Ezra 4 Outline, Chapter 4 Opposition to Rebuilding (4:1-24) o Opposition during the reign of Cyrus & Darius (4:1-5, 24) o Opposition during the reign of Xerxes (4:6) o Opposition during the reign of Artaxerxes (4:7-23) By the end of chap 3, the returned exiles had spent about two years rebuilding the temple and at that point, they had completed the foundation. The Jews success rouses the interest and concern of their neighbors who feared the political and religious implications of a rebuild temple As a result these neighbors who are also termed adversaries opposed the rebuilding in various ways and over a long period. Chapter 4 also discusses opposition encountered by the Jews during the reigns of Xerxes (or Ahasuerus) and Artaxerxes. Continual and persistent opposition is a pervasive theme of this chapter and of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This chapter presents a lot of convincing evidence for that theme. Let us build with you (1-2) V1 introduces the inhabitants of the region around Judah and Benjamin as adversaries and that characterization is well justified by their attitude and actions. However the proof for that characterization is only provided later in the chapter. Until this point, these neighbors had little interest in the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple. However as soon as the foundation was laid, they became interested. The lesson here is that those who oppose God pay attention when the Lord s people engaging in His work and achieving some level of success and impact Outwardly their motivation for participating seems credible and their interest seems genuine They professed to worship the same God. They claim to have already been sacrificing to Him. Those statements about worship and sacrifice are likely motivated by their observation of the construction of the altar and institution of the regular sacrifice. They realize sacrifice and worship are important to these returned Jews so they make that the basis for the appeal to be involved. Although their words sound good we know it wasn t their true motivation because when their offer is refused, they immediately set to hindering the work These adversaries probably realized that the temple would be a source of unity and distinct identity for the returned Jews Observance of sacrificial worship and the active practice of their religion and would strengthen the Jewish community These adversaries were probably concerned that the Jews would resist external influences which in turn would diminish their dominion over the region. To understand the statement towards the end of v2, we need to go to 2 Kings 18:24-29 The Assyrian king was Shalmanezer. The people whom he brought to settle the cities learned how to serve and worship God i.e the rituals. But their motivation was fear and a desire for self preservation. They were by no means devoted to the Lord. They also served other Gods. So their statements regarding worshipping God and sacrificing to Him were not entirely accurate. They were divided in their loyalty and their actions did not spring from a devoted heart.. We alone will build (3) The response from the Jewish leaders in V3 seems harsh and divisive Note the words You have nothing to do with us or we alone will build, It s clear that the response is meant to emphasize the separation that existed between the Jews and the neighboring inhabitants. The response also makes it clear that the inhabitants were not qualified to participate. However there really wasn t a more diplomatic or tactful way for the elders to respond and still be true to their convictions. 1
Paul states the principle that applies here in 2 Cor 6 Those who profess to follow God but refuse to submit to His authority aren t acceptable to God or fit to be involved in serving Him. The same is true of those who worship and serve other gods Not only were the Jewish elders concerned about fidelity to God but they were also conscious of the command of King Cyrus Cyrus was clear that the temple was for the God of Israel and the task of rebuilding should be performed by His people. The Jewish elders were fully aware that the Lord had separated Israel from the other nations and entered into a special covenant with them; He had given them the Law, specific ordinances and rituals and given them His presence. When Israel started mingling with the nations around them and allowing their corrupt practices to seep in and influence them, they lost their distinct identity and holiness and themselves became corrupt. So God judged them. The elders could see that partnering with these non-israelites who worshipped other gods worshippers would start them on a road that would eventually lead to spiritual corruption and new judgment. The elders also knew or at least had a strong suspicion that the request was not motivated by a genuine desire to help and participate in the rebuilding. The real motivation was to sabotage the project. The evidence that confirms this suspicion is found in vs 4 and 5. If the elders had succumbed to pressure and allowed those neighbors to participate, they would have strayed from God s plan and direction and it is likely that the Lord s blessing which was critical to success, would be withdrawn. Also once they had received permission from the Jewish leadership to participate, it would have been difficult or impossible to exclude these adversaries once their real motives were manifest. So the decision made and response given by the elders, although difficult, was absolutely essential. They were faithful and obedient to what they knew was right. It also presents a good principle for the people of God to follow. We cannot be unequally yoked with unbelievers, especially in the work of the Lord. The Lord s work must be done by people who are committed to Him and wholeheartedly devoted to Him. It cannot be done effectively by people who are double minded and divided in their loyalty and devotion. Discourage and Frustrate (4-5) Vs 4-5 provide the evidence or confirmation of the real motive behind the request to participate. As soon as their request is refused and they aren t able to hinder the work from within, they start to frustrate and obstruct the work from without The adversaries employed three primary tactics o First discouragement: This could have been verbal comments or possibly withholding needed assistance or supplies and materials o Second, they troubled them or made them afraid. This could have been intimidation and threat of violence. o Third, they hired or bribed counselors. o We read in other parts in Ezra that the Kings of the Persians had counselors that advised them. These adversaries may have offered bribes to these counselors to try to hinder the work o Or it is possible that they hired advisors to gain insight into how they could disrupt and demoralize the Jews Vs 5 indicates that the opposition to the rebuilding of the temple continued right to the reign of Darius which started about 36 years after the laying of the foundation This verse looks ahead to and connects with Vs 24 which indicates that the intervening verses (that is 6-23) are in fact from a different time period and not chronologically connected to vs 1-5 or 24. There are other reasons for suggesting this as well which we will discuss shortly. However looking forward to Vs 24 we see that the work on the temple eventually ceased. This may have been largely due to the opposition of the surrounding peoples but we will see next week that the Jews were to blame as well. Order of the Kings According to history, the Persian kings reigned in the following order: Cyrus (560-530 B.C.), Cambyses (530-522), Smerdis (522), Darius I (522-486), Ahasuerus or Xerxes (486-465), Artaxerxes I (465-424), Darius II (423-405), and Artaxerxes II (405-358). Cyrus was the founder of the Medo-Persian Empire. He conquered the Media, Lydia, and Babylonain Empires. Because he was a gracious liberator, he permitted the conquered nations to worship their own gods. 2
He was benevolent toward various captive people who had suffered under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. As we read in Ezra 1, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple and even given financial help. Cambyses was the son of Cyrus. He assumed the throne after his father's death and conquered Egypt. On the way home from his conquest Cambyses heard that a pretender, named Smerdis, had taken the throne pretending to be another son of Cyrus. Cambyses died on his return trip. Smerdis, the imposter, ruled for several months. He gained a large following by remitting taxes for three years throughout the empire. However, Darius, a general, kept the loyalty of the Persian army and eventually captured and killed Smerdis. Darius then defeated 9 would be kings in 19 battles over 2 years and became the King. Darius was a good organizer of the kingdom. He partially defeated the Greeks and organized an efficient postal service. Xerxes or Ahasuerus was Darius's son. He continued the war against the Greeks. Artaxerxes was the son of Xerxes. If we interpret all of chapter 4 to be a strictly chronological and sequential account of history, a difficulty arises. Namely, the events surrounding letters which King Artaxerxes received from, and wrote to, the enemies of the Jews (see Ezra 4:7-23) are mentioned before the reign of Darius I (Ezra 4:24-6:15). If it is a proven fact that Darius served as king before Artaxerxes, why is the kingship of Darius recorded in the book of Ezra subsequent to the reign of Artaxerxes (recorded in Ezra 4:7-23)? One possible solution to this difficulty is that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6,7-23 were respectively Cambyses (530-522) and Smerdis (522) kings of Persia (listed above) who reigned before Darius I. Since Persian kings frequently had two or more names, it is not unfathomable to think that Cambyses and Smerdis also may have gone by the names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes (see Wilson, 1996; see also Fausset, 1998). Another, more likely explanation is that vs 6-23 are from a different time period than vs 1-5 and the grouping in Chapter 4 is not strictly chronological but thematic. Thematic grouping is not uncommon in the bible. Some examples include passages in the gospel of Mark where stories are placed together for thematic continuity; also Jesus parables are often grouped thematically. The common theme of Chapter 4 is the continual and persistent opposition faced by the Jewish exiles. o Verses 1-5 discuss the opposition to the temple o Vs 6-23 discuss other opposition faced by the Jews in different time periods to offer additional evidence that hatred and opposition of the inhabitant was persistent Note that in Vs 6-23 the opposition is focused on the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its walls, not the temple The account in vs 6-23 also provides justification for the Jews rejection of the offer of help in Vs 3. Accusation to Ahasuerus (6) In vs 6 we have an account of opposition encountered by the Jews during the reign of Ahasuerus or Xerxes, the son of Darius. The adversaries wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem We are not given the specifics of the accusation and the author is not identified. It appears that no specific action was taken by Ahasuerus as a result of this letter. We will see, when we look at Chapters 5 and 6 that Darius was very supportive of the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple As a result of his decrees, opposition to the rebuilding of the temple stopped and the jews were able to complete the work. However as this verse indicates that opposition didn t end. As soon as Darius was gone and his son took over, it picked right back up again. Letter to Artaxerxes (7-10) This passage lists two separate letters that were written and sent to Artaxerxes We are not given much information about the first letter by Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel and we don t know the outcome of that letter. This was probably because the author of the book could not obtain a copy of that letter and did not have much historical information about any response The author however did manage to get a copy of the second letter that was written by Rehum and Shimshai because it is reproduced in chapter 4 3
Artaxerxes encountered several challenges early in his rule including revolts by the egyptians with support from the greeks. As a result, Artaxerxes would probably have been very sensitive to and taken very seriously any letter that warned of possible rebellion in any part of his kingdom The way that this letter is written strongly suggests that Rehum and Shimshain and their associates were aware of Artaxerxes troubles and used that knowledge to their advantage. Rehum, is termed a commander but he was likely not a military leader. The term commander was probably used to enhance his position and credibility before the king The actual writer or scribe was Shimshai. It was typical for officials to have scribes do their writing. Overall the letter is both exaggerated and slanderous However, it seems to be well thought out and written and suggests that the authors knew how to get the kings attention and motivate him to take action. Of course we don t read anywhere that the Jews were given any opportunity to counter or respond to the accusations. The effect of the letter may have been different if they had an opportunity to respond. In vs 9-10 which are the introduction of the letter, there is a lengthy list of people from multiple nations The calculated effect of this would be to convey to the king that most of the peoples and leaders in the region beyond the river generally agreed with the contents of this letter. Letter to Artaxerxes (11-12) In vs 11, Rehum and his associates identify themselves as the King s servants. This prepares the canvas for the negative characterization of the Jews who will eventually be painted as rebellious and wicked Vs 12 identifies the Jews as having come from Artaxerxes which implies that he either encouraged or at least sanctioned their travel to Jerusalem However, following Cyrus decree and Darius reign there were probably Jews regularly traveling back unhindered to Jersualem regularly So Artaxerxes may not have been specifically involved in their coming. Although it is possible and likely that some rebuilding activity was ongoing, the extent of the activity cannot be fully understood based on the information in this letter. It is important to state up front that the activity described in Vs 12 is not a reference to Nehemiah and the Jews who accompanied him Nehemiah had a specific mandate from Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem and its walls. (see Nehemiah 2) In Neh 1:3, we read that Nehemiah received news that the walls of Jerusalem were broken down and the gates were burned. The building activity for that wall may have been started here and the destruction may have been the result of Artaxerxes reply. Verse 12 is one of multiple slanderous accusations against Jerusalem and the Jews Jerusalem is called a rebellious and wicked city Since these Jews are rebuilding it the implication of course is that they are also rebellious and wicked. Letter to Artaxerxes (13-16) The statements in these verses are calculated to motivate the king to take action. The adversaries depict the rebuilding of Jerusalem as something that jeopardizes the welfare and security of the entire Persian kingdom. Two specific threats are presented First in Vs 13: Loss of revenue if Jerusalem is rebuilt the Jews will not pay tribute, custom or toll. Second in Vs 16: the King will lose control of the entire province. The implied accusation is that if the city and walls are rebuilt, the Jews will rebel against the king and take over the regions beyond the river. Its not certain if or how much tribute or toll the Jews were paying in the first place so the statement about the Kings treasury being diminished is definitely an exaggeration However as mentioned before, Artaxerxes had to suppress multiple challenges involving military battles. These battles were expensive and the empire couldn t afford to lose any revenue no matter how small Realistically speaking the statement in Vs 16 that a rebuilt Jerusalem would mean the loss of Persian control of the entire province beyond the River Euphrates was a huge stretch. After all, we are talking about a small band of returned exiles with few weapons and no military capability to speak of. 4
However Artaxerxes had faced multiple rebellions early in his reign and the mere suggestion of such a danger would arouse concern and cause Him to notice and take action. The adversaries had also done their research and figured out a way to back up their accusations and dire predictions. They had accessed and read the book of the records and confirmed that it contained the needed evidence They pointed Artaxerxes to the book and encouraged him to confirm for himself that Jerusalem had been subject to and rebelled against foreign rule in the past Now there is no biblical record that we are aware of that indicates Jerusalem rebelled against Persian rule However, it is true that Kings of Judah did rebel against Nebuchadnezzar specifically Jehoiakim (or Jehoiachin) and Mattaniah (or Zedekiah) So it is reasonable to conclude that the records referenced in the letter probably included those maintained by the Babylonians. Most likely the Persians had incorporated Babylonian chronicles into their archives Verse 14 is another not so subtle attempt by the adversaries at enhancing their status and credibility before the king They state that because they receive financial support from the King, they are expected to warn him of any potential dangers to his reign They present their motives as loyalty to the kingdom and the honor for the King In reality their motives were probably far more selfish and self serving but it is apparent that the King was willing to be persuaded. Response from Artaxerxes (17-22) This passage contains the response from the king of Persia. It is addressed to Rehum, Shimshai and all the associates so it is intended to have wide and general distribution. The response makes it clear that the letter succeeded in its objective to gain royal approval to stop the work. The response gives the adversaries royal affirmation and the required authority before all the officials of the region to take action. There are two bright spot in Artaxerxes response o The first is that He actually took the time command a search of the records and confirm the accusations before taking action. o The search revealed that Jerusalem had in fact rebelled against kings o This is consistent with the biblical record. We know that the kings of Judah resisted not only Babylonian kings but also kings of Assyria such as Sennacherib o The statement about mighty kings being over Jerusalem could be a reference to David and Solomon who reigned over all Israel or perhaps to more recent kings of Judah like Hezekiah and Josiah o This fact that Artaxerxes actually commanded the search demonstrates that he was inclined to be fair and at least somewhat just and objective in making decisions o The second bright spot is that Artaxerxes does not make a final judgment but just issues a temporary injunction in the form of a command to Rehum and Shimshai. o The command is to stop the work until a final decree is made o He emphasizes urgency in following through on the command On the other had there are some clearly negative aspects in His response o First, there s no indication that he looked at the records himself. He charged others with looking through them and providing their observations. o This probably was the standard practice but it left the door open for deceit. o Those entrusted with the responsibility of reviewing the records and gathering evidence and assessing it could be bribed and if that was the case, the King would not receive an objective or impartial assessment o Second he could have given the people of Jerusalem an opportunity to respond to the accusations before issuing the command to stop work. o In most legal systems it is customary to give the accused an opportunity to respond and defend themselves before sentence is passed. Artaxerxes response raises the question of apparently contradictory orders. We know that this same Artaxerxes granted permission to Nehemiah to travel to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls So how could the same Artaxerxes have stopped the work and also sanctioned the work? A possible response is that he stopped the work based on information provided by Rehum but later supported the rebuilding when he received and assessed new information provided by Nehemiah whom he probably trusted more than Rehum 5
Artaxerxes response indicates that he was moved but not altogether convinced by Rehum s letter He was concerned enough to halt the work while he gathered more information However he did not completely and permanently shut down the work and left open the possibility that he could later sanction it. His response is also a confirmation that the Lord was involved and working on behalf of the Jews If Artaxerxes had issued a decree banning the rebuilding, Nehemiah would have had a very difficult time gaining approval for it. Building of Jerusalem Stops (23) Having gained the approval of the king, the adversaries lost no time in following through on their intent Josephus says they went to Jerusalem with horses and troops. If some work had been completed on the walls they may have destroyed it. Nehemiah 1 suggests that was the case. Building of Temple Stops (24) Vs 24 picks up where vs 5 left off and takes us back to the rebuilding of the temple It would probably be less confusing if V24 of chap 4 were instead the first verse of Chapter 5 since it really is connected more to what happens in chapter 5 than the later verses of chapter 4. In any case, this verse tells us that the persistent opposition faced by the Jews to the rebuilding of the temple from the reign of Cyrus all the way to the reign of Darius eventually resulted in the work stopping We don t know exactly when it stopped but it probably happened soon after the foundation was completed Lessons When God s people seek to do a work for the Lord, there will be adversaries The adversaries will use diverse tactics including trying to join in the work We cannot have an unequal yoke when doing the Lord s work Adversaries will use discouragement and intimidation Even if the work is temporarily stopped, we should not despair and give up. The Lord is ultimately in control. He will complete what He has started if we trust in Him. 6