Text -- Ezra 4:23-24 (NET)

4:23 Then, as soon as the copy of the letter from King Artaxerxes was read in the presence of Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their colleagues, they proceeded promptly to the Jews in Jerusalem and stopped them with threat of armed force. 4:24 So the work on the temple of God in Jerusalem came to a halt. It remained halted until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Ezr 4:23

_As they abused the king by their misinformations, in the obtaining of this order, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the walling of the city. But having power in their hands, they, on this pretence, stopt the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them: because the quietness of our lives depends much on the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates as well as the supreme.

Wesley: Ezr 4:24

Darius the son of Hystaspes, successor of Cambyses.

JFB: Ezr 4:24

It was this occurrence that first gave rise to the strong religious antipathy between the Jews and the Samaritans, which was afterwards greatly aggravated by the erection of a rival temple on Mount Gerizim.

Clarke: Ezr 4:23

Made them to cease by force and power - Commanded them on pain of the king’ s displeasure not to proceed, obliging all to remit their labors, and probably bringing an armed force to prevent them from going forward.

Clarke: Ezr 4:24

So it ceased unto the second year of - Darius - They had begun in the first year of Cyrus, b.c. 536, to go up to Jerusalem, and they were obliged to desist from the building b.c. 522; and thus they continued till the second year of Darius, b.c. 519. See the chronology in Hag 1:1 (note) and Zec 1:1 (note) and the following chapter, Ezra 5 (note).

Defender: Ezr 4:24

Darius Hystapses is known to history as Darius the Great. It was he who left the famous Behistun Inscription chronicling his military conquests in three languages (Persian, Elamite and Babylonian) on a great vertical escarpment northwest of Babylon. These writings enabled Sir Henry Rawlinson to decipher the ancient Babylonian language."

TSK: Ezr 4:23

Rehum : Ezr 4:8, Ezr 4:9, Ezr 4:17

they went up : Pro 4:16; Mic 2:1; Rom 3:15

force : Chal, arm

TSK: Ezr 4:24

So : Neh 6:3, Neh 6:9; Job 20:5; 1Th 2:18

Darius : This was Darius Hystaspes, one of the seven princes who slew the usurper Smerdiscaps1 . hcaps0 e ascended the throne of Persia, am 3483, bc 521, and reigned 36 years. Ezr 5:5, Ezr 6:1; Hag 1:15

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Ezr 4:24

It ceased - The stoppage of the building by the Pseudo-Smerdis is in complete harmony with his character. He was a Magus, devoted to the Magian elemental worship, and opposed to belief in a personal god. His religion did not approve of temples; and as he persecuted the Zoroastrian so would he naturally be hostile to the Jewish faith. The building was resumed in the second year of Darius (520 B.C.), and was only interrupted for about two years; since the Pseudo-Smerdis reigned less than one year.

Poole: Ezr 4:24

Then ceased the work of the house of God for they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their king’ s prohibition, without a special command from the King of heaven, which they had, Ezr 5:1,2 .

Darius king of Persia to wit, Darius the son of Hystaspes, successor of Cambyses; not, as some would have it, Darius Nothus, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was not emperor till above one hundred years after Cyrus, and consequently from the beginning of the building of the temple to the finishing of it must be about one hundred and thirty years, which is not credible to any one that considers,

1. That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the foundations and finish the work, Zec 4:9 .

2. That some of the same persons who saw the finishing of this second house, had seen the glory of the first house, Hag 2:3 .

Haydock: Ezr 4:23

Beelteem, is not in Chaldean. ---

Arm, or "force." (Protestants) (Haydock)

Haydock: Ezr 4:24

House. They went beyond the order, which only forbade the building of the city, ver. 21. ---

Darius, the year of the world 3485. (Calmet) ---

He was the son of Hystaspes, (St. Jerome) and not Nothus, the sixth from Cyrus, as Sulpitius and Scalinger believe. (Tirinus)

Gill: Ezr 4:23

Now when the copy of King Artaxerxes letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions,.... By him or them to whom it was particularly directed:

they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews; not only in obedience to the king's command, but from an eagerness of spirit to put a stop to the proceedings of the Jews, to whom they had an aversion, instigated by the Samaritans:

and made them to cease by force and power; from going on with the building of the temple, which they reckoned a part of the city, and within their commission; this they did by showing the power and authority they had under the king's hand, and by the forces they brought with them to compel them to it, should they refuse to obey; or, however, they threatened them highly what they would do, if they did not desist.

Gill: Ezr 4:24

Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem,.... How far they had proceeded is not said, whether any further than laying the foundation of it; though probably, by this time, it might be carried to some little height; however, upon this it was discontinued:

so it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia; not Darius Nothun, as some think, for from the first of Cyrus to the sixth of his reign, when the temple was finished, was upwards of one hundred years; yea, according to some, about one hundred and forty; which would carry the age of Zerubbabel, who both laid the foundation of the temple, and finished it, and the age of those who saw the first temple, to a length that is not probable; but this was Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded Cambyses the son of Cyrus, there being only, between, the short usurpation of Smerdis for seven months.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Ezr 4:23

¹ tn Aram “to Jerusalem against the Jews.”

² tn Aram “by force and power,” a hendiadys.

NET Notes: Ezr 4:24

¹ sn Darius I Hystaspes ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c.

Geneva Bible: Ezr 4:24

Then ^{( n )} ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

^{( n )} Not altogether for the prophets exhorted them to continue but they used less diligence because of the troubles.

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.

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 4:17-24

Here we have,

I. The orders which the king of Persia gave, in answer to the information sent him by the Samaritans against the Jews. He suffered himself to be imposed upon by their fraud and falsehood, took no care to examine the allegations of their petition concerning that which the Jews were now doing, but took it for granted that the charge was true, and was very willing to gratify them with an order of council to stay proceedings. 1. He consulted the records concerning Jerusalem, and found that it had indeed rebelled against the king of Babylon, and therefore that it was, as they called it, a bad city (Ezr 4:19), and withal that in times past kings had reigned there, to whom all the countries on that side the river had been tributaries (Ezr 4:20), and that therefore there was danger that if ever they were able (which they were never likely to be) they would claim them again. Thus he says as they said, and pretends to give a reason for so doing. See the hard fate of princes, who must see and hear with other men's eyes and ears, and give judgment upon things as they are represented to them, though often represented falsely. God's judgment is always just because he sees things as they are, and it is according to truth. 2. He appointed these Samaritans to stop the building of the city immediately, till further orders should be given about it, Ezr 4:21, Ezr 4:22. Neither they, in their letter, nor he, in his order, make any mention of the temple, and the building of that, because both they and he knew that they had not only a permission, but a command, from Cyrus to rebuild that, which even these Samaritans had not the confidence to move for the repeal of. They spoke only of the city: "Let not that be built,"that is, as a city with walls and gates; "whatever you do, prevent that, lest damage grow to the hurt of the kings: "he would not that the crown should lose by his wearing it.

II. The use which the enemies of the Jews made of these orders, so fraudulently obtained; upon the receipt of them they went up in haste to Jerusalem, Ezr 4:23. Their feet ran to evil, Pro 1:16. They were impatient till the builders were served with this prohibition, which they produced as their warrant to make them cease by force and power. As they abused the king in obtaining this order by their mis-informations, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the walling of the city, but, having force and power on their side, they construed it as relating to the temple, for it was that to which they had an ill will, and which they only wanted some colour to hinder the building of. There was indeed a general clause in the order, to cause these men to cease, which had reference to their complaint about building the walls; but they applied it to the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them, and the governors sent by them, because the quietness and peaceableness of our lives, in all godliness and honesty, depend very much upon the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates, as well as the supreme. The consequence was that the work of the house of God ceased for a time, through the power and insolence of its enemies; and so, through the coldness and indifference of its friends, it stood still till the second year of Darius Hystaspes, for to me it seems clear by the thread of this sacred history that it was that Darius, Ezr 4:24. Though now a stop was put to it by the violence of the Samaritans, yet that they might soon after have gone on by connivance, if they had had a due affection to the work, appears by this, that before they had that express warrant from the king for doing it (ch. 6) they were reproved by the prophets for not doing it, Ezr 5:1, compared with Hag 1:1, etc. If they had taken due care to inform Cambyses of the truth of this case, perhaps he would have recalled his order; but, for aught I know, some of the builders were almost as willing it should cease as the adversaries themselves were. At some periods the church has suffered more by the coldness of its friends than by the heat of its enemies; but both together commonly make church-work slow work.

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 .

Keil-Delitzsch: Ezr 4:24

"Then ceased the work of the house of God at Jerusalem. So it ceased untothe second year of Darius king of Persia."With this statement the narratorreturns to the notice in Ezr 4:5, that the adversaries of Judah succeeded indelaying the building of the temple till the reign of King Darius, which hetakes up, and now adds the more precise information that it ceased till the second year of King Darius. The intervening section, Ezr 4:6, gives amore detailed account of those accusations against the Jews made by theiradversaries to kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. If we read Ezr 4:23 andEzr 4:24 as successive, we get an impression that the discontinuation to buildmentioned in Ezr 4:24 was the effect and consequence of the prohibitionobtained from King Artachshasta, through the complaints brought againstthe Jews by his officials on this side the river; the בּאדין of Ezr 4:24 seeming to refer to the אדין of Ezr 4:23. Under this impression, older expositors have without hesitation referredthe contents of Ezr 4:6 to the interruption to the building of the templeduring the period from Cyrus to Darius, and understood the two namesAhashverosh and Artachshasta as belonging to Cambyses and (Pseudo)Smerdis, the monarchs who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. Graveobjections to this view have, however, been raised by Kleinert (in the Beiträgen der Dorpater Prof. d. Theol. 8132, vol. i) and J. W. Schultz( Cyrus der Grosse , in Theol. Stud. u. Krit . 1853, p. 624, etc.), who havesought to prove that none but the Persian kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes canbe meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, and that the section Ezr 4:6relates not to the building of the temple, but to the building of the walls ofJerusalem, and forms an interpolation or episode, in which the historianmakes the efforts of the adversaries of Judah to prevent the rebuilding ofthe walls of Jerusalem under Xerxes and Artaxerxes follow immediatelyafter his statement of their attempt to hinder the building of the temple,for the sake of presenting at one glance a view of all their machinationsagainst the Jews. This view has been advocated not only by Vaihinger,"On the Elucidation of the History of Israel after the Captivity,"in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 87, etc., and Bertheau in his Commentary onthis passage, but also by Hengstenberg, Christol . iii. p. 143, Auberlen, andothers, and opposed by Ewald in the 2nd edition of his Gesch. Israels , iv. p. 118, where he embraces the older explanation of these verses, and A. Koehler on Haggai, p. 20. On reviewing the arguments advanced in favour of the more modern view,we can lay no weight at all upon the circumstance that in Ezr 4:6 the buildingof the temple is not spoken of. The contents of the letter sent toAhashverosh (Ezr 4:6) are not stated; in that to Artachshasta (Ezr 4:11) thewriters certainly accuse the Jews of building the rebellious and bad city(Jerusalem), of setting up its walls and digging out its foundations (Ezr 4:12);but the whole document is so evidently the result of ardent hatred andmalevolent suspicion, that well-founded objections to the truthfulness ofthese accusations may reasonably be entertained. Such adversaries might,for the sake of more surely attaining their end of obstructing the work ofthe Jews, easily represent the act of laying the foundations and buildingthe walls of the temple as a rebuilding of the town walls. The answer ofthe king, too (Ezr 4:17), would naturally treat only of such matters as theaccusers had mentioned.

The argument derived from the names of the kings is of far moreimportance. The name אחשׁורושׁ (in Ezr 4:6) occurs also in thebook of Esther, where, as is now universally acknowledged, the Persianking Xerxes is meant; and in Dan 9:1, as the name of the Median kingKyaxares. In the cuneiform inscriptions the name is in Old-Persian Ksayarsa , in Assyrian Hisiarsi , in which it is easy to recognise both theHebrew form Ahashverosh, and the Greek forms Ξέρξης and Κυαξάρης . On the other hand, the name Cambyses (Old-Persian Kambudshja ) offersno single point of identity; the words are radically different, whilst nothingis known of Cambyses having ever borne a second name or surnamesimilar in sound to the Hebrew Ahashverosh. The name Artachshasta,moreover, both in Est 7:1-10 and 8, and in the book of Nehemiah, undoubtedlydenotes the monarch known as Artaxerxes ( Longimanus ). It is, indeed, in both these books written ארתּחשׁסתּא with ס , andin the present section, and in Ezr 6:14, ארתּחששׁתּא ; but this slightdifference of orthography is no argument for difference of person, ארתחשׁשׁתא seeming to be a mode of spelling the word peculiar to the authorof the Chaldee section, Ezra 4-6. Two other names, indeed, of Smerdis, thesuccessor of Cambyses , have been handed down to us. According toXenophon, Cyrop . viii. 7, and Ktesias, Pers . fr. 8-13, he is said to havebeen called Tanyoxares , and according to Justini hist . i. 9, Oropastes ; andEwald is of opinion that the latter name is properly Ortosastes, whichmight answer to Artachshasta. It is also not improbable that Smerdis may,as king, have assumed the name of Artachshasta, Ἀρταξέρξης , whichHerodotus (vi. 98) explains by μέγας ἀρήΐος . But neither thispossibility, nor the opinion of Ewald, that Ortosastes is the correctreading for Oropastes in Just. hist . i. 9, can lay any claim to probability,unless other grounds also exist for the identification of Artachshasta withSmerdis. Such grounds, however, are wanting; while, on the other hand, itis à priori improbable that Ps. Smerdis, who reigned but about sevenmonths, should in this short period have pronounced such a decisionconcerning the matter of building the temple of Jerusalem, as we read inthe letter of Artachshasta, Ezr 4:17, even if the adversaries of the Jewsshould, though residing in Palestine, have laid their complaints before him,immediately after his accession to the throne. When we consider also thegreat improbability of Ahashverosh being a surname of Cambyses, we feelconstrained to embrace the view that the section Ezr 4:6 is an episodeinserted by the historian, on the occasion of narrating the interruption tothe building of the temple, brought about by the enemies of the Jews, andfor the sake of giving a short and comprehensive view of all the hostile actsagainst the Jewish community on the part of the Samaritans andsurrounding nations.

The contents and position of Ezr 4:24 may easily be reconciled with thisview, which also refutes as unfounded the assertion of Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel , i. p. 303, and Schrader, p. 469, that the author of thebook of Ezra himself erroneously refers the document given, Ezr 4:6, tothe erection of the temple, instead of to the subsequent building of thewalls of Jerusalem. For, to say nothing of the contents of Ezr 4:6,although it may seem natural to refer the בּאדין of Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 4:23,it cannot be affirmed that this reference is either necessary or the only oneallowable. The assertion that בּאדין is " always connected withthat which immediately precedes,"cannot be strengthened by an appeal toEzr 5:2; Ezr 6:1; Dan 2:14, Dan 2:46; Dan 3:3, and other passages. בּאדין , then(= at that time), in contradistinction to אדין , thereupon , onlyrefers a narrative, in a general manner, to the time spoken of in that whichprecedes it. When, then, it is said, then , or at that time, the work of the house of Godceased (Ezr 4:24), the then can only refer to what was before relatedconcerning the building of the house of God, i.e., to the narrative Ezr 4:1. This reference of Ezr 4:24 to Ezr 4:1 is raised above all doubt, by the fact thatthe contents of Ezr 4:24 are but a recapitulation of Ezr 4:5; it being said in both,that the cessation from building the temple lasted till the reign, or, as it ismore precisely stated in Ezr 4:24, till the second year of the reign, of Dariusking of Persia. With this recapitulation of the contents of Ezr 4:5, thenarrative, Ezr 4:24, returns to the point which it had reached at Ezr 4:5. What liesbetween is thereby characterized as an illustrative episode, the relation ofwhich to that which precedes and follows it, is to be perceived anddetermined solely by its contents. If, then, in this episode, we find notonly that the building of the temple is not spoken of, but that letters aregiven addressed to the Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, who, as allEzra's contemporaries would know, reigned not before but after Darius,the very introduction of the first letter with the words, " And in the reignof Ahashverosh"(Ezr 4:6), after the preceding statement, "until the reign ofDarius king of Persia"(Ezr 4:5), would be sufficient to obviate themisconception that letters addressed to Ahashverosh and Artachshastarelated to matters which happened in the period between Cyrus andDarius Hystaspis. Concerning another objection to this view of Ezr 4:6,viz., that it would be strange that King Artaxerxes, who is described to usin Ezra 7 and in Nehemiah as very favourable to the Jews, should havebeen for a time so prejudiced against them as to forbid the building of thetown and walls of Jerusalem, we shall have an opportunity of speaking inour explanations of Neh 1:1-11. - Ezr 4:24, so far, then, as its matter is concerned,belongs to the following chapter, to which it forms an introduction.

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 4:7-23

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

Constable: Ezr 4:24

The effect of opposition during Cyrus' reign 4:24

The reference in this verse to work stopping indicates that at this point the writer returned to the opposition he had been describing earlier (vv. 1-5). Verses 6-23 are parenthetical. They record later events and simply illustrate the continuing antagonism of Israel's enemies in the years that followed the main event in view in this chapter.⁸³

Work on the temple ceased in 536 B.C., as the writer noted here. The workers had only completed the foundation. Construction did not recommence until 520 B.C., 16 years later.

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

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Ezr 4:23

EZRA 4:23 —How could foreign influence have caused the work to cease when Haggai 1:2 blames it on the indifference of the leaders?

PROBLEM: Ezra 4:7-23 records that after the great beginning made by the people in laying the foundation of the temple, foreign enemies came up to force the people to stop the rebuilding project. However, Haggai 1:2 implies that the people were indifferent toward the building project. What was the real reason for the delay in rebuilding the temple?

SOLUTION: Both statements are true. Although the military force of the enemy caused the rebuilding to stop, it was the indifference of the people that was responsible for the fact that the project was not restarted. During the reign of Cyrus the Great, the climate was hostile toward the people, and the building project faced stiff opposition. Once Darius I had taken power in Persia in about 522 B.C . , the opportunity to restart the building project was much more favorable. However, the leaders of the people had become so involved in their own affairs that they were not interested in undertaking such an enormous project.   

Critics Ask: Ezr 4:24

EZRA 3:10 —How could the rebuilding have begun during the reign of Cyrus when Ezra 4:24 says it was in the reign of Darius I?

PROBLEM: According to Ezra 3:8-13 , the rebuilding of the temple began under the reign of Cyrus the Great (cf. Ezra 5:16 ), who reigned in Persia from about 559 to 530 B.C. However, Ezra 4:24 says the rebuilding of the temple took place during the reign of Darius, King of Persia, about 520 B.C. Also, Haggai 1:15 implies that the building of the temple did not begin until 520 B .C. How can these statements be reconciled?

SOLUTION: The statements in Ezra 3:10 and 5:16 are references to laying the    foundation, while Ezra 4:24 and Haggai 1:15 concern the resuming the rebuilding project after a long period of delay. Ezra 4:4 points out that as soon as the people of the land heard about the rebuilding project, they discouraged the people and frustrated their efforts throughout the reign of Cyrus. The project was abandoned for 16 years. At this point, God directed Haggai to prophesy to the people of Jerusalem to motivate them to begin the project again. This is referred to in Ezra 4:24 . The rebuilding of the temple was resumed about 520 B .C. during the time of Darius and was completed in 516 B.C.   

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.