and power, which
implies significant military strength. Zech. 4:6 is Yahweh's response to
this: "Not by might (s.w. "force") nor by power, but by My Spirit". The
Jews were not in step with God's Spirit; for His work cannot be hindered
like this. The whole incident was to make the Jews consider their motives
in this work and to perceive how they were largely doing it all for
themselves and their own religious agendas rather than for God. Our work
for the Lord is often likewise paused at times, so that we might consider
the same question- as to whether we are doing it in the flesh or in His
Spirit.
Ezra 4:24 Then ceased the work of God’s house which is at Jerusalem; and
it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia-
see on Zech. 3:1.
The
statement in Ezra 5:16 that they had been continuously building it would
suggest that some faithful ones did continue building after they were told
to stop, although the majority gave up. God
will confirm us in the way we chose to take. Ezra 4 says that the reason
the temple was not further rebuilt was because of the decree of Artaxerxes
suspending the building program; then Haggai came and told Israel that
the temple wasn’t built because they had preferred to build their ceiled
houses (Ezra 5:1). So God had confirmed the people in the way they chose.
They preferred to build their houses rather than His, so He stopped them
from building His house altogether until they wholeheartedly recommitted
themselves to Him. Throughout this period of their history, Israel knew
what they ought to do, and they knew very well their weaknesses. They
should
all have returned from Babylon; but
many remained, although they gave those who returned material support.
The Rabbis calculate that the first year of Cyrus was 52 years after the exile of Zedekiah. The work revived inthe second year of Darius, which they calculate as 18 years later- when Judah had fully been 70 years in captivity. Yet the 70 years prophecy could have come true in the first year of Cyrus. It depends whether we start the period with the first deportations, or with the full destruction of the temple. We see here God's flexibility and openness to fulfilment, but always wanting to achieve fulfilment of His word of restoration as soon as possible.
