Text -- Ezra 4:1-7 (NET)

Opposition to the Building Efforts

4:1 When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin learned that the former exiles were building a temple for the Lord God of Israel, 4:2 they came to Zerubbabel and the leaders and said to them, “Let us help you build, for like you we seek your God and we have been sacrificing to him from the time of King Esarhaddon of Assyria, who brought us here.” 4:3 But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the leaders of Israel said to them, “You have no right to help us build the temple of our God. We will build it by ourselves for the Lord God of Israel, just as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, has commanded us.” 4:4 Then the local people began to discourage the people of Judah and to dishearten them from building. 4:5 They were hiring advisers to oppose them, so as to frustrate their plans, throughout the time of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Darius of Persia.

Official Complaints Are Lodged Against the Jews

4:6 At the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus they filed an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 4:7 And during the reign of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia. This letter was first written in Aramaic but then translated. Aramaic:

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Ezr 4:1

The Samaritans. The relicks of the ten tribes, and the foreigners who had joined with them.

Wesley: Ezr 4:2

This they spake not sincerely, but that by this conjunction with them, they might pry into their counsels, and thereby find some matter of accusation against them.

Wesley: Ezr 4:2

For so they did, though in a mongrel way, 2Ki 17:26, &c.

Wesley: Ezr 4:2

Son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, who brought or sent these persons hither, either, in the day's of Salmanasar, who reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esarhaddon; and so Esarhaddon might be one of his commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent. Or, in the reign of Esarhaddon, who sent this second colony to strengthen the first.

Wesley: Ezr 4:3

As being of another nation and religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus's grant, which was confined to the Israelites. Take heed, whom you go partners with, and on whose hand you lean. While we trust God with an absolute confidence, we must trust men with a prudent caution.

Wesley: Ezr 4:5

For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his vice-roy, who was a wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews.

Wesley: Ezr 4:5

Heb. and until, &c. not only in the reign of Cyrus but also of Cambyses, and of the magician, after whom was Darius.

Wesley: Ezr 4:6

A common name to divers kings of Persia. Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus, was known to be no friend to the Jewish nation.

Wesley: Ezr 4:7

Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name, Ahashuerus, Ezr 4:6, and here by his Persian name, Artaxerxes: by which he is here called in the inscription of this letter, because so he was called by himself, and others in the letters written either by him; or to him.

Wesley: Ezr 4:7

It was written in the Chaldee or Syrian language, and in the Syrian character: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words are written in the Hebrew character.

JFB: Ezr 4:1

That is, strangers settled in the land of Israel.

JFB: Ezr 4:2

A very interesting explanation of this passage has been recently obtained from the Assyrian sculptures. On a large cylinder, deposited in the British Museum, there is inscribed a long and perfect copy of the annals of Esar-haddon, in which the details are given of a large deportation of Israelites from Palestine, and a consequent settlement of Babylonian colonists in their place. It is a striking confirmation of the statement made in this passage. Those Assyrian settlers intermarried with the remnant of Israelite women, and their descendants, a mongrel race, went under the name of Samaritans. Though originally idolaters, they were instructed in the knowledge of God, so that they could say, "We seek your God"; but they served Him in a superstitious way of their own (see on 2Ki 17:26-34, 2Ki 17:41).

JFB: Ezr 4:3

This refusal to co-operate with the Samaritans, from whatever motives it sprang, was overruled by Providence for ultimate good; for, had the two peoples worked together, familiar acquaintanceship and intermarriage would have ensued, and the result might have been a relapse of the Jews into idolatry. Most certainly, confusion and obscurity in the genealogical evidence that proved the descent of the Messiah would have followed; whereas, in their hostile and separate condition, they were jealous observers of each other's proceedings, watching with mutual care over the preservation and integrity of the sacred books, guarding the purity and honor of the Mosaic worship, and thus contributing to the maintenance of religious knowledge and truth.

JFB: Ezr 4:4-5

Exasperated by this repulse, the Samaritans endeavored by every means to molest the workmen as well as obstruct the progress of the building; and, though they could not alter the decree which Cyrus had issued regarding it, yet by bribes and clandestine arts indefatigably plied at court, they labored to frustrate the effects of the edict. Their success in those underhand dealings was great; for Cyrus, being frequently absent and much absorbed in his warlike expeditions, left the government in the hands of his son Cambyses, a wicked prince, and extremely hostile to the Jews and their religion. The same arts were assiduously practised during the reign of his successor, Smerdis, down to the time of Darius Hystaspes. In consequence of the difficulties and obstacles thus interposed, for a period of twenty years, the progress of the work was very slow.

JFB: Ezr 4:6

Ahasuerus was a regal title, and the king referred to was successor of Darius, the famous Xerxes.

JFB: Ezr 4:7

The three officers named are supposed to have been deputy governors appointed by the king of Persia over all the provinces subject to his empire west of the Euphrates.

JFB: Ezr 4:7

Or Aramæan language, called sometimes in our version, Chaldee. This was made use of by the Persians in their decrees and communications relative to the Jews (compare 2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11). The object of their letter was to press upon the royal notice the inexpediency and danger of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. They labored hard to prejudice the king's mind against that measure.

Clarke: Ezr 4:1

Now when the adversaries - These were the Samaritans, and the different nations with which the kings of Assyria had peopled Israel, when they had carried the original inhabitants away into captivity, see Ezr 4:9, Ezr 4:10.

Clarke: Ezr 4:2

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

Clarke: Ezr 4:3

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

Clarke: Ezr 4:4

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

Clarke: Ezr 4:5

Hired counsellors - They found means to corrupt some of the principal officers of the Persian court, so that the orders of Cyrus were not executed; or at least so slowly as to make them nearly ineffectual

Clarke: Ezr 4:5

Until the reign of Darius - This was probably Darius the son of Hystaspes.

Clarke: Ezr 4:6

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.

Clarke: Ezr 4:7

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

Clarke: Ezr 4:7

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

Clarke: Ezr 4:7

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

Defender: Ezr 4:4

These "people of the land" thus demonstrated their insincerity in offering to help build the temple. They claimed to worship the true God of creation as Israel did (Ezr 4:3), but actually they had mixed this with the worship of the pagan gods of Israel's ancient adversaries (2Ki 17:33). It was vital that true Biblical theism not be corrupted with pagan pantheism."

Defender: Ezr 4:5

Ezra 4:6-24 seem to constitute a general summary by Ezra of the opposition received against the rebuilding of the temple during the reigns of four different emperors of Persia: first Cyrus (approximately 550-530 b.c.), later also Ahasuerus (or Xerxes), Artaxerxes I and Darius Hystaspes. The precise chronology and identification of these kings are uncertain and controversial, even among conservative scholars, but the general history and message are clear."

Defender: Ezr 4:6

Ahasuerus is considered the Hebrew equivalent of Xerxes, probably the Xerxes whose fleet was defeated by the Greeks in 480 b.c. If so, he was probably also the Ahasuerus who married Queen Esther (Est 1:1). Others identify him as Cambysses, the son of Cyrus."

Defender: Ezr 4:7

The "Syrian tongue" is the Aramaic language. Although the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, a few portions are written in Aramaic. One such section is Ezra 4:8-6:18."

TSK: Ezr 4:1

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

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

TSK: Ezr 4:2

Zerubbabel : Ezr 1:5, Ezr 2:2, Ezr 3:2, Ezr 3:12

Let us : Pro 26:23-26; 2Co 11:13-15; Gal 2:4; 2Ti 3:8; 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:2

we do : 2Ki 17:24, 2Ki 17:27-33, 2Ki 17:41

Esarhaddon : Ezr 4:10, Asnappar, 2Ki 19:37

Assur : Gen 10:11; Psa 73:8; Isa 37:37, Assyria, Hos 14:3, Asshur

TSK: Ezr 4:3

Ye have nothing : Neh 2:20; Joh 4:22, Joh 4:23; Act 8:21; Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5; 3Jo 1:9, 3Jo 1:10

king Cyrus : Ezr 1:1-3, Ezr 6:3-5; 2Ch 36:22, 2Ch 36:23; Isa 44:28, Isa 45:1, Isa 45:4; Mat 10:16

TSK: Ezr 4:4

weakened : Ezr 3:3; Neh 6:9; Isa 35:3, Isa 35:4; Jer 38:4

troubled : Neh 4:7, Neh 4:8, Neh 4:11

TSK: Ezr 4:5

hired : Psa 2:1, Psa 2:2; Nah 1:11; Acts 24:1-27

Darius : Ezr 4:24, Ezr 5:5-17, 6:1-18

TSK: Ezr 4:6

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

TSK: Ezr 4:7

am 3482, bc 522

Artaxerxes : This Artaxerxes was one of the Magi, who usurped the throne after the death of Cambyses, for seven months, feigning himself to be Smerdis, brother of Cambysescaps1 . hcaps0 e is called Oropoestus by Justin, Smerdis by Herodotus, Mardus by AEschylus, and Sphendatates by Ctesias.

Bishlam : or, in peace

companions : Heb. societies, Ezr 4:9, Ezr 4:17, Ezr 5:6

the Syrian tongue : That is, probably, both the language and character were Syrian or Chaldaic; and therefore, from the Ezr 4:8 of this chapter, to Ezr 7:27, the original is not Hebrew, but Chaldee, in those parts which consist of letters, decrees, etc., originally written in that language. 2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11; Dan 2:4

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Ezr 4:1

Adversaries - i. e., the Samaritans, a mixed race, partly Israelite but chiefly foreign, which had replaced to some extent the ancient inhabitants after they were carried into captivity by Sargon (see 2Ki 17:6 note).

Barnes: Ezr 4:2

Compare 2Ki 17:24-28 notes.

Since the days - Esar-haddon reigned from 681-668 B.C. Thus, the Samaritans speak of what had taken place at least 130 years previously. There appear to have been at least three colonizations of Samaria by the Assyrian kings. The first is mentioned in 2Ki 17:24. Later in his reign Sargon added to these first settlers an Arabian element. Some 30 or 40 years afterward, Esarhaddon, his grandson, largely augmented the population by colonists drawn especially from the southeast parts of the Empire Ezr 4:10. Thus, the later Samaritans were an exceedingly mixed race.

Barnes: Ezr 4:3

Ye have nothing to do with us - Because the Samaritans had united idolatrous rites with the worship of Yahweh 2Ki 17:29-41. To have allowed them a share in restoring the temple would have been destructive of all purity of religion.

As king Cyrus ... commanded us - The exact words of the edict gave the right of building exclusively to those who should "go up"from Babylonia to Judaea Ezr 1:3.

Barnes: Ezr 4:5

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

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

Barnes: Ezr 4:6

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

Barnes: Ezr 4:7

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

Written in the Syrian tongue ... - Or, "written in Syriac characters and translated into Syriac."On the use of this tongue as a medium of communication between the Jews and their Eastern neighbors, see 2Ki 18:26 note.

Poole: Ezr 4:1

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

Poole: Ezr 4:2

Let us build with you: this they spake not sincerely, as appears from their disposition and designs discovered in the following history; but that by this conjunction with them they might pry into their counsels, and thereby get an opportunity to find some matter or pretences of accusation against them.

We seek your God, as ye do for so they did, though in a mongrel way: see 2Ki 17:26 , &c.

Esar-haddon king of Assur son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, 2Ki 19:37 ; who brought or sent these persons hither, either,

1. In the days of Salmaneser, who lived and reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esar-haddon’ s reign; and so Esar-haddon might be one of his most eminent commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent. Or,

2. In the reign of Esar-haddon, who sent this second colony to supply and strengthen the first.

Poole: Ezr 4:3

Ye have nothing to do with us as being of another nation and religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus’ s grant, which was confined to the Israelites and to the worshippers of the true God.

We ourselves together i.e. who are united together by Cyrus’ s grant in this work; or, alone , as this word is sometimes used, as Job 34:29 Psa 33:15 Hos 11:7 .

Poole: Ezr 4:4

The people of the land Heb. of that land ; the present inhabitants of that province, to wit, the Samaritans.

Troubled them in building by false reports and threats, and other means, described afterwards.

Poole: Ezr 4:5

Hired counsellors against them who by their artifices and interests in the Persian court should give some stop to their work.

All the days of Cyrus king of Persia for though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his viceroy, who was a very wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews and their religion.

Even until the reign of Darius Heb. and until , &c., i.e. not only in the reign of Cyrus, but also of Cambyses, and of the magician, after whom was this Darius; of whom see Ezr 5 6.

Poole: Ezr 4:6

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.

Poole: Ezr 4:7

In the days of Artaxerxes either,

1. Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes. Or,

2. Smerdis the magician. Or rather,

3. The same Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name Ahasuems, Ezr 4:6 , and here by his Persian name Artaxerxes; by which name he is here called in the inscription of this letter, because so he was called by himself and others in the letters written either by him or to him. Interpreted, or exposed, or declared . The sense is, It was written in the Chaldee or Syrian language, and in the Syrian character; for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words are written in the Hebrew character, as Hebrew words are oft written in an English character.

Haydock: Ezr 4:1

Rebellious. The Jews had shewn themselves impatient of subjection, contending with the kings of Assyria and Babylon, whose territories were now possessed by the successors of Cyrus, ver. 15. (Haydock)

Haydock: Ezr 4:1

Enemies; Samaritans, and others, ver. 9.

Haydock: Ezr 4:2

Asor Haddan sent a priest to instruct these people, but Salmanasar had transported them into the country. (Calmet) ---

They continued for some time worshipping idols alone, and afterwards they consented to pay the like adoration to the Lord, 4 Kings xvii. 24, &c. (Haydock) ---

It is clear, from their petition, that they had as yet no temple. The first was erected by them on Garizim, by leave of Alexander the Great, as a retreat for Manasses, brother of the Jewish high priest, and other who would not be separated from their strange wives. (Josephus, [Antiquities?] xi.) ---

Yet the Samaritan Chronicle, lately published, seems to give a higher antiquity to that temple, and pretends that a miracle declared in favour of the place. (Calmet) ---

The fathers indeed adored there, (John iv. 20., and Genesis xii. 6,) and Josue erected an altar on Hebal, but the Samaritan copy says it was to be on Garizim, Deuteronomy xxvii. 4., and Josue viii. 30. (Haydock)

Haydock: Ezr 4:3

You, &c. Literally, "It is not for you and us to build." But why might not these people assist in the work, as well as king Hiram or Darius? (Haydock) ---

Schismatics and heretics must not communicate in sacrifices with Catholics, (Worthington) nor must the latter have society with them, in matters of religion. The Jews feared lest the Samaritans might introduce the worship of idols, or claim a part of the temple, or at least boast of what they had done. (Tirinus) ---

They were aware of the insincerity of these people. (Menochius) ---

The permission was moreover only granted to the Jews: (Calmet) but Cyrus had exhorted all to contribute; (chap. i. 4,) and Darius, as well as his pagan governors, were not repelled with disdain, chap. vi. 13. This treatment caused the Samaritans to be more inveterate, though the Jews were always more unwilling to come to a reconciliation. (Haydock) ---

"For the Scripture did not say, the Samaritans have no commerce with the Jews," says St. Chrysostom in John iv. The Jewish authors inform us, that "Ezra, &c., gathered all the congregation into the temple, and the Levites sung and cursed the Samaritans,...that no Israelite eat of any thing that is a Samaritan's, not that any Samaritan be proselyted to Israel, nor have any part in the resurrection," &c. (R. Tanchum) (Lightfoot i. p. 598.) (Kennicott) ---

If this were true, it would be carrying their resentment too far; as we ought to promote the conversion of the greatest reprobates. But we have no reason to condemn such great men. They knew the character of the Samaritans, and wished to bring them to a sense of their duty, by this rebuke. (Haydock)

Haydock: Ezr 4:5

Counsellors; ministers of the king, (Calmet) or governors of the provinces. (Tirinus) ---

Cyrus, who was ignorant of their machination, (Josephus) being engaged in war with the Scythians. We may easily conceive what ill-disposed ministers may do, against the inclinations of their prince. (Calmet) ---

Darius, son of Hystaspes, who succeeded the false Smerdis, after five months' usurpation. (Calmet)

Haydock: Ezr 4:6

Assuerus; otherwise called Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. He is also, in the following verse, named Artaxerxes, by a name common to almost all the kings of Persia, (Calmet) after Memnon. (Diodorus xv.) Septuagint, "Arthasastha." Arta signifies "great," and xerxes, "warriour." (Herodotus vi. 98.) ---

After Assuerus, some copies add, "he is Artaxerxes;" and Assuerus is so called in the Septuagint of Sixtus, 3 Esdras ii. 16. (Menochius)

Haydock: Ezr 4:7

Artaxerxes may be the Oropastes of Trogus, (Calmet) or the false (Haydock) Smerdis. (Herodotus) ---

Beselam, &c. These governed the provinces on the west side of the Euphrates. ---

Syriac comprises the Chaldean, with which it as a great resemblance. It was spoken at the court of Babylon. (Xenophon vii.) See 4 Kings xviii. 26., and 2 Machabees xv. 37., and Daniel ii. 4.

Gill: Ezr 4:1

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

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

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

Gill: Ezr 4:2

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

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

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

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

since the days of Esarhaddon, king of Assur, who brought us up hither; to Samaria, from Babylon, and other places; see 2Ki 17:24.

Gill: Ezr 4:3

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

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

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

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

Gill: Ezr 4:4

Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building. By threatening them, or by dissuading the workmen from going on, by endeavouring to hinder their having materials from the Tyrians and Zidonians, or money out of the king's revenues to bear the expenses as ordered; see Ezr 6:4.

Gill: Ezr 4:5

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

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

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

Gill: Ezr 4:6

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.

Gill: Ezr 4:7

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

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

to Artaxerxes king of Persia; instigated by the Samaritans:

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

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Ezr 4:1

¹ tn Heb “the sons of the exile.”

NET Notes: Ezr 4:2

¹ tn Heb “the heads of the fathers.” So also in v. 3.

² tn Heb “Let us build with you.”

³ tc The translation reads with the Qere, a Qumran MS, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Arabic version וְלוֹ (vÿlo, “and him”) rather than the Kethib of the MT, וְלֹא (vÿlo’, “and not”).

⁴ tn Heb “days.”

⁵ sn Esarhaddon was king of Assyria ca. 681-669 b.c.

⁶ sn The Assyrian policy had been to resettle Samaria with peoples from other areas (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24-34). These immigrants acknowledged Yahweh as well as other deities in some cases. The Jews who returned from the Exile regarded them with suspicion and were not hospitable to their offer of help in rebuilding the temple.

NET Notes: Ezr 4:3

¹ tn Heb “not to you and to us.”

NET Notes: Ezr 4:4

¹ tn Heb “the people of the land.” Elsewhere this expression sometimes has a negative connotation, referring to a lay population that was less zealous for Judaism than it should have been. Here, however, it seems to refer to the resident population of the area without any negative connotation.

² tn Heb “were making slack the hands of.”

NET Notes: Ezr 4:5

¹ tn Heb “all the days of.”

² sn Darius ruled Persia ca. 522-486 B.C.

³ sn The purpose of the opening verses of this chapter is to summarize why the Jews returning from the exile were unable to complete the rebuilding of the temple more quickly than they did. The delay was due not to disinterest on their part but to the repeated obstacles that had been placed in their path by determined foes.

NET Notes: Ezr 4:6

¹ sn The chronological problems of Ezra 4:6-24 are well known and have been the subject of extensive discussion since ancient times. Both v. 5 and v. 24 describe the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c. and in whose time the rebuilt temple was finished. The material in between is from later times (v. 16 describes the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple), and so appear to be a digression. Even recognizing this, there are still questions, such as why Cambyses (530-522 b.c.) is not mentioned at all, and why events from the time of Xerxes (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes (464-423 b.c.) are included here if the author was discussing opposition to the building of the temple, which was finished in 516 b.c. Theories to explain these difficulties are too numerous to mention here, but have existed since ancient times: Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, rearranged the account to put Cambyses before Xerxes and replacing Artaxerxes with Xerxes (for further discussion of Josephus’ rearrangement see L. L. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration” JBL 106 [1987]: 231-46). In brief, it seems best to view the author’s primary concern here as thematic (the theme of opposition to the Jewish resettlement in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of Jerusalem’s walls) rather than purely chronological. In the previous verses the author had shown how the Jews had rejected an offer of assistance from surrounding peoples and how these people in turn harassed them. The inserted account shows how, in light of the unremitting opposition the Jews experienced (even extending down to more recent times), this refusal of help had been fully justified. Some of the documents the author employed show how this opposition continued even after the temple was rebuilt. (The failure to mention Cambyses may simply mean the author had no documents available from that period.) For detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by the passage and the various theories advanced to explain them, see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC), 56-60.

² sn Ahasuerus, otherwise known as Xerxes I, ruled ca. 486-464 b.c.

³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

NET Notes: Ezr 4:7

¹ tn Heb “And in the days.”

² tn The LXX understands this word as a prepositional phrase (“in peace”) rather than as a proper name (“Bishlam”). Taken this way it would suggest that Mithredath was “in agreement with” the contents of Tabeel’s letter. Some scholars regard the word in the MT to be a corruption of either “in Jerusalem” (i.e., “in the matter of Jerusalem”) or “in the name of Jerusalem.” The translation adopted above follows the traditional understanding of the word as a name.

³ tc The translation reads the plural with the Qere rather than the singular found in the MT Kethib.

⁴ sn Artaxerxes I ruled in Persia from ca. 465–425 b.c.

⁵ tc It is preferable to delete the MT’s וּכְתָב (ukhÿtav) here.

⁶ sn The double reference in v. 7 to the Aramaic language is difficult. It would not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic. Some interpreters understand the verse to mean that the letter was written in the Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language, but this does not seem to give sufficient attention to the participle “translated” at the end of the verse. The second reference to Aramaic in the verse is more probably a gloss that calls attention to the fact that the following verses retain the Aramaic language of the letter in its original linguistic form. A similar reference to Aramaic occurs in Dan 2:4b, where the language of that book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic, whereas the rest of the book is written in Hebrew.

Geneva Bible: Ezr 4:1

Now when ^{( a )} the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel;

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

Geneva Bible: Ezr 4:3

But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; ^{( b )} but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.

^{( b )} For they knew their pretence, that is to erect idolatry instead of true religion.

Geneva Bible: Ezr 4:5

And ^{( c )} 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.

^{( c )} They bribed the governors under the king to hinder their work, thus they that hinder cannot understand that God would be purely served.

Geneva Bible: Ezr 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).

Geneva Bible: Ezr 4:7

And in the days of ^{( e )} 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.

^{( e )} Called Artaxerxes, which signifies in the Persian tongue an excellent warrior.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Ezr 4:1-24

1 The adversaries, being not accepted in the building of the temple with the Jews, endeavour to hinder it.

7 Their letter to Artaxerxes.

17 The answer and decree of Artaxerxes.

23 The building is hindered.

Maclaren: Ezr 4:1-5

Building In Troublous Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

MHCC: Ezr 4:1-5

Every attempt to revive true religion will stir up the opposition of Satan, and of those in whom he works. The adversaries were the Samaritans, who had been planted in the land of Israel, 2 Kings 17. It was plain that they did not mean to unite in the worship of the Lord, according to his word. Let those who discourage a good work, and weaken them that are employed in it, see whose pattern they follow.

MHCC: Ezr 4:6-24

It is an old slander, that the prosperity of the church would be hurtful to kings and princes. Nothing can be more false, for true godliness teaches us to honour and obey our sovereign. But where the command of God requires one thing and the law of the land another, we must obey God rather than man, and patiently submit to the consequences. All who love the gospel should avoid all appearance of evil, lest they should encourage the adversaries of the church. The world is ever ready to believe any accusation against the people of God, and refuses to listen to them. The king suffered himself to be imposed upon by these frauds and falsehoods. Princes see and hear with other men's eyes and ears, and judge things as represented to them, which are often done falsely. But God's judgment is just; he sees things as they are.

Matthew Henry: Ezr 4:1-5

We have here an instance of the old enmity that was put between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. God's temple cannot be built, but Satan will rage, and the gates of hell will fight against it. The gospel kingdom was, in like manner, to be set up with much struggling and contention. In this respect the glory of the latter house was greater than the glory of the former, and it was more a figure of the temple of Christ's church, in that Solomon built his temple when there was no adversary nor evil occurrent, (1Ki 5:4); but this second temple was built notwithstanding great opposition, in the removing and conquering of which, and the bringing of the work to perfection at last in spite of it, the wisdom, power, and goodness of God were much glorified, and the church was encouraged to trust in him.

I. The undertakers are here called the children of the captivity (Ezr 4:1), which makes them look very little. They had newly come out of captivity, were born in captivity, had still the marks of their captivity upon them; though they were not now captives, they were under the control of those whose captives they had lately been. Israel was God's son, his first-born; but by their iniquity the people sold and enslaved themselves, and so became children of the captivity. But, it should seem, the thought of their being so quickened them to this work, for it was by their neglect of the temple that they lost their freedom.

II. The opposers of the undertaking are here said to be the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, not the Chaldeans or Persians (they gave them no disturbance - "let them build and welcome"), but the relics of the ten tribes, and the foreigners that had joined themselves to them, and patched up that mongrel religion we had an account of, 2Ki 17:33. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods too. They are called the people of the land, Ezr 4:4. The worst enemies Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews and were not, Rev 3:9.

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

1. They offered their service to build with the Israelites only that thereby they might get an opportunity to retard the work, while they pretended to further it. Now, (1.) Their offer was plausible enough, and looked kind: " We will build with you, will help you to contrive, and will contribute towards the expense; for we seek your God as you do, "Ezr 4:2. This was false, for, though they sought the same God, they did not seek him only, nor seek him in the way he appointed, and therefore did not seek him as they did. Herein they designed, if it were possible, to hinder the building of it, at least to hinder their comfortable enjoyment of it; as good almost not have it as not have it to themselves, for the pure worship of the true God and him only. Thus are the kisses of an enemy deceitful; his words are smoother than butter when war is in his heart. But, (2.) The refusal of their proffered service was very just, Ezr 4:3. The chief of the fathers of Israel were soon aware that they meant them no kindness, whatever they pretended, but really designed to do them a mischief, and therefore (though they had need enough of help if it had been such as they could confide in) told them plainly, " You have nothing to do with us, have no part nor lot in this matter, are not true-born Israelites nor faithful worshippers of God; you worship you know not what, Joh 4:22. You are none of those with whom we dare hold communion, and therefore we ourselves will build it."They plead not to them the law of their God, which forbade them to mingle with strangers (though that especially they had an eye to), but that which they would take more notice of, the king's commission, which was directed to them only: "The king of Persia has commanded us to build this house, and we shall distrust and affront him if we call in foreign aid."Note, In doing good there is need of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as the innocency of the dove, and we have need, as it follows there, to beware of men, Mat 10:16, Mat 10:17. We should carefully consider with whom we are associated and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with a pious confidence we must trust men with a prudent jealousy and caution.

2. When this plot failed they did what they could to divert them from the work and discourage them in it. They weakened their hands by telling them it was in vain to attempt it, calling them foolish builders, who began what they were not able to finish, and by their insinuations troubled them, and made them drive heavily in the work. All were not alike zealous in it. Those that were cool and indifferent were by these artifices drawn off from the work, which wanted their help, Ezr 4:4. And because what they themselves said the Jews would suspect to be ill meant, and not be influenced by, they, underhand, hired counsellors against them, who, pretending to advise them for the best, should dissuade them from proceeding, and so frustrate their purpose (Ezr 4:5), or dissuade the men of Tyre and Sidon from furnishing them with the timber they had bargained for (Ezr 3:7); or whatever business they had at the Persian court, to solicit for any particular grants or favours, pursuant to the general edict for their liberty, there were those that were hired and lay ready to appear of counsel against them. Wonder not at the restlessness of the church's enemies in their attempts against the building of God's temple. He whom they serve, and whose work they are doing, is unwearied in walking to and fro through the earth to do mischief. And let those who discourage a good work, and weaken the hands of those that are employed in it, see whose pattern they follow.

Matthew Henry: Ezr 4:6-16

Cyrus stedfastly adhered to the Jews' interest, and supported his own grant. It was to no purpose to offer any thing to him in prejudice of it. What he did was from a good principle, and in the fear of God, and therefore he adhered to it. But, though his reign in all was thirty years, yet after the conquest of Babylon, and his decree for the release of the Jews, some think that he reigned but three years, others seven, and then either died or gave up that part of his government, in which his successor was Ahasuerus (Ezr 4:6), called also Artaxerxes (Ezr 4:7), supposed to be the same that in heathen authors is called Cambyses, who had never taken such cognizance of the despised Jews as to concern himself for them, nor had he that knowledge of the God of Israel which his predecessor had. To him these Samaritans applied by letter for an order to stop the building of the temple; and they did it in the beginning of his reign, being resolved to lose no time when they thought they had a king for their purpose. See how watchful the church's enemies are to take the first opportunity of doing it a mischief; let not its friends be less careful to do it a kindness. Here is,

I. The general purport of the letter which they sent to the king, to inform him of this matter. It is called (Ezr 4:6) an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The devil is the accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10), and he carries on his malicious designs against them, not only by accusing them himself before God, as he did Job, but by acting as a lying spirit in the mouths of his instruments, whom he employs to accuse them before magistrates and kings and to make them odious to the many and obnoxious to the mighty. Marvel not if the same arts be still used to depreciate serious godliness.

II. The persons concerned in writing this letter. The contrivers are named (Ezr 4:7) that plotted the thing, the writers (Ezr 4:8) that put it into form, and the subscribers (Ezr 4:9) that concurred in it and joined with them in this representation, this misrepresentation I should call it. Now see here, 1. How the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his temple, with their companions. The building of the temple would do them no harm, yet they appear against it with the utmost concern and virulence, perhaps because the prophets of the God of Israel had foretold the 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, etc., whence they came, set their hands, by their representatives, to this letter. Perhaps they were incensed against these returned Jews because many of the ten tribes were among them, whose estates they had got into their possession, and of whom they were therefore jealous, lest they should attempt the recovery of them hereafter.

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, Ezr 4:14. Because we are salted with the salt of the palace (so it is in the margin ), "we have our salary from the court, and could no more live without it than flesh could be preserved without salt;"or, as some think, their pay or pension was sent them in salt; or "Because we had our education in the palace, and were brought up at the king's table,"as we find, Dan 1:5. These were those whom he intended to prefer; they did eat their portion of the king's meat. "Now, in consideration of this, it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonour; "and therefore they urge him to stop the building of the temple, which would certainly be the king's dishonour more than any thing else. Note, A 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 (Ezr 4:12), hurtful to kings and provinces, Ezr 4:15. See how Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth (Psa 48:2), is here reproached as the scandal of the whole earth. The enemies of the church could not do the bad things they design against it if they did not first give it a bad name. Jerusalem had been a loyal city to its rightful princes, and its present inhabitants were as well affected to the king and his government as any of his provinces whatsoever. Daniel, who was a Jew, had lately approved himself so faithful to his prince that his worst enemies could find no fault in his management, Dan 6:4. But thus was Elijah most unjustly charged with troubling Israel, the apostles with turning the world upside down, and Christ himself with perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; and we must not think it strange if the same game be still played. Now here,

(1.) Their history of what was past was invidious, that within this city sedition had been moved of old time, and, for that cause, it was destroyed, Ezr 4:15. It cannot be denied but that there was some colour given for this suggestion by the attempts of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah to shake off the yoke of the king of Babylon, which, if they had kept close to their religion and the temple they were now rebuilding, they would never have come under. But it must be considered, [1.] That they were themselves, and their ancestors, sovereign princes, and their efforts to recover their rights, if there had not been in them the violation of an oath, for aught I know, would have been justifiable, and successful too, had they taken the right method and made their peace with God first. [2.] Though these Jews, and their princes, had been guilty of rebellion, yet it was unjust therefore to fasten this as an indelible brand upon this city, as if that must for ever after go under the name of the rebellious and bad city. The Jews, in their captivity, had given such specimens of good behaviour as were sufficient, with any reasonable men, to roll away that one reproach; for they were instructed (and we have reason to hope that they observed their instructions) to seek the peace of the city where they were captives and pray to the Lord for it, Jer 29:7. It was therefore very unfair, though not uncommon, thus to impute the iniquity of the fathers to the children.

(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 (Ezr 4:12), when this was far from being the case. They had only begun to build the temple, which Cyrus commanded them to do, but, as for the walls, there was nothing done nor designed towards the repair of them, as appears by the condition they were in many years after (Neh 1:3), all in ruins. What shall be given, and what done, to these false tongues, nay, which is worse, these false pens? sharp arrows, doubtless, of the mighty, and coals of juniper, Psa 120:3, Psa 120:4. If they had not been perfectly lost to all virtue and honour they would not, and if they had not been very secure of the king's countenance they durst not, have written that to the king which all their neighbours knew to be a notorious lie. See Pro 29:12.

(3.) Their prognostics of the consequences were altogether groundless and absurd. They were very confident, and would have the king believe it upon their word, that if this city should be built, not only the Jews would pay no toll, tribute, or custom (Ezr 4:13), but (since a great lie is as soon spoken as a little one) that the king would have no portion at all on this side the river (Ezr 4:16), that all the countries on this side Euphrates would instantly revolt, drawn in to do so by their example; and, if the prince in possession should connive at this, he would wrong, not only himself, but his successors: Thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. See how every line in this letter breathes both the subtlety and malice of the old serpent.

Keil-Delitzsch: Ezr 4:1-2

The adversaries of the Jews prevent the building of the temple till the reignof Darius (Ezr 4:1, Ezr 4:2). When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heardthat the community which had returned from captivity were beginning torebuild the temple, they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chiefs of thepeople, and desired to take part in this work, because they also sacrificedto the God of Israel. These adversaries were, according to Ezr 4:2, the peoplewhom Esarhaddon king of Assyria had settled in the neighbourhood ofBenjamin and Judah. If we compare with this verse the information (2Ki 17:24) that the kings of Assyria brought men from Cuthah, andfrom Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in thecities of Samaria, and that they took possession of the depopulatedkingdom of the ten tribes, and dwelt therein; then these adversaries ofJudah and Benjamin are the inhabitants of the former kingdom of Israel,who were called Samaritans after the central-point of their settlement. הגּולה בּני , sons of the captivity (Ezr 6:19, etc.,Ezr 8:35; Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:16), also shortly into הגּולה , e.g., Ezr 1:11, are theIsraelites returned from the Babylonian captivity, who composed the newcommunity in Judah and Jerusalem. Those who returned with Zerubbabel,and took possession of the dwelling-places of their ancestors, being,exclusive of priests and Levites, chiefly members of the tribes of Judahand Benjamin, are called, especially when named in distinction from theother inhabitants of the land, Judah and Benjamin. The adversaries give thereason of their request to share in the building of the temple in the words:"For we seek your God as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him since thedays of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, which brought us up hither."The words זבחים אנחנוּ ולא are variouslyexplained. Older expositors take the Chethiv ולא as a negative, andmake זבחים to mean the offering of sacrifices to idols, bothbecause לא is a negative, and also because the assertion that theyhad sacrificed to Jahve would not have pleased the Jews, quia deficiente templo non debuerint sacrificare ; and sacrifices not offered in Jerusalemwere regarded as equivalent to sacrifices to idols. They might, moreover,fitly strengthen their case by the remark: "Since the days of Esarhaddonwe offer no sacrifices to idols."On the other hand, however, it is arbitraryto understand זבח , without any further definition, of sacrificingto idols; and the statement, "We already sacrifice to the God of Israel,"contains undoubtedly a far stronger reason for granting their request thanthe circumstance that they do not sacrifice to idols. Hence we incline, witholder translators (lxx, Syr., Vulg., 1 Esdras), to regard לא as anunusual form of לו , occurring in several places (see on Exo 21:8),the latter being also substituted in the present instance as Keri. Theposition also of לא before אנחנוּ points the same way,for the negative would certainly have stood with the verb. On Esarhaddon,see remarks on 2Ki 19:37 and Isa 37:38.

Keil-Delitzsch: Ezr 4:3

Zerubbabel and the other chiefs of Israel answer, "It is not for you and forus to build a house to our God;"i.e., You and we cannot together build ahouse to the God who is our God; "but we alone will build it to Jahve theGod of Israel, as King Cyrus commanded us." יחד אנחנוּ , we together, i.e., we alone (without your assistance). By theemphasis placed upon "our God"and "Jahve the God of Israel,"theassertion of the adversaries, "We seek your God as ye do,"is indirectlyrefuted. If Jahve is the God of Israel, He is not the God of those whomEsarhaddon brought into the land. The appeal to the decree of Cyrus (Ezr 1:3, comp. Ezr 3:6, etc.) forms a strong argument for the sole agency of Jewsin building the temple, inasmuch as Cyrus had invited those only whowere of His (Jahve's) people (Ezr 1:3). Hence the leaders of the newcommunity were legally justified in rejecting the proposal of the colonistsbrought in by Esarhaddon. For the latter were neither members of thepeople of Jahve, nor Israelites, nor genuine worshippers of Jahve. Theywere non-Israelites, and designated themselves as those whom the king ofAssyria had brought into the land. According to 2Ki 17:24, the king of Assyria brought colonists fromBabylon, Cuthah, and other places, and placed them in the cities ofSamaria instead of the children of Israel. Now we cannot suppose thatevery Israelite, to the very last man, was carried away by the Assyrians;such a deportation of a conquered people being unusual, and indeedimpossible. Apart, then, from the passage, 2Ch 30:6, etc., which manyexpositors refer to the time of the destruction of the kingdom of the tentribes, we find that in the time of King Josiah (2Ch 34:9), when theforeign colonists had been for a considerable period in the country, therewere still remnants of Manasseh, of Ephraim, and of all Israel, who gavecontributions for the house of God at Jerusalem; and also that in 2Ki 23:15-20 and 2Ch 34:6, a remnant of the Israelite inhabitants stillexisted in the former territory of the ten tribes. The eighty men, too, who (Jer 41:5, etc.) came, after the destruction of thetemple, from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, mourning, and bringingofferings and incense to Jerusalem, to the place of the house of God, whichwas still a holy place to them, were certainly Israelites of the ten tribesstill left in the land, and who had probably from the days of Josiahadhered to the temple worship. These remnants, however, of the Israelitesinhabitants in the territories of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, arenot taken into account in the present discussion concerning the erection ofthe temple; because, however considerable their numbers might be, theyformed no community independent of the colonists, but were dispersedamong them, and without political influence. It is not indeed impossible"that the colonists were induced through the influence exercised upon themby the Israelites living in their midst to prefer to the Jews the request, 'Letus build with you;' still those who made the proposal were not Israelites,but the foreign colonists"(Bertheau). These were neither members of the chosen people nor worshippers of theGod of Israel. At their first settlement (2Ki 17:24, etc.) they evidentlyfeared not the Lord, nor did they learn to do so till the king of Assyria, attheir request, sent them one of the priests who had been carried away toteach them the manner of worshipping the God of the land. This priest,being a priest of the Israelitish calf-worship, took up his abode at Bethel,and taught them to worship Jahve under the image of a golden calf. Hencearose a worship which is thus described, 2Ki 17:29-33 : Every nationmade gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high placeswhich the Samaritans, i.e., the former inhabitants of the kingdom of the tentribes, had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. Andbesides their idols Nergal, Asima, Nibhaz, Tartak, they feared Jahve; theysacrificed to all these gods as well as to Him. A mixed worship which theprophet-historian (2Ki 17:34) thus condemns: "They fear not theLord, and do after their statutes and ordinances, not after the law andcommandment which the Lord commanded to the sons of Jacob."And so,it is finally said (2Ki 17:41), do also their children and children's children untothis day, i.e., about the middle of the Babylonian captivity; nor was it willa subsequent period that the Samaritans renounced gross idolatry. The rulers and heads of Judah could not acknowledge that Jahve whom thecolonists worshipped as a local god, together with other gods, in thehouses of the high places at Bethel and elsewhere, to be the God of Israel,to whom they were building a temple at Jerusalem. For the question wasnot whether they would permit Israelites who earnestly sought Jahve toparticipate in His worship at Jerusalem-a permission which they certainlywould have refused to none who sincerely desired to turn to the LordGod-but whether they would acknowledge a mixed population of Gentilesand Israelites, whose worship was more heathen than Israelite, and whonevertheless claimed on its account to belong to the people of God.

(Note: The opinion of Knobel, that those who preferred the requestwere not the heathen colonists placed in the cities of Samaria by theAssyrian king (2Ki 17:24), but the priests sent by the Assyrianking to Samaria (2Ki 17:27), has been rejected as utterlyunfounded by Bertheau, who at the same time demonstrates, againstFritzsche on 1 Esdr. 5:65, the identity of the unnamed king ofAssyria (2Ki 17:24) with Esarhaddon.)

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

Keil-Delitzsch: Ezr 4:4

In consequence of this refusal, the adversaries of Judah sought to weakenthe hands of the people, and to deter them from building. הארץ עם , the people of the land, i.e., the inhabitants of the country, thecolonists dwelling in the land, the same who in Ezr 4:1 are called theadversaries of Judah and Benjamin. ויהי followed by theparticiple expresses the continuance of the inimical attempts. To weakenthe hands of any one, means to deprive him of strength and courage foraction; comp. Jer 38:4. יהוּדה עם are the inhabitants ofthe realm of Judah, who, including the Benjamites, had returned fromcaptivity, Judah being now used to designate the whole territory of thenew community, as before the captivity the entire southern kingdom;comp. Ezr 4:6. Instead of the Chethiv מבלּהים , the Keri offer מבהלים ,from בהל , Piel , to terrify, to alarm, 2Ch 32:18; Job 21:6, because theverb בלה nowhere else occurs; but the noun בּלּהה , fear, beingnot uncommon, and presupposing the existence of a verb בּלהּ ,the correctness of the Chethiv cannot be impugned.

Keil-Delitzsch: Ezr 4:5

And they hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose (ofbuilding the temple). וסכרים still depends on the ויהי of Ezr 4:4. סכר is a later orthography of שׂכר , tohire, to bribe. Whether by the hiring of יועציט we are to understandthe corruption of royal counsellors or ministers, or the appointment oflegal agents to act against the Jewish community at the Persian court, andto endeavour to obtain an inhibition against the erection of the temple,does not appear. Thus much only is evident from the text, that theadversaries succeeded in frustrating the continuance of the building "all thedays of Koresh,"i.e., the yet remaining five years of Cyrus, who was forthe space of seven years sole ruler of Babylon; while the machinationsagainst the building, begun immediately after the laying of its foundationsin the second year of the return, had the effect, in the beginning of the thirdyear of Cyrus (judging from Dan 10:2), of putting a stop to the work untilthe reign of Darius, - in all, fourteen years, viz., five years of Cyrus, sevenand a half of Cambyses, seven months of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and oneyear of Darius (till the second year of his reign).

Keil-Delitzsch: Ezr 4:6-23

Complaints against the Jews to Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta . - Theright understanding of this section depends upon the question, What kingsof Persia are meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta? while the answerto this question is, in part at least, determined by the contents of theletter, 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. שׂטנה , not to mention the name of the well, Gen 26:21, occurshere only, and means, according to its derivation from שׂטן , tobear enmity, the enmity; hence here, the accusation. ישׁבי על belongs to שׂטנה , not to כּתבוּ ; the letter wassent, not to the inhabitants of Judah, but to the king against the Jews. Thecontents of this letter are not given, but may be inferred from thedesignation שׂטנה . The letter to Artachshasta then follows, Ezr 4:7-16. In his days, i.e., during his reign, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, andthe rest of their companions. כּנותו , for which the Keri offers theordinary form כּנותיו mrof yra , occurs only here in the Hebrewsections, 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 toGesenius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) togetherwith another, though Ewald is of a different opinion; see §117, b , note. The singular would be written כּנת (Ewald, §187, d ). And thewriting of the letter was written in Aramaean (i.e., with Aramaeancharacters), and interpreted in (i.e., translated into) Aramaean. נשׁתּון 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 נשׁתּונא is used for אגּרתּא of Ezr 4:11. Bertheau translates הנּשׁתּון כּתב , copy of theletter, and regards it as quite identical with the Chaldee אגּרתּא פּרשׁגן , Ezr 4:11; he can hardly, however, be in the right. כּתב 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 thisstatement had before him only an Aramaean translation of the lettercontained in the state-papers or chronicles which he made use of."It is not כּתב , the copy or writing, but הנּשׁתּון , theletter, that is the subject of ארמית מתרגּם , interpretedin Aramaean. This was translated into the Aramaean or Syrian tongue. Thepassage is not to be understood as stating that the letter was drawn up inthe Hebrew or Samaritan tongue, and then translated into Aramaean, butsimply that the letter was not composed in the native language of thewriters, but in Aramaean. Thus Gesenius rightly asserts, in his Thes . p. 1264, et lingua aramaea scripta erat ; in saying which תרגם does not receivethe meaning concepit , expressit , but retains its own signification, tointerpret, to translate into another language. The writers of the letter wereSamaritans, who, having sprung from the intermingling of the Babyloniansettlers brought in by Esarhaddon and the remnants of the Israelitishpopulation, spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than toAramaean, which was spoken at the Babylonian court, and was the officiallanguage of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramaean tongue had also its own characters, differing from those ofthe Hebrew and Samaritan. This is stated by the words ארמית כּתוּב , whence Bertheau erroneously infers that this Aramaeanwriting was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps inHebrew 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 whicha copy is given in Ezr 4:11-16; but the names of the writers are differentfrom those mentioned in Ezr 4:7. The three names, Bishlam, Mithredath, andTabeel (Ezr 4:7), cannot be identified with the two names Rehum andShimshai (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 writtenaccusation against the Jews in their own and their associates' names, itrequires but little stretch of the imagination to suppose that thesepersonages were acting at the instance of the adversaries named in Ezr 4:7, theSamaritans Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, and merely inditing thecomplaints raised by these opponents against the Jews. This view, whichis not opposed by the כּתב of Ezr 4:7, - this word not necessarilyimplying an autograph, - commends itself to our acceptance, first, becausethe notion that the contents of this letter are not given finds no analogy inEzr 4:6, where the contents of the letter to Ahashverosh are sufficientlyhinted at by the word שׂטנה ; 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 samewhich 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 thereis a long gap in the narrative, and regard the Aramaean lettermentioned in Ezr 4:7 to have been a petition, on the part of persons ofconsideration in the community at Jerusalem, to the new king, - twonotions which immediately betray themselves to be the expedients ofperplexity. The supposed "long gaps, which the chronicler might wellleave even in transcribing from his documents"(Ew.), do not explainthe abrupt commencement of Ezr 4:8. If a petition from the Jewishcommunity to the king were spoken of in Ezr 4:7, the accusation againstthe Jews in Ezr 4:8 would certainly have been alluded to by at least a ו adversative, or some other adversative particle.)

Besides, the statement concerning the Aramaean composition of this letterwould have been utterly purposeless if the Aramaean letter following in Ezr 4:8 had been an entirely different one. The information concerning thelanguage in which the letter was written has obviously no other motivethan to introduce its transcription in the original Aramaean. Thisconjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aramaean letterfollows in Ezr 4:8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had beenintended, the ו copulative would not more have been omitted here than inEzr 4:7. The letter itself, indeed, does not begin till Ezr 4:9, while Ezr 4:8 containsyet another announcement of it. This circumstance, however, is explainedby the fact that the writers of the letters are other individuals than thosenamed in Ezr 4:7, but chiefly by the consideration that the letter, togetherwith the king's answer, being derived from an Aramaean account of thebuilding of the temple, the introduction to the letter found therein was alsotranscribed.

Ezr 4:8

The writers of the letter are designated by titles which showthem to have been among the higher functionaries of Artachshasta. Rehumis called טעם בּעל , dominus consilii v. decreti , by others consiliarius , royal counsellor, probably the title of the Persian civilgovernor (erroneously taken for a proper name in lxx, Syr., Arab.);Shimshai, ספרא , the Hebrew סופר , scribe, secretary. כּנמא is interpreted by Rashi and Aben Ezra by כּאשׁר נאמר , as we shall say; נמא is in the Talmud frequently anabbreviation of נאמר or נימר , of like signification with לאמר :as follows.

Ezr 4:9-11

After this introduction we naturally look for the letter itself inEzr 4:9, instead of which we have (Ezr 4:9 and Ezr 4:10) a full statement of who were thesenders; and then, after a parenthetical interpolation, "This is the copy ofthe letter,"etc., the letter itself in Ezr 4:11. The statement is rather a clumsyone, the construction especially exhibiting a want of sequence. The verb to אדין is wanting; this follows in Ezr 4:11, but as an anacoluthon,after an enumeration of the names in Ezr 4:9 and Ezr 4:10 with שׁלחוּ . Thesentence ought properly to run thus: "Then (i.e., in the days ofArtachshasta) Rehum, etc., sent a letter to King Artachshasta, of whichthe 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 thesuperscription or preamble of the letter, to give weight to the accusationbrought against the Jews. The author of the Chaldee section of thenarrative, however, has placed them first, and made the copy of the letteritself begin only with the words, "Thy servants,"etc. First come the names of the superior officials, Rehum and Shimshai, andthe rest of their companions. The latter are then separately enumerated:The Dinaites, lxx Δειναῖοι , - so named, according to the conjecture ofEwald ( Gesch . iii. p. 676), from the Median city long afterwards calledDeinaver (Abulf. Geógr . ed. Paris. p. 414); the Apharsathchites, probablythe Pharathiakites of Strabo (15:3. 12) ( Παρητακηνοί , Herod. i. 101), onthe borders of Persia and Media, described as being, together with theElymaites, a predatory people relying on their mountain fastnesses; theTarpelites, whom Junius already connects with the Τάπουροι dwelling eastof Elymais (Ptol. vi. 2. 6); the Apharsites, probably the Persians ( פרסיא with א prosthetic); the Archevites, probably so called from the city ארך , Gen 10:10, upon inscriptions Uruk, the modern Warka; the בּבליא , Babylonians, inhabitants of Babylon; the Shushanchites, i.e., theSusanites, inhabitants of the city of Susa; דּהוא , in the Keri דּהיא , the Dehavites, the Grecians ( Δάοι , Herod. i. 125); and lastly,the Elamites, the people of Elam or Elymais. Full as this enumeration mayseem, yet the motive being to name as many races as possible, theaddition, "and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapperbrought over and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are on thisside 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 thecity in which Osnapper had settled the colonists here named, the "nationsbrought 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 KingEsarhaddon. Hence Osnapper would seem to be merely another name forEsarhaddon. But the names Osnapper (lxx Ἀσσεναφάρ ) and Asarhaddon(lxx Ἀσαραδάν ) being too different to be identified, and the notion thatOsnapper was a second name of Asarhaddon having but little probability,together with the circumstance that Osnapper is not called king, asAsarhaddon is Ezr 4:2, but only "the great and noble,"it is more likely that hewas some high functionary of Asarhaddon, who presided over thesettlement of eastern races in Samaria and the lands west of the Euphrates. "In the cities,"or at least the preposition ב , must be supplied from thepreceding בּקריה before נהרה עבר שׁאר : and in the rest of the territory, or in the cities of the rest of theterritory, on this side of Euphrates. עבר , trans , is to be understoodof the countries west of Euphrates; matters being regarded from the pointof view of the settlers, who had been transported from the territories east,to those west of Euphrates. וּכענת means "and so forth,"andhints that the statement is not complete.

On comparing the names of the nations here mentioned with the names ofthe cities from which, according to 2Ki 17:24, colonists were broughtto Samaria, we find the inhabitants of most of the cities there named - Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava - here comprised under the name of the countryas בּבליא , Babylonians; while the people of Hamath and Sepharvaimmay fitly be included among "the rest of the nations,"since certainly butfew colonists would have been transported from the Syrian Hamath toSamaria. The main divergence between the two passages arises from themention in our present verse, not only of the nations planted in the citiesof Samaria, but of all the nations in the great region on this side ofEuphrates ( נהרה עבר ). All these tribes had similarinterests to defend in opposing the Jewish community, and they desiredby united action to give greater force to their representation to the Persianmonarch, and thus to hinder the people of Jerusalem from becomingpowerful. And certainly they had some grounds for uneasiness lest the remnant ofthe Israelites in Palestine, and in other regions on this side the Euphrates,should combine with the Jerusalem community, and the thus unitedIsraelites should become sufficiently powerful to oppose an effectualresistance to their heathen adversaries. On the anacoluthistic connection ofEzr 4:11. פּרשׁגן , Ezr 4:11, Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:6;Ezr 7:11, and frequently in the Targums and the Syriac, written פּתשׁגן Est 3:14 and Est 4:8, is derived from the Zendish paiti (Sanscr. prati )and çenghana (in Old-Persian thanhana ), and signifies properly acounterword, i.e., counterpart, copy. The form with ר is either acorruption, or formed from a compound with fra ; comp. Gildemeister inthe Zeitschr. für die Kunde des Morgenl . iv. p. 210, and Haug in Ewald's bibl. Jahrb . v. p. 163, etc. - The copy of the letter begins with עבדּיך ,thy servants, the men, etc. The Chethib עבדיך is the original form,shortened in the Keri into עבדּך . Both forms occur elsewhere;comp. Dan 2:29; Dan 3:12, and other passages. The וכענת , etc., here stands forthe full enumeration of the writers already given in Ezr 4:9, and also for thecustomary form of salutation.

Ezr 4:12-16

The letter. Ezr 4:12 "Be it known unto the king."On the form להוא for יהוא , peculiar to biblical Chaldee, see remarks onDan 2:20. "Which are come up from thee,"i.e., from the territory wherethou art tarrying; in other words, from the country beyond Euphrates. This by no means leads to the inference, as Schrader supposes, that theseJews had been transported from Babylon to Jerusalem by KingArtachshasta. מלק answers to the Hebrew עלה , and is used likethis of the journey to Jerusalem. "Are come to us, to Jerusalem," עלינא , to us, that is, into the parts where we dwell, is more preciselydefined by the words "to Jerusalem.""They are building the rebellious andbad city, and are setting up its walls and digging its foundations."Insteadof מרדתּא (with Kamets and Metheg under ) ר the edition of J. H. Mich. has מרדתּא , answering to the stat. abs . מרדא , Ezr 4:15; on the other hand, the edition of Norzi and several codices read מרדתּא , the feminine of מרוד . For בּאוּשׁתּא Norzi has באישׁתּא , from בּישׁ , a contraction of בּאישׁ . For אשׁכללוּ must be read, according to the Keri, שׁכללוּ שׁוּריּא . The Shaphel שׁכלל from כּלל , means to complete, tofinish. אשּׁין , bases, foundations. יחיטוּ may be the imperf. Aphel of חוּט , formed after the example of יקּים for יקים , omitting the reduplication, יחיט . חוּט means to sew,to sew together, and may, like רפא , be understood of repairingwalls or foundations. But it is more likely to be the imperf. Aphel of חטט , in Syriac hat , and in the Talmud, to dig, to dig out, fodit , excavavit - to dig out the foundations for the purpose of erecting new buildings.

Ezr 4:13

"Now be it known unto the king, that if this city be built upand ... they will not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and it (the city) will atlast bring damage to the king."The three words מנדּה בלו והלך occur again, Ezr 4:20 and Ezr 7:24, in this combination as designating thedifferent kinds of imposts. מנדּה , with resolved Dagesh forte ,for מדּה (Ezr 4:20), signifies measure, then tax or custom measuredto every one. בּלו , probably a duty on consumption, excise; הלך , a toll paid upon roads by travellers and their goods. Theword אפּהם , which occurs only here, and has not been expressedby old translators, depends upon the Pehlevi word אודום : it is connectedwith the Sanscrit apa , in the superl. apama , and signifies at last, or in thefuture; comp. Haug, p. 156. מלכים , a Hebraized form for מלכין , 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 notbecome us to see the damage of the king, we send (this letter) and makeknown to the king." מלח מלח , to salt salt = to eat salt. To eat the salt of the palace is a figurative expression for: to be in theking's pay. See this interpretation vindicated from the Syriac and Persianin Gesen. thes . p. 790.

(Note: Luther, in translating "all we who destroyed the temple,"follows the Rabbis, who, from the custom of scattering salt upondestroyed places, Jdg 9:45, understood these words as an expressionfigurative of destruction, and היכלא as the temple.)

ערוה , deprivation, emptying, here injury to the royal power orrevenue. אריך , participle of ארך , answering to the Hebrew ערך , means fitting, becoming.

Ezr 4:15

"That search may be made in the book of the chronicles of thyfathers, so shalt thou find in the book of the Chronicles that this city hasbeen a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and countries, and that theyhave from of old stirred up sedition within it, on which account this citywas (also) destroyed." יבקּר is used impersonally: let one seek,let search be made. דּכרניּא ספר , book of records, isthe public royal chronicle in which the chief events of the history of therealm 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 ingovernment; therefore not merely the Median and Persian, but theChaldean and Assyrian kings, to whose dominions the Persian monarchshad succeeded. אשׁתּדּוּר , a verbal noun from the Ithpeal of שׁדר , rebellion. עלמא יומת מן , from thedays of eternity, i.e., from time immemorial. יומת is in theconstructive state, plural, formed from the singular יומא . This formoccurs only here and Ezr 4:19, but is analogous with the Hebrew poeticalform ימות for ימים .

Ezr 4:16

After thus casting suspicion upon the Jews as a seditiouspeople, their adversaries bring the accusation, already raised at thebeginning of the letter, to a climax, by saying that if Jerusalem is rebuiltand fortified, the king will lose his supremacy over the lands on this sidethe river. דּנה לקבל , on this account, for this reason,that the present inhabitants of the fortified city Jerusalem are like itsformer inhabitants, thou wilt have no portion west of Euphrates, i.e., thouwilt have nothing more to do with the countries on this side the river-wiltforfeit thy sway over these districts.

Ezr 4:17-22

The royal answer to this letter. פּתגּמא - a wordwhich 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. עבר וּשׁאר still depends upon בּ : those dwelling in Samaria and the other towns on this side the river. The royal letter begins with וּכעת שׁלם , "Peace,"and soforth. כּעת is abbreviated from כּענת .

Ezr 4:18

"The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read beforeme." מפרשׁ part. pass. Peal, corresponds with the Hebrew part. Piel מפרשׁ , made plain, adverbially, plainly, and does notsignify "translated into Persian."

Ezr 4:19

"And by me a command has been given, and search has beenmade; and it has been found that this city from of old hath lifted itself(risen) up against kings,"etc. מתנשּׁא , 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 ofEuphrates). This applies in its full extent only to David and Solomon, andin 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 keepthem from the work), that this city be not built until command (sc. tobuild) be given from me." יתּשׂם , Ithpeal of שׂוּם .

Ezr 4:22

"And be warned from committing an oversight in this respect,"i.e., take heed to overlook nothing in this matter ( זהיר , instructed,warned). "Why should the damage become great (i.e., grow), to bringinjury to kings?"

Ezr 4:23

The result of this royal command. As soon as the copy of theletter was read before Rehum and his associates, they went up in haste toJerusalem to the Jews, and hindered them by violence and force. אדרע with א prosthetic only here, elsewhere דּרע (= זרוע ), arm, violence. Bertheau translates, "with forces and ahost;"but the rendering of אדרע or זרוע by "force"canneither be shown to be correct from Eze 17:9 and Dan 11:15, Dan 11:31, norjustified by the translation of the lxx, ἐν ἵπποις καὶ δυνάμει .

Constable: Ezr 1:1--6:22

I. THE FIRST RETURN UNDER SHESHBAZZAR chs. 1--6

"This whole section (Ezra 1-6) emphasizes God's sovereignty and his providence; God works in history to fulfill his will."¹⁵

Constable: Ezr 3:1--6:22

B. The Rebuilding of the Temple chs. 3-6

Construction of the temple began soon after the exiles returned to Jerusalem. However problems threatened the completion of the project. First, the immigrants contemplated abandoning their religious distinctives to get along with their neighbors (ch. 4). Then opposition from their enemies threatened to terminate construction.

"The temple was the basis for the postexilic community's fellowship with God."⁵⁸

"In a sense the standing of the furnished Temple of God symbolizes the existence of his covenant with his people. This is why the rebuilding of the Temple occupies so central a place in the Book of Ezra."⁵⁹

Constable: Ezr 4:1-24

2. The opposition to construction ch. 4

No project that seeks to honor God and advance His will in the world will go unopposed by Satan and his agents.

"From this point onward right to the end of Nehemiah there is conflict."⁶⁵

This chapter reveals that Israel's enemies opposed temple reconstruction energetically and for many years.

"The peoples of the land wished the exiles to be entirely like them. But these were people whose allegiance was fundamentally not to Yahweh."⁶⁶

Constable: Ezr 4:1-5

Opposition during Cyrus' reign 4:1-5

The Assyrian government encouraged its residents to move to Israel and to settle there after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. This was official government policy during the reigns of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (680-669 B.C.; 2 Kings 17:24) and Ashurbanipal (668-ca. 630 B.C.; 4:10). These immigrant people worshipped pagan idols (2 Kings 17:30-31) but also started worshipping Yahweh whom they regarded as the god of the land in which they now lived (2 Kings 17:32-33). Eventually they intermarried with the Jews who had remained in the land. Their descendants became the Samaritans. They were a mixed breed racially and religiously. The exiles who returned from Babylon and their descendants despised them (cf. John 4:9). It was these people of the land who approached Zerubbabel and offered to help the Jews rebuild their temple (v. 2).

"But people of the land' is a vague term being attached to different groups during different phases of the historical period and having no inner continuity to the term itself. Chronologically, it cannot refer to Samaritan opposition, since the Samaritan sect is a much later emergence."⁶⁷

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

"This attitude of exclusiveness displayed by the Jews . . . is troublesome to our modern society, where perhaps the highest virtue is the willingness to accept and cooperate with persons whose beliefs and practices differ from one's own. If we are tempted to think that Zerubbabel and the other leaders were sinfully separatistic or mistaken in their evaluation of those who offered their assistance, we must observe that these outsiders are identified as enemies.' Their motives were clearly subversive."⁶⁸

"The leaders in the province of Samaria may well have seen the emergence of a new, aggressive presence in Judah, and one which enjoyed the favor of the imperial government, as threatening. . . . An offer to share the labor, and presumably also the expense, of rebuilding the sanctuary would have been taken to entail, and would in fact have entailed, a share in controlling the temple itself with all that implied."⁶⁹

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

"The Persian officials were bribed to frustrate the plans of the returnees. Bribery as a practice was well known in Persian times."⁷⁰

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

Constable: Ezr 4:6

Opposition during Ahasuerus' reign 4:6

"When he [the writer] discussed the problems of the building of the temple in 4:1-5, it reminded him of later similar troubles with the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, and so 4:6-23 has been inserted, almost parenthetically, before the argument of the building of the temple has again been taken up in 4:24ff. (already noted by C. F. Keil in the last [nineteenth] century)."⁷¹

This king of Persia, whose Greek name was Xerxes, was the man Esther married. He ruled from 486 to 464 B.C. Since the restoration Jews completed the temple in 515 B.C. (6:15) this verse shows that the neighbors of the returned exiles continued to oppose them long after they had finished rebuilding the temple.

"Without this foretaste of history to reveal the full seriousness of the opposition, we would not properly appreciate the achievements recorded in the next two chapters (5 and 6) nor the dangers hidden in the mixed marriages which Ezra would set himself to stamp out (chaps. 7-10)."⁷²

Constable: Ezr 4:7-23

Opposition during Artaxerxes' reign 4:7-23

Artaxerxes was the successor of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) who ruled the Persian Empire from 464 to 424 B.C.⁷³ Clearly the incident reported in these verses took place long after the temple was complete. It really involved the attempt by Israel's enemies to halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall in the days of Nehemiah. It evidently took place about 446 B.C. (cf. 4:21-23; Neh. 1:1-3).

The writer's purpose in inserting this incident in the text was evidently to show the continued antagonism of Israel's enemies and the faithfulness of God in giving the Jews victory over them.

"Near Eastern kings used an elaborate system of informers and spies. Egyptian sources speak of the ears and eyes' of the Pharaoh. Sargon II of Assyria had agents in Urartu whom he ordered, Write me whatever you see and hear.' The efficient Persian intelligence system is described by Xenophon.⁷⁴ The King's Eye and the King's Ear were two distinct officials who reported to the monarch.⁷⁵ But God's people could take assurance in their conviction that God's intelligence system is not only more efficient than any king's espionage network but is omniscient (cf. 2 Chron. 16:9; Zech. 4:10)."⁷⁶

The antagonists enlisted the help of local Persian officials including Rehum and Shimshai (v. 8) to appeal to Artaxerxes to issue an order stopping work on the walls. The letter was in Aramaic, the common language of the Persian Empire. This is the language in which it appears in the original Hebrew text of Ezra. The writer wrote all of 4:8-6:18 as well as 7:12-26 in Aramaic originally. Aramaic was a language well known to all the Jews living in the empire as well as Gentiles. The writer may have written this entire section of the book in Aramaic to avoid changing back and forth from Hebrew to Aramaic so many times.⁷⁷

"The end of v. 7 is literally and he wrote the letter written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic.' . . . This could mean that while the letter had been written in Aramaic, the author's copy had been translated into Hebrew.⁷⁸ Since the actual letter is not given, however, it more likely would mean that although the letter had been written in Aramaic it was translated into Persian when it was read to the king."⁷⁹

Osnappar (v. 10) is evidently an Aramaic form of Ashurbanipal (669-ca. 660 B.C.), the Assyrian king who succeeded Esarhaddon.⁸⁰ The phrase "beyond the river" (vv. 10, 11, 16, 17, 20) refers to the Persian province that lay to the southwest of the upper Euphrates, namely, the one that encompassed Syria and Palestine.

The Jews mentioned in this letter (v. 12) would have been those who returned with Ezra in 458 B.C., the second group of Jews to leave Babylon. That group attempted to rebuild the walls of the city having received permission from Artaxerxes in 458 B.C. to do so (7:21).

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

"The historical justification for the claim that Jerusalem is a chronically rebellious city will have consisted in such events as Hezekiah's withholding of tribute from Assyria (2 Kings 18:7, ca. 724 B.C.) and Zedekiah's abortive bid for freedom from the Babylonians, which led to the cataclysm of 587 (2 Kings 24:20ff.). The Assyrian and Babylonian annals were evidently available to the Persian kings. And it is clear that a nerve is touched."⁸¹

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

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

"This was a day of great shame to the Jewish population because their honest endeavor was thwarted by their archenemies, the Samaritans, and it was forced on them by Samaritan soldiers."⁸²

Guzik: Ezr 4:1-24

Ezra 4 - Samaritan Attempts to Stop the Work

"From this point onwards right to the end of Nehemiah there is conflict. Nothing that is attempted for God will now go unchallenged, and scarcely a tactic be unexplored by the opposition." (Derek Kidner)

A. The offer of a dangerous alliance.

1. (1-2) Adversaries try to join the work of building the temple.

Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the descendants of the captivity were building the temple of the LORD God of Israel, they came to Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers' houses, and said to them, "Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here."

a. Now when the adversaries: Judea was not completely empty of inhabitants in the two generations of captivity. There was a remnant descended from the lowest and poorest of the land that was left behind in the exile, combined with the few who had drifted into the largely desolate area. These people were not happy that Judah and Benjamin had come back to Judea and thus they were their adversaries.

i. These were the early Samaritans, those who were brought into the lands of the former Kingdom of Israel after its fall to the Assyrians, who intermarried with those left behind from the exile. In the two generations of exile after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah, they had also expanded somewhat into the lands of Judah.

ii. The Samaritans continued as a people into New Testament times. Because the Samaritans had some historical connection to the people of Israel, their faith was a combination of law and ritual from the Law of Moses and various superstitions. Most Jews in Jesus' time despised the Samaritans, even more than Gentiles - because they were, religiously speaking, "half-breeds" who had an eclectic, mongrel faith. This context is essential in understanding the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37.

iii. 2 Kings 17:24 tells the attitude of the Samaritans: They feared the LORD, yet served their own gods; according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away.

b. Heard that the descendants of the captivity were building the temple of the LORD God of Israel: The noise from the dedication ceremony at the end of Ezra 3 got the attention of these scattered peoples, signaling them that the returning Jews were serious about re-establishing a permanent presence in Judea.

c. Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do: They wanted to become partners in the building work, yet they were still adversaries. They wanted to partner in the work either to ruin it or to influence it to their benefit.

i. "Their subsequent conduct was so bitterly ill-natured that we are driven to think that they must have had some selfish aims from the first." (Adeney)

ii. "The proposal to unite in building the Temple was a political move; for, in old-world ideas, co-operation in Temple-building was incorporation in national unity. The calculation, no doubt, was that if the returning exiles could be united with the much more numerous Samaritans, they would soon be absorbed in them." (Maclaren)

iii. They did this on the claim that we seek your God as you do. They probably said this with all sincerity; they genuinely believed that they sought the same God in the same way. Yet they also added, "and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria." This means they sacrificed without either a temple or a priesthood, which was obviously against the commandment of God. This completely contradicted their claim, "we seek your God as you do."

iv. To the Samaritans, Yahweh was one of many powerful gods. Their idolatry represented a grave danger, because Israel was exiled for their idolatry. This was a dangerous partnership for the returned exiles.

v. "There may seem to be great loss and needless sacrifice in dispensing with the help of Rehum and Shimshai; but if once we accepted their help, we should discover to our cost that they were adversaries still, and that their only desire was to retard our efforts." (Meyer)

2. (3) Zerubbabel rightly refuses their offer.

But Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the fathers' houses of Israel said to them, "You may do nothing with us to build a house for our God; but we alone will build to the LORD God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us."

a. Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the fathers' houses of Israel said to them: Importantly, their response was unified. All the returned exiles were agreed upon this answer to the Samaritans.

b. You may do nothing with us to build a house for our God: With one voice, they refused the help of the Samaritans. They did this knowing they had the permission (even the command) of King Cyrus, and knowing they lacked both human and financial resources.

i. It was an important step of faith to refuse a partnership that might have seemed helpful. We can imagine that there were a few pragmatists among them who said, "We need any help we can get. We can guard ourselves against ungodly influences they may bring." In weak or early circumstances of a building work there is often a serious temptation to take any help and to ignore the dangers of unwise and ungodly partnerships.

ii. "The Samaritans did not worship Jehovah as the Jews, but along with their own gods (2 Kings 17:25-41). To divide His dominion with others was to dethrone Him altogether. It therefore became an act of faithfulness to Jehovah to reject the entangling alliance." (Maclaren)

iii. "If they had taken an active share and labour and sacrifice of the construction of the temple, they could not have been excluded afterwards from taking part in the temple worship." (Adeney)

iv. "Men of faith have often fallen into this blunder, and have associated with themselves those not sharing their faith, and therefore in the deepest sense opposed to their enterprises. These leaders were not deceived. They detected the peril." (Morgan)

v. "Such inclusion of the unyielded is, moreover, a wrong done to them, as it gives them a false sense of security." (Morgan)

B. The broad outline of Samaritan resistance to the work in Jerusalem.

1. (4-5) The resistance under the reign of Cyrus [539-530 B.C.].

Then the people of the land tried to discourage the people of Judah. They troubled them in building, and hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

a. Then the people of the land tired to discourage the people of Judah: This response to the refusal of partnership revealed their evil intent. If they could not attack the work through a subversive partnership, they would then attack the work through discouraging the workers, troubling the builders, and lobbying against them in the court of King Cyrus.

i. " 'To discourage' is literally 'to weaken the hands,' a Hebrew idiom (cf. Jeremiah 38:4)." (Yamauchi)

b. All the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia: This section (Ezra 4:4-23) is a broad overview of Samaritan resistance to the work of rebuilding the temple and the city of Jerusalem, extending into the days of Nehemiah. It is a section unto itself, somewhat interrupting the flow of the text from Ezra 4:3 to 4:24.

i. By taking out this section unto itself and simply reading from Ezra 4:3 to 4:24, we see that the work of building the temple was interrupted for several years during the reigns of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

ii. There are two other kings described in this chapter: Ahasuerus (Xerxes, who reigned between 485 and 465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes I (who reigned between 464 and 424 B.C.). Even after the temple was finished under Zerubbabel, the Samaritans continued to oppose the work of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and this ongoing resistance is briefly chronicled in this section of Ezra 4:4-23.

2. (6) The resistance under the reign of Ahasuerus [485-465 B.C.].

In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

a. In the reign of Ahasuerus . . . they wrote an accusation: The Samaritan adversaries against the people of Judah sought to stop the work in this way through influencing the king against the builders.

b. In the beginning of his reign: This showed a true enterprising spirit among the adversaries of God's people. They were wrong, but they were energetic and enterprising in their wrong work.

i. "Ahasuerus, familiar to us from the book of Esther . . . The mention of him here marks simply the passage of time, which had still not cooled the enemy's antagonism. But evidently nothing came of this attempt." (Kidner)

3. (7-16) The resistance under the reign of Artaxerxes I [464-424 B.C.].

In the days of Artaxerxes also, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel, and the rest of their companions wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the letter was written in Aramaic script, and translated into the Aramaic language. Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes in this fashion: From Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; representatives of the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the people of Persia and Erech and Babylon and Shushan, the Dehavites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper took captive and settled in the cities of Samaria and the remainder beyond the River; and so forth. (This is a copy of the letter that they sent him) To King Artaxerxes from your servants, the men of the region beyond the River, and so forth: Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us at Jerusalem, and are building the rebellious and evil city, and are finishing its walls and repairing the foundations. Let it now be known to the king that, if this city is built and the walls completed, they will not pay tax, tribute, or custom, and the king's treasury will be diminished. Now because we receive support from the palace, it was not proper for us to see the king's dishonor; therefore we have sent and informed the king, that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. And you will find in the book of the records and know that this city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, and that they have incited sedition within the city in former times, for which cause this city was destroyed. We inform the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are completed, the result will be that you will have no dominion beyond the River.

a. And translated into the Aramaic language: Starting at Ezra 4:8 and continuing all the way until 6:18, everything is written in Aramaic (instead of Hebrew) instead of Hebrew; Ezra 7:12-26 is also in Aramaic.

i. "The letter was probably dictated in Persian to a scribe, who translated it into Aramaic and wrote it down in Aramaic script." (Yamauchi)

b. And are building the rebellious and evil city, and are finishing its walls and repairing the foundations: This indicates that the work they complained against was not the work of rebuilding the temple, because that work was already completed. This was resistance to the work of rebuilding the city and its walls.

i. We know that the temple was completed sooner rather than later for several reasons. One is that the same Zerubbabel who started the work also saw it finished (Zechariah 4:9). Another is that some of the same people who saw the glory of Solomon's temple also lived long enough to see Zerubbabel's temple finished (Haggai 2:3).

ii. "It should hardly need emphasizing that the walls and foundations are those of the city, not the Temple; but the two operations are often confused. By the reign of Artaxerxes the new Temple had been standing for half a century." (Kidner)

c. They will not pay tax, tribute, or custom: This was a lie and a false accusation. They recalled the prior sins of Jerusalem (the rebellious and evil city) and attributed them to these chastened, returned, exiles.

d. It was not proper for us to see the king's dishonor: They skillfully shaped their words to claim they were supporting and protecting the king.

i. Now because we receive support from the palace: "More literally: Now because at all times we are salted with the salt of the palace; i.e., We live on the king's bounty, and must be faithful to our benefactor." (Clarke)

e. This city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces: Cleverly calling attention to Jerusalem's sinful past, the Samaritans argued that allowing the building work to continue would make it so that the king of Persia would have no dominion beyond the River.

i. Their attack by letter was a skillful combination of truth and lies. It was true that Jerusalem had a sinful past; yet with these returned exiles, it truly was the past and not the present. However, that truth was completely irrelevant because of the great lie - the lie that Jews and the builders of Jerusalem had a rebellious intent.

ii. In a similar pattern our adversaries - Satan and his angels, the enemies of our soul - often attack us with a combination of truth and lies. They tell us of our great sin (an accusation that is often true), but they lie about the greater work of Jesus. Since Satan also accuses us before the God (Revelation 12:10), he brings his accusing report against us before the Great King.

4. (17-23) The king commands that they work stop until further notice.

The king sent an answer: To Rehum the commander, to Shimshai the scribe, to the rest of their companions who dwell in Samaria, and to the remainder beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which you sent to us has been clearly read before me. And I gave the command, and a search has been made, and it was found that this city in former times has revolted against kings, and rebellion and sedition have been fostered in it. There have also been mighty kings over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the region beyond the River; and tax, tribute, and custom were paid to them. Now give the command to make these men cease, that this city may not be built until the command is given by me. Take heed now that you do not fail to do this. Why should damage increase to the hurt of the kings? Now when the copy of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem against the Jews, and by force of arms made them cease.

a. It was found that this city in former times has revolted against kings, and rebellion and sedition have been fostered in it: The Samaritan letter to stop the work was a combination of truth and lies, and here the Persian king focused on the truth in the letter - the sinful and tragic past of Jerusalem.

b. There have also been mighty kings over Jerusalem: Artaxerxes I also noted that in times past there were in fact powerful kings of Judah, who had the power to tax and impose tribute on their neighbors. In his mind, it meant that Judah had the potential to return to this powerful past.

i. Who have ruled over all the region beyond the River: "That is, the Euphrates. Both David and Solomon carried their conquests beyond this river. See 2 Samuel 8:3 and following, and 1 Kings 4:21, where it is said, Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines; and unto the borders of Egypt." (Clarke)

c. Now give the command to make these men cease: The letter from the Samaritan adversaries was successful. Artaxerxes King of Persia, perhaps the most powerful man in the world at that time, commanded that the work be stopped.

d. By force of arms made them cease: The adversaries made the most of the decree of Artaxerxes and used it to make the work stop immediately.

5. (24) The previous work of rebuilding the temple in the days of Darius is again considered.

Thus the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem ceased, and it was discontinued until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

a. Thus the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem ceased: Through the kinds of tactics of the Samaritans mentioned in the broad survey of Ezra 4:4-23, these adversaries succeeded in stopping the building work for some 15 years.

i. "The word 'Then' would at first point us to the verse immediately before this; but it only makes sense if it is picking up the thread of verse 5 which was dropped for the long parenthesis (6-23). The time is again that of Zerubbabel." (Kidner)

b. Until the second year of the reign of Darius: This shows us that the work did not stop forever. Though the adversaries attacked through both subversive partnership and lies to authorities, and seemed to succeed with their second tactic, they could not succeed forever against God and His people. Their only victory was to delay the work, not to defeat it.

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Ezra (Book Introduction)

EZRA was, along with Nehemiah, reckoned one book by the ancient Jews, who called them the First and Second Books of Ezra, and they are still designated by Roman Catholic writers the First and Second Books of Esdras. This book naturally divides itself into two parts or sections, the one contained in the first six chapters, and which relates the circumstances connected with the return of the first detachment of Babylonish exiles under Zerubbabel with the consequent rebuilding of the temple and the re-establishment of the divine service. The other part, embraced in the four concluding chapters, narrates the journey of a second caravan of returning captives under the conduct of Ezra himself, who was invested with powers to restore, in all its splendor, the entire system of the Jewish ritual. The general opinion of the Church in every succeeding age has been that Ezra was the author of this book. The chief objection is founded on Ezr 5:4, where the words, "Then said we unto them after this manner, What are the names of the men that make this building?" have occasioned a surmise that the first portion of the book was not written by Ezra, who did not go to Jerusalem for many years after. But a little attention will show the futility of this objection, as the words in question did not refer to the writer, but were used by Tatnai and his associates [Ezr 5:3]. The style and unity of object in the book clearly prove it to have been the production of but one author. The canonical authority of this book is well established; but another under the name of Ezra is rejected as apocryphal.

JFB: Ezra (Outline)

• PROCLAMATION OF CYRUS FOR BUILDING THE TEMPLE. (Ezr 1:1-6)
• CYRUS RESTORES THE VESSELS. (Ezr 1:7-11)
• NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT TURNED. (Ezra 2:1-70)
• THE ALTAR SET UP. (Ezr 3:1-13)
• OFFERINGS RENEWED. (Ezr 3:4-7)
• THE FOUNDATION OF THE TEMPLE LAID. (Ezr 3:8-13)
• THE BUILDING HINDERED. (Ezr 4:1-6)
• LETTER TO ARTAXERXES. (Ezra 4:7-24)
• ZERUBBABEL AND JESHUA SET FORWARD THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE IN THE REIGN OF DARIUS. (Ezra 5:1-17)
• DARIUS' DECREE FOR ADVANCING THE BUILDING. (Ezr 6:1-12)
• THE TEMPLE FINISHED. (Ezr 6:13-15)
• FEASTS OF THE DEDICATION. (Ezr 6:16-18)
• AND OF THE PASSOVER. (Ezr 6:19-22)
• EZRA GOES UP TO JERUSALEM. (Ezr 7:1-10)
• GRACIOUS COMMISSION OF ARTAXERXES. (Ezra 7:11-26)
• EZRA BLESSES GOD FOR THIS FAVOR. (Ezr 7:27-28)
• EZRA'S COMPANIONS FROM BABYLON. (Ezr 8:1-14)
• HE SENDS TO IDDO FOR MINISTERS FOR THE TEMPLE SERVICE. (Ezr 8:15-20)
• A FAST PROCLAIMED. (Ezra 8:21-36)
• EZRA MOURNS FOR THE AFFINITY OF THE PEOPLE WITH STRANGERS. (Ezr 9:1-4)
• EZRA REFORMS THE STRANGE MARRIAGES. (Ezra 10:1-17)
• THOSE THAT HAD TAKEN STRANGE WIVES. (Ezra 10:18-44)

TSK: Ezra (Book Introduction)

This book details the events of a very interesting period of the Sacred History, when, according to the decree of Providence, the Jewish people were to be delivered from their captivity, at the expiration of seventy years, and restored to the land of their fathers. This book informs us how the Divine goodness accomplished this most gracious design, and the movers and agents He employed on the occasion. Ezra was undoubtedly the chief agent under God in effecting this arduous work; and his zeal, piety, knowledge, and discretion, appear here in a most conspicuous point of view, and claim our utmost admiration. Descended from Seraiah, in a direct line from Aaron, he seems to have united all the requisites of a profound statesmen with the functions of the sacerdotal character. He appears to have made the Sacred Scriptures, during the captivity, his peculiar study; and, perhaps assisted by Nehemiah and the great synagogue, he corrected the errors which had crept into the Sacred Writings, through the negligence or mistake of transcribers; he collected all the books of which the Sacred Scriptures then consisted, disposed them in their proper order, and settled the canon of Scriptures for his time; he occasionally added, under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, whatever appeared necessary for the purpose of illustrating, completing, or connecting them; he substituted the modern for the ancient names of some places, which had now become obsolete; and transcribed the whole of the Scriptures into the Chaldee character. He is said to have lived to the age of 120 years, and, according to Josephus, was buried in Jerusalem; but the Jews believe he died in Persia, in a second journey to Artaxerxes, where his tomb is shown in the city of Zamusa. Though not styled a prophet, he wrote under the Divine Spirit; and the canonical authority of his book has never been disputed. It is written with all the spirit and fidelity that could be displayed by a writer of contemporary times; and those parts which chiefly consist of letters, decrees, etc., are written in Chaldee, because it seemed more suitable to the fidelity of a sacred historian to give these official documents, as they may be termed, in the original language, especially as the people, recently returned from the captivity, were familiar, and perhaps more conversant with the Chaldee, than with the Hebrew.

TSK: Ezra 4 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Ezr 4:1, The adversaries, being not accepted in the building of the temple with the Jews, endeavour to hinder it; Ezr 4:7, Their letter to Artaxerxes; Ezr 4:17, The answer and decree of Artaxerxes; Ezr 4:23, The building is hindered.

Poole: Ezra (Book Introduction)

THE ARGUMENT

THAT this book of EZRA is part of the canonical Scripture is evident, partly from the testimony of the Jewish church, to which were committed the oracles of God , Rom 3:2 , who also did carefully keep them, and faithfully transmit them to us, and are not once charged either by Christ or his apostles with breach of that trust; and partly by the unanimous consent of all, both Jews and Christians, at this day. And that Ezra was thee writer of this book, is also, and ever was, the opinion of the Jews, who had thee best means of knowing this, and is most agreeable to his quality, for he was the son, or grandson , (as the word is elsewhere used,) of Seraiah , Ezr 7:1 , who was the high priest, 2Ki 25:18 1Ch 6:14 ; and he was a ready scribe of the law of Moses , Ezr 7:6 , and endowed with a more than ordinary measure of God’ s Spirit, as is evident from this book; and was himself an eye-witness of these transactions. In his time also there lived divers other holy men of God, as Daniel, and Nehemiah, and Mordecai, and Zorobabel, and Joshua; which makes that probable which the Jews report, that these prophets and other holy and learned men did review thee canonical books of the Old Testament, and added here and there some few passages in the historical books, and digested them into that order in which now we have them in our Hebrew Bibles; this being a work most suitable to the prudence, and piety, and sacred function of these persons, and to the present estate of the Jewish nation, who had been long in captivity in Babylon, where it was to be feared that many of them were ignorant or corrupt in the principles of religion, and who were yet in a broken condition, and likely to be exposed to further calamities and dispersions; which also might be signified to some of them; and it was suitable also to that care which the wise and gracious God hath ever used for the guidance of his church, according to their several occasions and necessities.

Poole: Ezra 4 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 4

The adversaries, being not accepted in the building of the temple with the Jews, endeavour to hinder it, Ezr 4:1-6 . Their false and malicious letter to Artaxerxes, Ezr 4:7-16 . Artexerxes’ s decree: the building is hindered, Ezr 4:17-24 .

MHCC: Ezra (Book Introduction)

The history of this book is the accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the return of the Jews out of Babylon. From its contents we especially learn, that every good work will meet with opposition from enemies, and be hurt by the misconduct of friends; but that God will make his cause to prevail, notwithstanding all obstacles and adversaries. The restoration of the Jews was an event of the highest consequence, tending to preserve religion in the world, and preparing the way for the appearance of the Great Deliverer, the Lord Jesus Christ.

MHCC: Ezra 4 (Chapter Introduction)

(Ezr 4:1-5) The adversaries of the temple.

(v. 6-24) The building of the temple is hindered.

Matthew Henry: Ezra (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of Ezra

The Jewish church puts on quite another face in this book from what it had appeared with; its state much better, and more pleasant, than it was of late in Babylon, and yet far inferior to what it had been formerly. The dry bones here live again, but in the form of a servant; the yoke of their captivity is taken off, but the marks of it in their galled necks remain. Kings we hear no more of; the crown has fallen from their heads. Prophets they are blessed with, to direct them in their re-establishment, but, after a while, prophecy ceases among them, till the great prophet appears, and his fore-runner. The history of this book is the accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the return of the Jews out of Babylon at the end of seventy years, and a type of the accomplishment of the prophecies of the Apocalypse concerning the deliverance of the gospel church out of the New Testament Babylon. Ezra preserved the records of that great revolution and transmitted them to the church in this book. His name signifies a helper; and so he was to that people. A particular account concerning him we shall meet with, ch. 7, where he himself enters upon the stage of action. The book gives us an account, I. Of the Jews' return out of their captivity, Ezr 1:1-11, 2. II. Of the building of the temple, the opposition it met with, and yet the perfecting of it at last, ch. 3-6. III. Of Ezra's coming to Jerusalem, ch. 7, 8. IV. Of the good service he did there, in obliging those that had married strange wives to put them away, Ezr 9:1-15, 10. This beginning again of the Jewish nation was small, yet its latter end greatly increased.

Matthew Henry: Ezra 4 (Chapter Introduction)

The good work of rebuilding the temple was no sooner begun than it met with opposition from those that bore ill will to it; the Samaritans were enemies to the Jews and their religion, and they set themselves to obstruct it. I. They offered to be partners in the building of it, that they might have it in their power to retard it; but they were refused (Ezr 4:1-3). II. They discouraged them in it, and dissuaded them from it (Ezr 4:4, Ezr 4:5). III. They basely misrepresented the undertaking, and the undertakers, to the king of Persia, by a memorial they sent him (Ezr 4:6-16). IV. They obtained from him an order to stop the building (Ezr 4:17-22), which they immediately put in execution (Ezr 4:23, Ezr 4:24).

Constable: Ezra (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The title in the English text comes from the main character in the second part of the book (chapters 7-10). In the Septuagint translation this book also bore the name of Ezra or Esdras, the Greek transliteration of "Ezra." "Ezra" is a short form of Azariah, which means "Yahweh has helped." The Hebrew Bible has the same title.

Early Hebrew copyists placed Ezra together with Nehemiah because Nehemiah continues the history of Ezra.¹ Another reason they may have done this was to make the total number of canonical books agree with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet.² Another view is that they were written originally as one book and than divided later.³ Even today the Hebrew Bible links Ezra and Nehemiah as did the Septuagint translators. However the repetition of Ezra 2 in Nehemiah 6:7-70 suggests that these two books were not originally one. Evidently Origen (third century A.D.) was the first to divide Ezra-Nehemiah into two books, and Jerome followed this precedent in his Latin (Vulgate) translation.⁴

Writer and Date

Due to the ancient tradition that the same writer composed both parts of the book (chapters 1-6 and 7-10), many scholars believe Ezra produced all of it.⁵ A passage in the Talmud credits Ezra with the authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.⁶ Ezra speaks in the first person in Ezra 7:28-8:34 and in chapter 9. This may suggest that he drew from a source such as the so-called "Ezra Memoirs" that recorded Ezra's personal recollections in the first person.⁷

Another popular view is that Ezra and Nehemiah each wrote the books that bear their names.⁸ A third view is that the joint book was a compilation that a "chronicler" made long after the events recorded took place.⁹

As a scribe (7:21), Ezra had the qualifications needed to write this book. He was a general contemporary of Nehemiah (Neh. 8:1-9; 12:36). Another reference in the Talmud claimed that Ezra was a disciple of Baruch, Jeremiah's scribe.¹⁰

The last historical reference in the book is in 4:21-23. In view of other chronological references in the book this event must have occurred about 446 B.C. Therefore Ezra could have written the book about 446 B.C. or shortly after that.

"Regardless of one's view of the authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and its relationship to Chronicles, the theological viewpoint of the whole collection is essentially the same. The message is addressed to the postexilic community of Jews who wonder if there is any hope of political and religious restoration. Its central thrust is that there indeed is hope but that hope must be incarnated in the rebuilding of the Temple, the cultus, and the priesthood. Only as the remnant people became the theocratic nation, founded on and faithful to the covenant Yahweh made with their fathers, could they revive the Davidic house and anticipate the resumption of their mediatorial role among the nations of the earth. Ezra and Nehemiah are therefore burdened to clarify (1) the Person and works of God, (2) Israel's own identity and function as a covenant people, and (3) the nature of that covenant in postexilic times."¹¹

Scope

The earliest historical reference in Ezra is to the decree of Cyrus that he issued in his first year on the throne (1:1), 538 B.C.¹² The latest historical reference was just prior to Nehemiah's first trip to Jerusalem (4:21-23; cf. Neh. 1:1-3), 446 B.C. Therefore this book spans a period of 92 years of history.¹³

However most of the events recorded took place in 538-515 B.C. (chapters 1-6) and 458 B.C. (chapters 7-10). Between these two separate series of events the Book of Ezra records nothing. The events in the Book of Esther transpired during those years (482-473 B.C.).

Message¹⁴

Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther have much in common. Among other things, they all deal with God's dealings with Israel following the captivity. Jeremiah had spoken of these years before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 25:11-14; 29:10-14). Now 70 years had passed, Babylon had fallen, and Cyrus was on the throne of Medo-Persia. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther all reveal God overruling human failure. They show God remaking the vessel that had proven obstinate, Israel (cf. Jer. 18:1-6).

The Book of Ezra reveals four things about God's dealings with Israel that are of permanent value.

1. God's instruments are very diverse. In shaping Israel again God used instruments outside the nation as well as inside it.

His primary instruments outside were Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Each one issued a decree that God had inspired just as much as any message of Isaiah or any of the other prophets of Israel (e.g., 1:1-4). God turned the hearts of these kings in the direction He wanted them to go (cf. Prov. 21:1). God directed the marching of their armies as well as the praying of the captives to accomplish His will.

His primary instruments inside the nation of Israel were Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and Ezra. Zerubbabel was a descendant of King Jehoiachin, and Jeshua was a descendant of Aaron. Thus God raised up a member of the kingly family and a member of the priestly family to resume His dealings with the nation as formerly. They began to inspire other Israelites, and the movement to return was under way. The third Israelite instrument was Ezra who was a scribe. We begin here to read of the scribes who are prominent in the Gospels. A scribe was a student, interpreter, teacher, and expositor of the Word of God. God uses both people who do not know Him and people who do know Him to carry out His plans.

2. God's might is awesome, another clear revelation in this book. We see this not only in the way God uses the two kinds of people just differentiated. We see it in the way He qualifies His workers to accomplish their tasks, as I have noted. We also see it in God's gathering His people from all over the ancient world to bring them back into Palestine. Most of the exiles did not return. Ezra's revelation provided the original readers with hope for the future.

3. God's people are changeable, another significant revelation. God gathered people from all the tribes, not just Judah, back to the land (2:70; 6:16-17). In exile the Israelites had renounced idolatry. They had returned to the worship of the one true God. The Lord's severe punishment of them for idolatry, as well as their own observation of idolatry for 70 years, took away their appetite for it. God had purged out this dross and could now fashion the nation anew.

4. God's work is proceeding, another important revelation. Note what God did to the nation. When the people returned to Palestine they had lost their national influence. They could not demonstrate how glorious it is to live under God's government as they had formerly. They also lost their independence. However they gained a place for themselves as a nation again. Furthermore God had saved them from racial extinction and absorption. The Pharisees (lit. separated ones) came into existence during the captivity. They wanted to prevent the Jews from intermixing with others. That attitude was good then, but it became bad later. In all these respects we can see God's work of reshaping the nation.

The message of the book arises from these observations on its emphases. I could state it this way. God does not discard what He has chosen but remakes it when it fails.

With people if one fails, he is out. With God if a person fails, he gets other opportunities. This is how God dealt with Jonah. It is how He dealt with Israel. Moreover it is how He deals with us. This is a great testimony to the eternal security of the believer. When the vessel is unyielding, God crushes it and begins to fashion it into a useful vessel again. That is a greater evidence of God's sovereignty than if He discarded it as hopeless. God's reason for doing this is His loyal love, compassion, and pity.

This revelation brings hope to everyone who fails. It gives hope when our good causes fall to pieces. It gives hope when God's servants fail. It also gives hope when we make a mess. God is still on His throne (cf. Hag. 2:4-5). No matter how you may have failed in the past God will use you if you renounce your sin, re-commit yourself to Him, and return to His Word.

Constable: Ezra (Outline)

Outline

I. The first return under Sheshbazzar chs. 1-6

A. The return from Babylon chs. 1-2

1. The edict of Cyrus and its consequences ch. 1

2. The exiles who returned ch. 2

B. The rebuilding of the temple chs. 3-6

1. The beginning of construction ch. 3

2. The opposition to construction ch. 4

3. The delay of construction ch. 5

4. The completion of construction ch. 6

II. The second return under Ezra chs. 7-10

A. The return to Jerusalem ch. 7-8

1. The decree of Artaxerxes and its consequences ch. 7

2. The journey itself ch. 8

B. The restoration of the people chs. 9-10

1. The problem of mixed marriages ch. 9

2. The solution to the problem ch. 10

Constable: Ezra

Ezra

Bibliography

Ackroyd, Peter R. I and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah. London: SCM Press, 1973.

_____. "The Temple Vessels--A Continuity Theme." Vetus Testamentum Supplement 23 (1972):166-81.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William F. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "The Date and Personality of the Chronicler." Journal of Biblical Literature 40 (1921):104-24.

Allrik, H. L. "The Lists of Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 7 and Ezra 2) and the Hebrew Numerical Notation." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 136 (December 1954):21-27.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Regency Reference Library, 1982.

Balcer, J. "The Athenian Episkopos and the Achaemenid King's Eye.'" American Journal of Philology 98 (1977):252-63.

Batten, Loring W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1965.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988.

_____. "The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:3 (1987):409-21.

_____. "A Theological Reading of Ezra-Nehemiah." Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 12 (1989):26-36.

Bowman, R. A. "The Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah." In Kings-Job. Vol. 3 of The Interpreter's Bible. 4 vols. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon Publishers, 1954.

Breneman, Mervin. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. The New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Brockington, L. H. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1969.

Brueggemann, W. The Land. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Clines, David J. A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1984.

Coggins, R. J. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible series. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1976.

_____. "The Interpretation of Ezra IV. 4." Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965):124-27.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament." Paper submitted for course 685 Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1967.

Coogan, Michael David. "Life in the Diaspora: Jews at Nippur in the Fifth Century B. C." Biblical Archaeologist 37 (1974):6-12.

Cross, Frank Moore, Jr.. "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration." Interpretation 29:2 (1975):187-201.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davis, John J. Biblical Numerology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

_____. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Dulin, Rachel. "Leaders in the Restoration." The Bible Today 24:5 (September 1986):287-91.

Dumbrell, William J. "The Theological Intention of Ezra-Nehemiah." Reformed Theological Review 45:3 (September-December 1986):65-72.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Service. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Medina in Ezra and Nehemiah." Vetus Testamentum 25:4 (October 1975):795-97.

Freedman, David Noel, and G. Ernest Wright, eds. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Anchor Books, 1961.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1790.

Galling, Kurt. "The Gola-List' according to Ezra 2//Nehemiah 7." Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951):149-58.

Grabbe, Lester L. "The Jewish Theocracy from Cyrus to Titus: A Programmatic Study." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37 (February 1987):117-24.

Haran, Manaheim. "Explaining the Identical Lines at the End of Chronicles and the Beginning of Ezra." Bible Review 2:3 (Fall 1986):18-20.

Harrison, Roland K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Herodotus. 4 vols. With an English translation by A. D. Godley. The Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1963.

Holmgren, Fredrick Carlson. Israel Alive Again. International Theological Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.

Hoppe, Leslie J. "The Restoration of Judah." The Bible Today 24:5 (September 1986):281-86.

Ironside, Harry A. Notes on the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Japhet, Sara. "Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel--Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982):66-98.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keil, C. F. The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kidner, Derek. Ezra and Nehemiah. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

Kitchen, K. A. The Bible in Its World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Koch, K. "Ezra and the Origins of Judaism." Journal of Semitic Studies 19:2 (1974):173-97.

Kuhrt, Amelie. "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983):83-97.

Laney, J. Carl. Ezra and Nehemiah. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 4: Chronicles--Job, by Otto Zockler, Fr. W. Schultz, and Howard Crosby. Translated, enlarged, and edited by James G. Murphy, Charles A. Briggs, James Strong, and L. J. Evans.

Lawson, Steven J. "The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1-18." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:632 (October-December 2001):451-66.

Levine, Baruck A. "The Nethinim." Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963):207-12.

Luck, G. Coleman. Ezra and Nehemiah. Chicago: Moody press, 1961.

Margalith, Othniel. "The Political Role of Ezra as Persian Governor." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98:1 (1986):110-12.

Marmur, Dow. Intermarriage. London: Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, 1978.

Martin, John A. "Ezra." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 651-72. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

McConville, J. G. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "Pilgrimage and Procession: Motifs of Israel's Return." In Israel's Apostasy and Restoration, pp. 261-272. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

_____. "A Theology of Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 189-205. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Millard, A. R. "Assyrian Royal Names in Biblical Hebrew." Journal of Semitic Studies 21:1&2 (1976):1-14.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the author, P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Myers, Jacob M. Ezra; Nehemiah. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1965.

New Bible Dictionary. 2nd ed. S.v. "Money," by A. F. Walls.

_____. 2nd ed. S.v. "Number," by R. A. H. Gunner.

Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Oppenheim, A. L. "The Eyes of the Lord." Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968):173-79.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.

_____, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Rowley, H. H. "The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah." In The Servant of the Lord and other Essays on the Old Testament, pp. 137-68. 2nd ed. Revised. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

_____. "Nehemiah's Mission and Its Background." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester 37:2 (March 1955):528-61.

Ryle, H. E. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1917.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Shea, William H. "Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia?" Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):83-88.

Slotki, Judah J. Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah. London: Soncino Press, 1951.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Vos, Howard F. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Bible Study Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Lamplighter Books, 1987.

Whitcomb, John C. "Ezra." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 423-33. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Winkle, Ross E. "Jeremiah's Seventy Years for Babylon: A Re-Assessment; Part I: The Scriptural Data." Andrews University Seminary Studies 25:2 (Summer 1987):201-14.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Wright, J. Stafford. The Date of Ezra's Coming to Jerusalem. London: Tyndale Press, 1946.

Xenophon. Cyropaedia. 2 vols. With an English translation by Walter Miller. The Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1960.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "The Archaeological Background of Ezra." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):195-211.

_____. "Ezra-Nehemiah." In 1 Kings-Job. Vol. 4 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard D. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

_____. "Postbiblical Traditions About Ezra and Nehemiah." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 167-74. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Young, Edward J. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Ezra (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS.

INTRODUCTION.

This Book taketh its name from the writer, who was a holy priest and doctor of the law. He is called by the Hebrews Ezra, (Challoner) and was son, (Tirinus) or rather, unless he lived above 150 years, a descendant of Saraias, 4 Kings xxv. 18. It is thought that he returned first with Zorobabel; and again, at the head of other captives, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, with ample authority. Esdras spent the latter part of his life in exhorting the people, and in explaining to them the law of God. He appeared with great dignity at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem, 2 Esdras xii. 26, 35. We have four books which bear his name. (Calmet) --- This and the following book of Nehemias, originally made but one in Hebrew, (St. Jerome, &c.) as the transactions of both those great men are recorded. The third and fourth are not in Hebrew nor received into the canon of the Holy Scriptures, though the Greek Church hold the third as canonical, and place it first; (Worthington) and Genebrard would assert that both ought to be received, as they were by several Fathers. But they contain many thing which appear to be erroneous, and have been rejected by others of great authority, and particularly by St. Jerome. The third book seems to have been written very early, by some Hellenist Jew, who was desirous of embellishing the history of Zorobabel; and the fourth was probably composed by some person of the same nation, who had been converted to Christianity, before the end of the second century; and who injudiciously attempted to convert his brethren, by assuming the name of a man who was so much respected. Many things have been falsely attributed to Esdras, on the same account. It is said that he invented the Masora; restored the Scriptures, which had been lost; fixed the canon of twenty-two books; substituted the Chaldaic characters instead of the ancient Hebrew, Samaritan, or Phœnician. But though Esdras might sanction the latter, now become common, the characters might vary insensibly, (Bianconi; Kennicott, Dis. ii.) as those of other languages have done, (Haydock) and the sacred books never perished wholly; nor could the canon be determined in the time of Esdras. (Calmet) --- As for the Masoretic observations and points, they are too modern an invention. (Elias Levita; Capel.; Houbigant, &c.) --- What we know more positively of Esdras, is, (Worthington) that he was empowered by Artaxerxes to bring back the Jews, and that he acted with great zeal. (Haydock) --- This book contains the transactions of 82 years, till the year of the world 3550. The letter of Reum, and the king's answer, (chap. iv. 7., till chap. vi. 19., and well as chap. vii. 12, 27.) are in Chaldean; the rest of the work is in Hebrew. (Calmet) --- We may discover various mysteries concealed under the literal sense of this and the following book. (St. Jerome, ep. ad Paulin.) (Worthington) --- Esdras is supposed by this holy doctor, as well as by some of the Rabbins, &c., to have been the same person with the prophet Malachy[Malachias]; (Button) and several reasons seems to support this conjecture, though it must still remain very uncertain. (Calmet) --- Some think that (Haydock) Esdras wrote only the four last chapters, and the author of Paralipomenon the six preceding ones. (Du Hamel) --- But it is most probable that he compiled both from authentic documents. (Haydock) --- Some few additions may have been inserted since, by divine authority, 2 Esdras xii. 11, 22. (Tirinus)

Gill: Ezra (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO EZRA

This book, in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions, is called the "First" Book of Ezra, Nehemiah being reckoned the "second"; but with the Jews both were accounted but one book ^a; in the Syriac version, it is called the Writing or Book of Ezra the Prophet; and this title is given him, both by Jews ^b and Christians ^c; in the Arabic version, it is called the First Book of Ezra the Priest, skilful in the Law; and that he was a priest is clear, since he was the son of Seraiah the high priest, who was slain by Nebuchadnezzar, and the younger brother of Josedech, who succeeded his father as high priest, and uncle to Joshua that succeeded him; and he was also a ready scribe in the law of Moses, see Ezr 7:1. That Ezra was the writer of this book is believed by the Jews ^d, and by the generality of Christians; only Huetius ^e thinks that the six first chapters were written by another hand, but his reasons are not satisfactory; and it has been universally received as canonical by all; it agrees with the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, and serves to illustrate them; it is of use for the continuation of the sacred history, to point at the fulfilment of prophecies concerning the return of the Jews from captivity, and the rebuilding of the temple; and to give us an account of the state of the church in those times, the troubles and difficulties it met with, and what care was taken to keep the tribes and families distinct, that it might be known from whom the Messiah sprung; this book contains an history of seventy years, according to the calculation of Bishop Usher ^f, from A. M. 3468, to A. M. 3538.

Gill: Ezra 4 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO EZRA 4

The contents of this chapter are the offer the Samaritans made to the Jews, to assist them in building the temple, which having refused, they gave them all the trouble they could, Ezr 4:1 and a letter of theirs to Artaxerxes, king of Persia, full of accusations of them, Ezr 4:7 and the answer of Artaxerxes to it, giving orders to command the Jews to cease building the temple, Ezr 4:17 which orders were accordingly executed, and the work ceased till the second year of Darius, Ezr 4:23.