The Pulpit Commentaries
Ezra 4:7-16
EXPOSITION
And in the days of Artaxerxes. See the comment on Ezra 4:6. If Artaxerxes be the Pseudo-Smerdis, we can readily understand why an application was not made to him at once, and how it came about that the Jews recommenced their building, as they appear from Ezra 4:12, Ezra 4:13 to have done. The Pseudo-Smerdis was a usurper; his reign was a time of partial anarchy; in a distant part of the empire it would not be known for a while who was king. Men would be thrown on themselves, and would do as it seemed good in their own eyes. Later, there may have been some doubt whether a king, who was known to be a religious reformer, would follow the policy of his predecessor with respect to the Jews, or reverse it. Hence a delay, and then a more formal application than before for a positive decree to stop the building (see Ezra 4:21). The rest of their companions. Literally, of their companies—the abstract for the concrete. The writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue. Rather, "in the Syrian fashion," i.e. in Syriac characters. And interpreted in the Syrian tongue. Or "translated into the Syriac language." The character and the words were alike Syriac. Ezra gives the letter in Chaldee.
Rehum the chancellor. Literally, "the lord of judgment." It may be conjectured that Rehum was the sub-satrap (ὑποσατράπης, Xen.), of the province of Samaria. And Shimshai the scribe. Or "secretary." Herodotus tells us that in every Persian province the governor had a secretary attached to him, who was appointed by the crown, and acted as a check upon his nominal master (Herod; 3:128). The position assigned to Shim-shai in this chapter (see especially Ezra 4:9, Ezra 4:17, Ezra 4:23) is such as might be expected under these circumstances.
The Dinaites, etc. It is curious that the Samaritans, instead of using a general appellation, describe themselves under the names of the various nations and cities which had furnished the colonists of whom they were the descendants. It would seem that they were not yet, in the time of the Pseudo-Smerdis, amalgamated into a single people. From the list of names we may gather that the colonists of Esar-haddon's time had been derived chiefly from Southern Babylonia and the adjacent regions of Susiana, Persia, and Elymais. The Babylonians, Susanchites, and Elamites speak for themselves, and require no explanation. The Archevites are the people of Ereeh or Orchoe (now Warka), a city to the south-east of Babylon. The Apharsites are no doubt Persians; the Dehavites, Dai or Dahae, a tribe located in Persia Proper ('Herod.,' 1:125). If uncertainty attaches to any of the names, it is to two only—the Dinaites and the Tarpelites. Of these, the Dinaites are probably the people of Dayan, a country bordering on Cilicia, whose inhabitants are often mentioned by the Assyrian monarchs. The Tarpelites have been regarded as the people of Tripolis; but it is improbable that that city had as yet received its Greek name. Perhaps they are the Tuplai, or people of Tubal, mentioned in Scripture and the Assyrian inscriptions, the letter r being a euphonic addition, as in Darmesek for Dammesek sharbith for shebeth, and the like.
The rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over. Nothing more is known of "the great and noble Asnapper," who is here mentioned as bringing the colonists and setting them in the cities of Samaria. We must suppose him to have been an officer employed by Esar-haddon on this service. The name is Assyrian in form, and may have meant "Asshur pursues." The rest that are on this side the river. Rather, "across the river." As Romans in North Italy, writing to Rome, would have spoken of themselves as "Transpadani," so Persian subjects, writing to Susa from the west of the Jordan, speak of theft country as "across the Jordan." And at such a time. Rather, "and so forth." This and the preceding verse set forth the address of Rehum's letter. The whole address not being given, the writer ends with the phrase uk'eneth, which means "and so forth," or "et cetera" (comp. Ezra 7:12).
This is the copy of the letter. The address having been given, the writer now proceeds to the contents of the letter. Thy servants the men on this side the river, etc. This was a sort of heading inside the letter—a repetition in brief of the address.
The Jews which came up from thee. i.e. from the central provinces—from that part of the empire where thou dwellest. To us. To our part of the world—to Palestine. Are … building the rebellious and the bad city. The ground of this accusation must be sought in the various revolts of the Jews from the Babylonians recorded in 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Kings 25:1. There had been one, or perhaps two, previous revolts from Assyria (2 Kings 18:7; 2 Chronicles 33:11); but of these the Samaritans probably knew nothing. They would, however, be likely to know that before Nebuchadnezzar took the extreme measure of removing the Jews from their own land to Babylon, they had rebelled against him three several times—once under Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1), once under his son Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:9, 2 Kings 24:10), and once under Zedekiah, the last king (2 Kings 24:20). Thus they had a basis of truth on which to ground their charge that Jerusalem was "the rebellious and the bad city." And have set up the walls thereof. It appears very clearly from the book of Nehemiah that the walls of Jerusalem were not restored till his time, seventy-five years after this. The Samaritans, however, would naturally exaggerate, and call the rebuilding of the temple, and of a certain number of dwelling-houses, a fortifying of the place. The exaggeration, however, is not so great in the Chaldee text as in the Authorized Version. What is said seems to be, that "they are setting up the walls and joining the foundations." That the work was far from complete is admitted in the next verse. We may doubt whether it was really begun.
Then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom. This was plausible reasoning. In Greece, if a subject city set to work to fortify itself, rebellion was immediately anticipated, not unfairly. But the circumstances of the Persian empire were different. In the remoter parts of that empire the central government was weak, and disorders frequently occurred. A city might need fortifications to protect it against its immediate neighbours, when it had not the slightest intention of asserting independence. Judging from the later history, which shows no revolt of the Jews against Persia, we may say that the accusation now alleged was unfounded, though perhaps it was not made in bad faith. Toll, tribute, and custom represent the chief heads of Persian taxation, which, however, did not include "custom" in our sense of the word. The three terms used by the Samaritans really represent, respectively, "tribute," or the money payment required from each province, "provision," or the payment in kind equally required (Herod; 1.192; 3.91), and "toll," or contributions from those who made use of the Persian highways. According to the Samaritans, none of these would be paid by the Jews if Jerusalem was once fortified. And so thou shalt endamage the revenue. The general meaning is given correctly enough by this rendering, but "revenue" is not expressly mentioned. Aphthom, the word so translated, means really "at length," "at last." Translate, "And so at last thou shalt endamage the kings."
We have maintenance from the king's palace. The marginal rendering is better, and shows the true sense. "Eating a man's salt" in the East is deriving one's subsistence from him. The man who eats another's salt is bound to look after his interests. It was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour. Rather, "the king's detriment or loss"—it was not meet for us to stand by tamely and see the king stript of his due.
That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers. It was the practice at the Persian court to register all important events in a book, which from time to time was read to the kings (Esther 2:23; Esther 6:1). The Samaritans suggest a consultation of this book, which would at any rate contain their own previous accusations against Jerusalem (supra, Ezra 4:5, Ezra 4:6), and might make some mention of the revolts from Babylon (see the comment on Ezra 4:12). For which cause was this city destroyed. This was the great fact on which the Samaritans relied. Nebuchadnezzar had only destroyed Jerusalem in consequence of repeated rebellions. True; but no sufficient indication that there would be revolt from Persia, which was anti-idolatrous, and had proved herself so true a friend to the Jews.
Thou shalt have no portion on this side the river. It is not quite clear whether the river intended here and in Ezra 4:10 is the Euphrates or the Jordan. Generally in the Old Testament hannahar means the Euphrates, but the exaggeration is gross if that river was intended here. Only twice in their history had the Israelites advanced their frontier as far as that stream—under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21) and under Menahem (2 Kings 15:16); in their present depressed condition it was absurd to imagine that they could rival those early glories. But jealousy does not stop to weigh the reasonableness of its accusations.
HOMILETICS
The work maligned.
Besides "hiring counsellors," as mentioned in Ezra 4:5; or, it may be, in order to provide these counsellors with documents to present and act on; we are here told that the Samaritan "adversaries" sent various letters to the Persian kings against the temple builders at Jerusalem. One of these, sent to a king here styled Ahasuerus, is merely referred to as an "accusation." Another and more successful one, sent "in the days of Artaxerxes," is described at full length. With many commentators of note and of various schools (see Wordsworth, in loc.), we shall assume these two kings, notwithstanding the apparent diversity of their names, to be Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis, the son and pretended son, and two next successors, of Cyrus. In any case the latter-named letter (verse 33), if not an exact copy, may be regarded as a fair sample, of what was sent. Looked at thus from the Jewish side of the question, it was a most formidable production:—equally so whether we now consider, on the one hand, its writers; or, on the other hand, its contents.
I. THE WRITERS. Much of the importance of a letter turns, of course, on this point. Were they
(1) persons of note? It is evident that they were in this case. "Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel"(Ezra 4:7) were clearly well-known names at that time. No one then required to be told who they were. It is also evident that they were
(2) persons of much acuteness. They had their letter written in the Syrian or Aramaic language and characters, as being those used (Lange) in Western Persia in all official documents. Such a plan, of course, would give their letter all the better chance of perusal. Further, it was so contrived that some of those signing the letter should be
(3) men of rank. Every Persian governor (so Herodotus, quoted by Rawlinson) was accompanied to his province by a royal secretary, having an independent authority of his own. These correspond in this instance to the "chancellor" and the "scribe" who are described in Ezra 4:8 as writing the "letter against Jerusalem." Bish-lam, etc; in all probability, were its concocters and framers; Rehum and Shimshai its official senders. Both sets appear also to have been
(4) men of much influence. Mention is made both of them and their "companions." They acted for others besides themselves; for others who could be named, but are not. At the same time, there were others named by them, as persons joining with them in sending this letter, whose names were such as to give it much additional weight. These were men, for example, who, in the matter of origin, represented very various cities, provinces, and races in the wide empire of Persia; such as ancient Erech (Genesis 10:10), mighty Babylon, royal Susa, and others. Yet they were men, again, who, as to recent history and present position, represented only the province from which the letter came, having been brought long ago to where they were by the same kind of imperial authority as that to which they appealed (Ezra 4:10). All these things made them the right persons to address the ruler of the whole empire respecting a matter affecting the welfare of the whole empire, yet arising exclusively in that province of it in which they all dwelt. Not only so, these same individuals, as a matter of fact, represented the whole of that province. With the exception of those they wrote about, they were able to speak of themselves as all "the men on that side the river." In a word, numbers, rank, influence, authority, character, origin, situation—the writers of the present letter had all these things on their side. It was, indeed, a great league; reminding us of what we read of in Psalms 83:3, and Acts 4:27, and (as something to happen hereafter) in Revelation 20:7. In the presence of such a league the temple builders were like the two flocks described in 1 Kings 20:27; or like the disciples when the Saviour said to them as in Matthew 10:16.
II. THE CONTENTS of the letter. These also were very formidable, because both weighty and well put. They comprised—
1. A severe accusation. The returned Jews were described as rebuilding a city always notorious for its evil name—Jerusalem "the rebellious" (Matthew 10:12). Such a charge no chief governor could afford to pass by. Such a charge, also, in this instance, had a very plausible look. Situated as the temple was, at the eastern edge of the city heights, the building of its foundation and enclosures (the real work of the men of Jerusalem) might easily be misrepresented as a "making ready" of the "walls" of the "city" itself.
2. A plain warning. "In the judgment of us who live on the spot, this thing is even worse than it seems. The building of this city means, in reality, the building of a fortress against the king; and that means, in turn, serious loss of revenue; for no taxes of any sort will that city pay, whether in money, or kind, or for using the highways."
3. A skilful apology. Why do we refer at all to so unpleasant a contingency? Simply as a matter of duty, and because of our loyalty. Having eaten of the king's salt (margin), being his dependents and subjects (possibly also his covenanted servants, 2 Chronicles 13:5), we could not see even such possibility of hurt without speaking.
4. An appeal to history. Besides, the king can judge for himself on this subject. He has only to inquire for himself in the government records, and see what has always been said there about this city. Why, in fact, if not thus "rebellious," was it ever destroyed?
5. An appeal to reason. If things be thus, what must be the consequence—the inevitable consequence of such a city being again established? Has our warning gone far enough, in reality? There will not only be rebellion here, but a rival sovereignty; not only some revenue, but a whole province, lost. Such, at any rate (so we assure the king), is our fear.
This subject illustrates—
1. The perilous nature of Christian warfare. All the neighbours of the Jews were against them; all that could be urged was urged against them, and in the very best way. It would be difficult to improve the letter before us, considering the purpose in view. So many, so powerful, so subtle always are the enemies of the Church. (Comp. Matthew 24:9; Luke 21:16, Luke 21:17; Acts 28:22.) Consider also, in a different sphere, Job 1:9; Job 2:4; Revelation 12:10; and the very meaning of the name Diabolus.
2. The secret of Christian vitality. How has the Church survived all this except by help from above? Could Jerusalem have survived this present league and letter if left to itself? Comp. "I have reserved to myself," in Romans 11:4; 1 Kings 19:18.
3. The proper direction of Christian trust. With such enemies, with such accusers, to whom must we look for defence? Not to other men, not to ourselves, but only to the appointed "Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1). He is more than all that are against us (Numbers 14:9; Psalms 27:1; Psalms 118:6). Also, being our "propitiation" (1 John 2:2), he can say more for us than they against us. (Comp. "I have prayed for thee," in Luke 22:31, Luke 22:32; and see Romans 8:33, Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25.)
HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL
The world's opposition to the Church.
We observe, in reference to the world's opposition to the Church—
I. THAT IT OFTEN SEEKS TO HINDER USEFUL ENTERPRISE, These Samaritans sought to "trouble them in building" (Ezra 4:4). As Israel was employed in rebuilding the ruined temple, so the Church is engaged in erecting a great spiritual temple; this noble enterprise is hindered by the varied enmity of the world. The moral building is hindered as well by the pleasures as by the enmity of men: how sinful to hinder the work of God.
II. THAT IT COMBINES A VARIED AGENCY.
1. Costly. "And hired counsellors against them" (Ezra 4:5). The world often expends much time and money in its opposition to the work of God; it always has "counsellors" ready to take its unprofitable pay. The Church opposes with the unsearchable riches of Christ.
2. Numerous. The enemies of the Church are legion; but more are for it than all that can be against it.
3. Competent. The men here named were capable of the most effective method of obtaining their end; the enemies of the Church are often socially great and mentally gifted. Learning is sometimes arrayed against the Church. But God hath chosen the weak things of the earth to confound the mighty.
4. Influential. These men have influence with the king, and stay the work of Israel. But a faithful Israel has power with God, and shall prevail. Strange are the intellectual and social elements allied against the Church.
III. THAT IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF POLITICAL CHANGES. "And in the reign of Ahasuerus" (Ezra 4:6). During the former reign the Samaritan enmity did not obtain much favour; but it is more successful with the new king. This opposition is—
1. Persistent. Kings may die, but it continues.
2. Vigilant. It is ever on the outlook for new opportunity.
3. Flattering. Thus it seeks to win its way with the new monarch. The Church must remember that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and ever; his purpose standeth sure.
4. An appeal to self-interest. "En-damage the revenue of the kings" (Ezra 4:13)."
IV. THAT IT MAKES A CUNNING USE OF MISREPRESENTATION. "They will not pay toll" (Ezra 4:13). The worldly opposition represents the Church of God as injurious to the state.
1. Rebellious. "Building the rebellious" (Ezra 4:12). That the Church will obey God rather than the king; true if their laws come into collision; but are not Christians the most law-abiding subjects?
2. Defrauding. "They will not pay toll." But does not the Church render unto God the things that are his, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's?
3. Hypocritical. They build not the walls of Jerusalem for God, but to shut out the king.
4. Wicked. They designate Jerusalem a "bad city." Thus the world maligns the Church; it spoke evil of Christ; it will undervalue his followers.
V. THAT IT MAKES THE PRETENCE OF A DISINTERESTED MOTIVE. "It was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour" (Ezra 4:14). The world will not allow that its opposition is angry or jealous. The most wicked plans seek the aid of righteous pleas. This opposition appears—
1. Disinterested. It does not seek its own, but the king's welfare.
2. Loyal. They had "the king's maintenance," and therefore inform the king of his peril.
3. Open. They will tell the king plainly of the matter, and he can decide. Thus would the world conceal its hatred to the Church.
VI. THAT IT PUTS A FALSE INTERPRETATION UPON NATIONAL HISTORY. "That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers" (Ezra 4:15).
1. The historical record. The history of the Church is blended with the history of the world; the Divine and human records move together.
2. The historical argument.
3. The historical perversion. History, rightly interpreted, is on the side of the Church.
4. The historical vindication. We justify Israel now and condemn the Samaritans; time will surely vindicate the Church.—E.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Three thoughts from old documents.
The determined attempts made by the Samaritans to prevent the Jews from building the temple and the walls of Jerusalem are well illustrated in the correspondence between them and the king of Persia. Documents passed between the two of which we have the superscription and contents in these verses. They remind us—
I. THAT MEN MAY TAKE AN IMMENSITY OF TROUBLE TO DO OTHER PEOPLE HARM AND MAKE THEMSELVES INFAMOUS. These men, "in the days of Artaxerxes" (Ezra 4:7), secured the sympathy and co-operation of the Persian "chancellor" and "scribe" (Ezra 4:8); also of their "companions," various Persian colonists then living in Samaria (Ezra 4:9), with "the rest of the nations" whom "Asnapper brought over and set in their cities" (Ezra 4:10): with their aid and through their medium they gained access to King Artaxerxes, and induced him to listen to a long statement of complaint. They had a momentary success, as the king granted their prayer and arrested the work; but in the end their evil designs were defeated, and those against whom they plotted gained their end. All that these malignant Samaritans did was to annoy and delay without defeating their neighbours, while they have earned for themselves a most unenviable immortality. This document is only read now by those who will condemn their conduct. How often do we see men putting forth patient energy, expending great ingenuity and labour, to compass that in which it is best for them to fail, of which they will live to be ashamed. If there be a sense in which "all labour is profit" (Proverbs 14:23), it is also painfully true that thousands of men are laboriously engaged in doing work which will perish, and had better perish; in making a name and repute which they would be glad afterwards to hide. Well for those who are doing that which really serves, that which will stand, that for which other generations will not rebuke but bless them.
II. THAT A TIME OF SPECIAL ACTIVITY WILL PROBABLY PROVE A TIME OF UNUSUAL ENDURANCE (Ezra 4:12). The Jews at this time were actively engaged in building—not merely in erecting stone walls, but in rebuilding a nation, in relaying the foundations of the kingdom and cause of God. Thus employed, they found themselves exposed to bitter hostility and deadly machination. Their nearest neighbours were plotting against them; and now they were doing that which is always found very difficult to endure—they were misrepresenting and maligning them; they were reporting them to the king as a "rebellious and bad city" (Ezra 4:12), bent on refusing to "pay toll, tribute, and custom" (Ezra 4:13), "hurtful unto kings and provinces," intending to break off their allegiance, so that the king "would have no portion on this side the river." Though not incapable of turbulence, and not indisposed to throw off a foreign yoke when that should be possible, the Jews were not cherishing any purpose of this kind; they had been faithful subjects when in Persia, and they had honourable and loyal intentions now. This "accusation" (Ezra 4:6) was essentially false; it was a malignant misrepresentation. When men are actively engaged in building the kingdom of Christ, they may expect Samaritan misrepresentations. Things will be said-by the ill-disposed which, as here, may have a colouring of truth, but which are essentially false. We must not mind misrepresentation when we are doing earnest and faithful work. The very excellency of our effort will bring down the hatred and opposition of those who are enemies of the truth, and our work and ourselves will be slandered; we may find ourselves members of a "sect everywhere spoken against." We shall not, then, forget who it was that was charged with sedition, and so far from being surprised that "the disciple is not above his master," we shall rejoice that we are counted worthy to "partake of the sufferings of Christ." No truly great work has ever been wrought which has not been covered at times with black clouds of misrepresentation.
III. THAT SELFISHNESS AND JUSTICE ARE SELDOM ASSOCIATED TOGETHER. The king listened to those who seemed so desirous of serving him; he was inclined to believe those that were anxious his "revenue should not be endamaged" (Ezra 4:13), who did not wish to "see the king's dishonour" (Ezra 4:14), and who took measures that he should not lose his "portion on one side the river" (Ezra 4:16). And search being made, it was easy to find some incidents which might be construed in the sense of these complainants: the city "of old time had made insurrection," etc. (Ezra 4:19); there had been "mighty kings" to whom "toll, tribute, and custom" had been paid, etc.—there might be some possible danger too in the future; let the work cease for the present (Ezra 4:21), for "why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?" (Ezra 4:22). Rather send bitter disappointment to the holiest hopes of a province than endanger the prosperity of kings. Thus does self-interest pervert justice. To save themselves from slight, remote, and contingent harm, men will cause much present and certain injury to their fellows. Selfishness is unfair and often cruel. To be true and just one must be disinterested.—C.