Ezra 4 commentary

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

CHAPTER 4

Ezr 4:1-6. The Building Hindered.

1. the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin--that is, strangers settled in the land of Israel.

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

3. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua ... said ... Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God--This refusal to co-operate with the Samaritans, from whatever motives it sprang, was overruled by Providence for ultimate good; for, had the two peoples worked together, familiar acquaintanceship and intermarriage would have ensued, and the result might have been a relapse of the Jews into idolatry. Most certainly, confusion and obscurity in the genealogical evidence that proved the descent of the Messiah would have followed; whereas, in their hostile and separate condition, they were jealous observers of each other's proceedings, watching with mutual care over the preservation and integrity of the sacred books, guarding the purity and honor of the Mosaic worship, and thus contributing to the maintenance of religious knowledge and truth.

4-5. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, &c.--Exasperated by this repulse, the Samaritans endeavored by every means to molest the workmen as well as obstruct the progress of the building; and, though they could not alter the decree which Cyrus had issued regarding it, yet by bribes and clandestine arts indefatigably plied at court, they labored to frustrate the effects of the edict. Their success in those underhand dealings was great; for Cyrus, being frequently absent and much absorbed in his warlike expeditions, left the government in the hands of his son Cambyses, a wicked prince, and extremely hostile to the Jews and their religion. The same arts were assiduously practised during the reign of his successor, Smerdis, down to the time of Darius Hystaspes. In consequence of the difficulties and obstacles thus interposed, for a period of twenty years, the progress of the work was very slow.

6. in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they ... an accusation--Ahasuerus was a regal title, and the king referred to was successor of Darius, the famous Xerxes.

Ezr 4:7-24. Letter to Artaxerxes.

7. in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, &c.--The three officers named are supposed to have been deputy governors appointed by the king of Persia over all the provinces subject to his empire west of the Euphrates.

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

9. the Dinaites--The people named were the colonists sent by the Babylonian monarch to occupy the territory of the ten tribes. "The great and noble Asnappar" was Esar-haddon. Immediately after the murder of Sennacherib, the Babylonians, Medes, Armenians, and other tributary people seized the opportunity of throwing off the Assyrian yoke. But Esar-haddon having, in the thirtieth year of his reign, recovered Babylon and subdued the other rebellious dependents, transported numbers of them into the waste cities of Samaria, most probably as a punishment of their revolt [Hales].

12. the Jews which came up from thee to us--The name "Jews" was generally used after the return from the captivity, because the returning exiles belonged chiefly to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Although the edict of Cyrus permitted all who chose to return, a permission of which some of the Israelites availed themselves, the great body who went to settle in Judea were the men of Judah.

13. toll, tribute, and custom--The first was a poll tax; the second was a property tax; the third the excise dues on articles of trade and merchandise. Their letter, and the edict that followed, commanding an immediate cessation of the work at the city walls, form the exclusive subject of narrative at Ezr 4:7-23. And now from this digression [the historian] returns at Ezr 4:24 to resume the thread of his narrative concerning the building of the temple.

14. we have maintenance from the king's palace--literally, "we are salted with the salt of the palace." "Eating a prince's salt" is an Oriental phrase, equivalent to "receiving maintenance from him."

24. Then ceased the work of the house of God--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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the reign of Ahasuerus - This is the person who is called Cambyses by the Greeks. He reigned seven years and five months; and during the whole of that time the building of the temple was interrupted.

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

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

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

Rehum the chancellor - With this verse the Chaldee part of the chapter begins; and the same language continues to the end of Ezr 6:18.

These men wrote to Darius in their own language; and the king in the same dialect returns an answer, chap. 5. This circumstance adds authenticity to what is written: so scrupulous was the inspired penman, that he not only gave the words which each spoke and wrote, but he gave them also in the very language in which they were conceived and in the character peculiar to that language.

The great and noble Asnapper - Whether this was Shalmaneser, or Esar-haddon, or some other person, learned men and chronologists are not agreed. The Syriac terms him Asphid; but of this person we know no more than we do of Asnapper. He might have been the military officer who was appointed to escort this people to Judea.

And at such a time - The word וכענת ucheeneth has greatly perplexed all commentators and critics. The versions give us no light; and the Vulgate translates it et dicunt salutem, "and they wish prosperity." Some translate it and so forth; and our translators supposed that it referred to the date, which however is not specified, and might have been as easily entered as the words and at such a time.

In our first translation of the Bible, that by Coverdale, in 1535, the passage stands thus: "And other on this syde the water, and in Canaan."

In that by Becke, 1549, it is thus: "And other on this syde the water, and in Ceneeth:" and in the margin he enters "or peace," "or health." In Cardmarden's Bible, printed at Rouen, 1566, it stands thus: "And other that are nowe on thys syde the water." In that printed by Barker, 1615, we find the text thus: "And Other that are beyond the river, and Cheeneth;" on which is the following marginal note: "To wit, Euphrates: and he meaneth in respect of Babel, that they dwelt beyond it." And the note on Cheeneth is, "Which were a certain people that envied the Jews." All this is merely guessing, in the midst of obscurity; most of these having considered the original word כענת Ceeneth as the name of a people; and in this they follow the Syriac, which uses the word Acaneth.

Calmet thinks we should read ובעת ubaeth, "and at this time;" as if they had said, "We wish thee to enjoy the same health and prosperity at all future times, which thou dost at present." This is not remote from the meaning of the Chaldee original.

Toll, tribute, and custom - The first term is supposed to imply the capitation tax; the second, an excise on commodities and merchandise; the third, a sort of land tax. Others suppose the first means a property tax; the second, a poll tax; and the third, what was paid on imports and exports. In a word, if you permit these people to rebuild and fortify their city, they will soon set you at naught, and pay you no kind of tribute.

Now because we have maintenance from the king's 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. Salt was used as the emblem of an incorruptible covenant; and those who ate bread and salt together were considered as having entered into a very solemn covenant. These hypocrites intimated that they felt their conscience bound by the league between them and the king; and therefore could not conscientiously see any thing going on that was likely to turn to the king's damage. They were probably also persons in the pay of the Persian king.

The book of the records of thy fathers - That is, the records of the Chaldeans, to whom the Persians succeeded.

Peace, and at such a time - The word וכעת ucheeth is like that which we have already considered on Ezr 4:10, and probably has the same meaning.

Hath made insurrection against kings - How true is the proverb, "It is an easy thing to find a staff to beat a dog!" The struggles of the Israelites to preserve or regain their independency, which they had from God, are termed insurrection, rebellion, and sedition: because at last they fell under the power of their oppressors. Had they been successful in these struggles, such offensive words had never been used. In 1688 the people of England struggled to throw off an oppressive government, that was changing the times and the seasons, and overthrowing the religion of the country, and setting up in its place the spurious off-spring of popery and arbitrary government. They were successful; and it is called the Revolution: had they failed it would have been called rebellion; and the parties principally concerned would have been put to death.

Beyond the river - That is, the Euphrates. Both David and Solomon carried their conquests beyond this river. See 2Sam 8:3, etc., and 1Kgs 4:21, where it is said, Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines; and unto the borders of Egypt.

Until another commandment shall be given from me - The rebuilding was only provisionally suspended. The decree was, Let it cease for the present; nor let it proceed at any time without an order express from me.

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.

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 Zac 1:1 (note) and the following chapter, Ezra 5 (note).

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

With you - This they spake not sincerely, but that by this conjunction with them, they might pry into their counsels, and thereby find some matter of accusation against them. We seek - For so they did, though in a mongrel way, 2Kings 17:26, &c. Esarhaddon - Son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, who brought or sent these persons hither, either, in the day's of Salmanasar, who reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esarhaddon; and so Esarhaddon might be one of his commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent. Or, in the reign of Esarhaddon, who sent this second colony to strengthen the first.

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

Cyrus - For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his vice - roy, who was a wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews. Until - Heb. and until, &c. not only in the reign of Cyrus but also of Cambyses, and of the magician, after whom was Darius.

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

Artaxerxes - Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name, Ahashuerus, ver.6, and here by his Persian name, Artaxerxes: by which he is here called in the inscription of this letter, because so he was called by himself, and others in the letters written either by him; or to him. Interpreted - It was written in the Chaldee or Syrian language, and in the Syrian character: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words are written in the Hebrew character.

Asnapper - Either Esarhaddon, or some other person of eminency, who was captain of this colony, and conducted them hither. The river - Euphrates. Time - The date of the epistle was particularly expressed therein, but here it was sufficient to note it in general.

Be it known, &c. - This is a mere fiction, which being confidently affirmed, they thought would easily find belief with a king whose heart and ears they possessed by their hired counsellors.

To cease. &c. - 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.

Darius - Darius the son of Hystaspes, successor of Cambyses.

1 NOw when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin , heard that the children of the captivity built the temple unto the LORD God of Israel:

The Samaritans, as appears from v. 2, 10.

Marginal references: Heb. [illegible: 1 word] of [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word].

2 Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, let us build with you ; for we seek your God, as ye do , and we do sacrifice unto him, since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur , which brought us up hither.

This they spake not sincerely, as appears from their disposition and designs discovered in the following History, but that by this conjunction with them they might pierce into their counsels, and thereby get an opportunity to sin [illegible: 1+ letters]me matter or pretences of Accusation against them.

For so they did though in a mongrel way▪ see 2 Kin. 17. 26, &c.

Son of Sennacherib, and after him King of Assyria, 2 Kin. 19. 37. Who brought or sent these persons hither, either 1. In the days of Salmanasar, who lived and reigned in Assyria but Eight years before Esarhaddons Reign; and so Esarhaddon might be one of his most eminent Commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent. Or 2. In the reign of Esarhaddon, who sent this second Colony to supply and strengthen the first.

3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us , to build an house unto our God, but we our selves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.

As being of another Nation and Religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus his Grant, which was confined to the Israelites and to the worshippers of the true God.

i. e. Who are united together by Cyrus his Grant in this work. Or, alone, as this word is somtimes used, as Iob 34. 29. Psal. 33. 15. Hos. 11. 7.

Marginal references: Heb. i[illegible: 1+ letters] [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] for [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] us.

4 Then the people of the land weakned the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building ▪

Heb. of that land; the present Inhabitants of that Province, to wit, the Samaritans.

By false Reports, and Threats, and other means described.

5 And hired counsellers against them , to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus King of Persia , even until the reign of Darius king of Persia .

Who by their Artifices and Interests in the Persian Court should give some stop to their work.

For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his Wars, and his Son Cambyses was left his Vice-roy, who was a very wicked Prince, and an Enemy to the Jews and their Religion.

Heb. and until, &c. i. e. Not only in the Reign of Cyrus, but also of Cambyses, and of the Magician, after whom was this Darius, of whom see chap. 5, & 6.

6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus , in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

Which is supposed by divers learned men to be from this time a common Name to divers succeeding Kings of Persia. And this makes it seem doubtful who this was. This was either 1. Xerxes the fourth and rich King of Persia, as he is called Dan. 11. 2. Or rather 2. Cambyses the Son and Successor of Cyrus, as may appear, 1. Because none but he and S[illegible: 1+ letters]nerdis were between Cyrus and this Darius. 2. Because Cambyses was known to be no friend to the Jewish Nation nor Religion; and therefore it is very improbable that these crafty, and malicious, and Industrious Enemies of the Jews would omit so great an opportunity when it was put into their hands.

Marginal references: Heb▪ [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] ▪

7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithridath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companies, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Either 1. Artaxerxes, the Son of Xerxes. Or 2. Smerdis the Magician. Or rather 3. The same Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name Ahashuerus, v. 6. and here by his Persian name Artaxexes: By which name he is here called in the Inscription of this Letter, because so he was called by himself and others in the Letters written either by him, or to him.

Or, exposed or declared. The sense is, It was written in the Chaldee or Syrian Language, and in the Syrian Character: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words are written in the Hebrew Character, and Hebrew words are oft written in an English Character.

Marginal references: Or▪ [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word].; Heb. socie [illegible: 1+ letters].

9 Then wrote Rehum the chancellour, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites ,

Several people thus called from the several places of that vast Assyrian Empire, from whence they were fetched, and who were united together into one Body, and sent as one Colony by the Assyrian Monarchs into these parts.

Marginal references: Chald. soci [illegible: 1+ letters].

10 And the rest of the nations, whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria: and the rest that are on this side the river and at such a time .

Either Esarhaddon, or some other Person then of great eminency, especially with his Subjects and Followers, who was Captain of this Colony, and conducted them hither.

To wit, Euphrates.

The date of the Epistle was particularly expressed in the Epistle, but here it was sufficient to note it in the general.

Marginal references: Chald. Che [illegible: 1+ letters] ▪

12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us, are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof , and joined the foundations.

Either 1. The Jews had begun to build or repair some part of the Walls which Nebuchadnezzar had left, which they aggravate in this manner. Or 2. This is a meer fiction, which being confidently affirmed, they thought would easily find belief with a King whose Heart and Ears they possessed by their▪ hired Counsellours, and others of their Friends, or the Enemies of the Jews.

Marginal references: Or, finished.; [illegible: 1 word]. sowed [illegible: 1 word].

14 Now because we have maintenance from the kings palace▪ and it was not meet for us to see the kings dishonour : therefore have we sent and certified the king;

Thus they pretend the Kings service to their own malicious designs and private Interests.

Marginal references: Chal. we are salted with the salt of the palace.; Chal. nakedness. Deut. 24. 1. Isa. 20. 4.

15 That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers : so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed.

Political Fathers, i. e. thy Predecessors, the former Emperours of this Empire, namely in the Assyrian and Babylonish Records, which together with the Empire were now in the hands of the Persian Kings, to be searched or read, as the Kings pleasure was, or as the affairs of the Empire required.

Marginal references: Chal. made.; Chal. in the midst thereof.

24 Then 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 .

For they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their Kings Prohibition, without a special command from the King of Heaven, which they had ch. 5. 1, 2.

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 Emperour till above 100 years after Cyrus, and consequently from the beginning of the building of the Temple to the finishing of it must be about 130 years, which is not credible to any one that considers; 1. That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the Foundations and finish the work, Zech. 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.

Ezr 4:1-2

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

Ezr 4:3

Zerubbabel and the other chiefs of Israel answer, “It is not for you and for us to build a house to our God;” i.e., You and we cannot together build a house to the God who is our God; “but we alone will build it to Jahve the God of Israel, as King Cyrus commanded us.” יחד אנחנוּ, we together, i.e., we alone (without your assistance). By the emphasis placed upon “our God” and “Jahve the God of Israel,” the assertion of the adversaries, “We seek your God as ye do,” is indirectly refuted. If Jahve is the God of Israel, He is not the God of those whom Esarhaddon brought into the land. The appeal to the decree of Cyrus (Ezr 1:3, comp. Ezr 3:6, etc.) forms a strong argument for the sole agency of Jews in building the temple, inasmuch as Cyrus had invited those only who were of His (Jahve’s) people (Ezr 1:3). Hence the leaders of the new community were legally justified in rejecting the proposal of the colonists brought in by Esarhaddon. For the latter were neither members of the people of Jahve, nor Israelites, nor genuine worshippers of Jahve. They were non-Israelites, and designated themselves as those whom the king of Assyria had brought into the land. According to 2Ki 17:24, the king of Assyria brought colonists from Babylon, Cuthah, and other places, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel. Now we cannot suppose that every Israelite, to the very last man, was carried away by the Assyrians; such a deportation of a conquered people being unusual, and indeed impossible. Apart, then, from the passage, 2Ch 30:6, etc., which many expositors refer to the time of the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, we find that in the time of King Josiah (2Ch 34:9), when the foreign colonists had been for a considerable period in the country, there were still remnants of Manasseh, of Ephraim, and of all Israel, who gave contributions for the house of God at Jerusalem; and also that in 2Ki 23:15-20 and 2Ch 34:6, a remnant of the Israelite inhabitants still existed in the former territory of the ten tribes. The eighty men, too, who (Jer 41:5, etc.) came, after the destruction of the temple, from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, mourning, and bringing offerings and incense to Jerusalem, to the place of the house of God, which was still a holy place to them, were certainly Israelites of the ten tribes still left in the land, and who had probably from the days of Josiah adhered to the temple worship. These remnants, however, of the Israelites inhabitants in the territories of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, are not taken into account in the present discussion concerning the erection of the temple; because, however considerable their numbers might be, they formed no community independent of the colonists, but were dispersed among them, and without political influence. It is not indeed impossible ”that the colonists were induced through the influence exercised upon them by the Israelites living in their midst to prefer to the Jews the request, 'Let us build with you;' still those who made the proposal were not Israelites, but the foreign colonists” (Bertheau). These were neither members of the chosen people nor worshippers of the God of Israel. At their first settlement (2Ki 17:24, etc.) they evidently feared not the Lord, nor did they learn to do so till the king of Assyria, at their request, sent them one of the priests who had been carried away to teach them the manner of worshipping the God of the land. This priest, being a priest of the Israelitish calf-worship, took up his abode at Bethel, and taught them to worship Jahve under the image of a golden calf. Hence arose a worship which is thus described, 2Ki 17:29-33 : Every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans, i.e., the former inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes, had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. And besides their idols Nergal, Asima, Nibhaz, Tartak, they feared Jahve; they sacrificed to all these gods as well as to Him. A mixed worship which the prophet-historian (2Ki 17:34) thus condemns: “They fear not the Lord, and do after their statutes and ordinances, not after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded to the sons of Jacob.” And so, it is finally said (2Ki 17:41), do also their children and children’s children unto this day, i.e., about the middle of the Babylonian captivity; nor was it will a subsequent period that the Samaritans renounced gross idolatry. The rulers and heads of Judah could not acknowledge that Jahve whom the colonists worshipped as a local god, together with other gods, in the houses of the high places at Bethel and elsewhere, to be the God of Israel, to whom they were building a temple at Jerusalem. For the question was not whether they would permit Israelites who earnestly sought Jahve to participate in His worship at Jerusalem-a permission which they certainly would have refused to none who sincerely desired to turn to the Lord God-but whether they would acknowledge a mixed population of Gentiles and Israelites, whose worship was more heathen than Israelite, and who nevertheless claimed on its account to belong to the people of God.The opinion of Knobel, that those who preferred the request were not the heathen colonists placed in the cities of Samaria by the Assyrian king (2Ki 17:24), but the priests sent by the Assyrian king to Samaria (2Ki 17:27), has been rejected as utterly unfounded by Bertheau, who at the same time demonstrates, against Fritzsche on 1 Esdr. 5:65, the identity of the unnamed king of Assyria (2Ki 17:24) with Esarhaddon.

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

Ezr 4:4

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

Ezr 4:5

And they hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose (of building the temple). וסכרים still depends on the ויהי of Ezr 4:4. סכר is a later orthography of שׂכר, to hire, to bribe. Whether by the hiring of יועציט we are to understand the corruption of royal counsellors or ministers, or the appointment of legal agents to act against the Jewish community at the Persian court, and to endeavour to obtain an inhibition against the erection of the temple, does not appear. Thus much only is evident from the text, that the adversaries succeeded in frustrating the continuance of the building “all the days of Koresh,” i.e., the yet remaining five years of Cyrus, who was for the space of seven years sole ruler of Babylon; while the machinations against the building, begun immediately after the laying of its foundations in the second year of the return, had the effect, in the beginning of the third year of Cyrus (judging from Dan 10:2), of putting a stop to the work until the reign of Darius, - in all, fourteen years, viz., five years of Cyrus, seven and a half of Cambyses, seven months of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and one year of Darius (till the second year of his reign).Complaints against the Jews to Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. - The right understanding of this section depends upon the question, What kings of Persia are meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta? while the answer to this question is, in part at least, determined by the contents of the letter, 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, occurs here only, and means, according to its derivation from שׂטן, to bear enmity, the enmity; hence here, the accusation. ישׁבי על belongs to שׂטנה, not to כּתבוּ; the letter was sent, not to the inhabitants of Judah, but to the king against the Jews. The contents of this letter are not given, but may be inferred from the designation שׂטנה. The letter to Artachshasta then follows, Ezr 4:7-16. In his days, i.e., during his reign, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions. כּנותו, for which the Keri offers the ordinary form כּנותיו mrof yra, occurs only here in the Hebrew sections, 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 to Gesenius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) together with another, though Ewald is of a different opinion; see §117, b, note. The singular would be written כּנת (Ewald, §187, d). And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaean (i.e., with Aramaean characters), 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 the letter, 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 this statement had before him only an Aramaean translation of the letter contained in the state-papers or chronicles which he made use of.” It is not כּתב, the copy or writing, but הנּשׁתּון, the letter, that is the subject of ארמית מתרגּם, interpreted in Aramaean. This was translated into the Aramaean or Syrian tongue. The passage is not to be understood as stating that the letter was drawn up in the Hebrew or Samaritan tongue, and then translated into Aramaean, but simply that the letter was not composed in the native language of the writers, but in Aramaean. Thus Gesenius rightly asserts, in his Thes. p. 1264, et lingua aramaea scripta erat; in saying which תרגם does not receive the meaning concepit, expressit, but retains its own signification, to interpret, to translate into another language. The writers of the letter were Samaritans, who, having sprung from the intermingling of the Babylonian settlers brought in by Esarhaddon and the remnants of the Israelitish population, spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to Aramaean, which was spoken at the Babylonian court, and was the official language of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramaean tongue had also its own characters, differing from those of the Hebrew and Samaritan. This is stated by the words ארמית כּתוּב, whence Bertheau erroneously infers that this Aramaean writing was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps in Hebrew 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 which a copy is given in Ezr 4:11-16; but the names of the writers are different from those mentioned in Ezr 4:7. The three names, Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel (Ezr 4:7), cannot be identified with the two names Rehum and Shimshai (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 written accusation against the Jews in their own and their associates’ names, it requires but little stretch of the imagination to suppose that these personages were acting at the instance of the adversaries named in Ezr 4:7, the Samaritans Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, and merely inditing the complaints raised by these opponents against the Jews. This view, which is not opposed by the כּתב of Ezr 4:7, - this word not necessarily implying an autograph, - commends itself to our acceptance, first, because the notion that the contents of this letter are not given finds no analogy in Ezr 4:6, where the contents of the letter to Ahashverosh are sufficiently hinted 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 same which is given in Ezr 4:8, etc.The weight of this argument is indirectly admitted by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 119) and Bertheau, inasmuch as both suppose that there is a long gap in the narrative, and regard the Aramaean letter mentioned in Ezr 4:7 to have been a petition, on the part of persons of consideration in the community at Jerusalem, to the new king, - two notions which immediately betray themselves to be the expedients of perplexity. The supposed “long gaps, which the chronicler might well leave even in transcribing from his documents” (Ew.), do not explain the abrupt commencement of Ezr 4:8. If a petition from the Jewish community to the king were spoken of in Ezr 4:7, the accusation against the 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 letter would have been utterly purposeless if the Aramaean letter following in Ezr 4:8 had been an entirely different one. The information concerning the language in which the letter was written has obviously no other motive than to introduce its transcription in the original Aramaean. This conjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aramaean letter follows in Ezr 4:8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had been intended, the ו copulative would not more have been omitted here than in Ezr 4:7. The letter itself, indeed, does not begin till Ezr 4:9, while Ezr 4:8 contains yet another announcement of it. This circumstance, however, is explained by the fact that the writers of the letters are other individuals than those named in Ezr 4:7, but chiefly by the consideration that the letter, together with the king’s answer, being derived from an Aramaean account of the building of the temple, the introduction to the letter found therein was also transcribed.

Ezr 4:8

The writers of the letter are designated by titles which show them to have been among the higher functionaries of Artachshasta. Rehum is called טעם בּעל, dominus consilii v. decreti, by others consiliarius, royal counsellor, probably the title of the Persian civil governor (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 an abbreviation 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 in Ezr 4:9, instead of which we have (Ezr 4:9 and Ezr 4:10) a full statement of who were the senders; and then, after a parenthetical interpolation, “This is the copy of the letter,” etc., the letter itself in Ezr 4:11. The statement is rather a clumsy one, 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. The sentence ought properly to run thus: “Then (i.e., in the days of Artachshasta) Rehum, etc., sent a letter to King Artachshasta, of which the 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 the superscription or preamble of the letter, to give weight to the accusation brought against the Jews. The author of the Chaldee section of the narrative, however, has placed them first, and made the copy of the letter itself begin only with the words, “Thy servants,” etc. First come the names of the superior officials, Rehum and Shimshai, and the rest of their companions. The latter are then separately enumerated: The Dinaites, lxx Δειναῖοι, - so named, according to the conjecture of Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 676), from the Median city long afterwards called Deinaver (Abulf. Geógr. ed. Paris. p. 414); the Apharsathchites, probably the Pharathiakites of Strabo (15:3. 12) (Παρητακηνοί, Herod. i. 101), on the borders of Persia and Media, described as being, together with the Elymaites, a predatory people relying on their mountain fastnesses; the Tarpelites, whom Junius already connects with the Τάπουροι dwelling east of 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., the Susanites, 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 may seem, yet the motive being to name as many races as possible, the addition, “and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper brought over and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side 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 the city in which Osnapper had settled the colonists here named, the “nations brought 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 King Esarhaddon. Hence Osnapper would seem to be merely another name for Esarhaddon. But the names Osnapper (lxx Ἀσσεναφάρ) and Asarhaddon (lxx Ἀσαραδάν) being too different to be identified, and the notion that Osnapper was a second name of Asarhaddon having but little probability, together with the circumstance that Osnapper is not called king, as Asarhaddon is Ezr 4:2, but only “the great and noble,” it is more likely that he was some high functionary of Asarhaddon, who presided over the settlement 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 the preceding בּקריה before נהרה עבר שׁאר: and in the rest of the territory, or in the cities of the rest of the territory, on this side of Euphrates. עבר, trans, is to be understood of the countries west of Euphrates; matters being regarded from the point of view of the settlers, who had been transported from the territories east, to those west of Euphrates. וּכענת means “and so forth,” and hints that the statement is not complete.

On comparing the names of the nations here mentioned with the names of the cities from which, according to 2Ki 17:24, colonists were brought to Samaria, we find the inhabitants of most of the cities there named - Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava - here comprised under the name of the country as בּבליא, Babylonians; while the people of Hamath and Sepharvaim may fitly be included among “the rest of the nations,” since certainly but few colonists would have been transported from the Syrian Hamath to Samaria. The main divergence between the two passages arises from the mention in our present verse, not only of the nations planted in the cities of Samaria, but of all the nations in the great region on this side of Euphrates (נהרה עבר). All these tribes had similar interests to defend in opposing the Jewish community, and they desired by united action to give greater force to their representation to the Persian monarch, and thus to hinder the people of Jerusalem from becoming powerful. And certainly they had some grounds for uneasiness lest the remnant of the Israelites in Palestine, and in other regions on this side the Euphrates, should combine with the Jerusalem community, and the thus united Israelites should become sufficiently powerful to oppose an effectual resistance to their heathen adversaries. On the anacoluthistic connection of Ezr 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 a counterword, i.e., counterpart, copy. The form with ר is either a corruption, or formed from a compound with fra; comp. Gildemeister in the 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 for the full enumeration of the writers already given in Ezr 4:9, and also for the customary 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 on Dan 2:20. “Which are come up from thee,” i.e., from the territory where thou art tarrying; in other words, from the country beyond Euphrates. This by no means leads to the inference, as Schrader supposes, that these Jews had been transported from Babylon to Jerusalem by King Artachshasta. מלק answers to the Hebrew עלה, and is used like this of the journey to Jerusalem. “Are come to us, to Jerusalem,” עלינא, to us, that is, into the parts where we dwell, is more precisely defined by the words “to Jerusalem.” “They are building the rebellious and bad city, and are setting up its walls and digging its foundations.” Instead of 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, to finish. 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 repairing walls 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 4:17-22

The royal answer to this letter. פּתגּמא - a word which 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 so forth. כּעת is abbreviated from כּענת.

Ezr 4:23

The result of this royal command. As soon as the copy of the letter was read before Rehum and his associates, they went up in haste to Jerusalem 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 a host;” but the rendering of אדרע or זרוע by “force” can neither be shown to be correct from Eze 17:9 and Dan 11:15, Dan 11:31, nor justified by the translation of the lxx, ἐν ἵπποις καὶ δυνάμει.

Ezr 4:24 “Then ceased the work of the house of God at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia.” With this statement the narrator returns to the notice in Ezr 4:5, that the adversaries of Judah succeeded in delaying the building of the temple till the reign of King Darius, which he takes 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 a more detailed account of those accusations against the Jews made by their adversaries to kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. If we read Ezr 4:23 and Ezr 4:24 as successive, we get an impression that the discontinuation to build mentioned in Ezr 4:24 was the effect and consequence of the prohibition obtained from King Artachshasta, through the complaints brought against the 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 referred the contents of Ezr 4:6 to the interruption to the building of the temple during the period from Cyrus to Darius, and understood the two names Ahashverosh and Artachshasta as belonging to Cambyses and (Pseudo) Smerdis, the monarchs who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. Grave objections 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 have sought to prove that none but the Persian kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes can be meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, and that the section Ezr 4:6 relates not to the building of the temple, but to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, and forms an interpolation or episode, in which the historian makes the efforts of the adversaries of Judah to prevent the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Xerxes and Artaxerxes follow immediately after 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 machinations against 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 on this passage, but also by Hengstenberg, Christol. iii. p. 143, Auberlen, and others, 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 building of the temple is not spoken of. The contents of the letter sent to Ahashverosh (Ezr 4:6) are not stated; in that to Artachshasta (Ezr 4:11) the writers 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 and malevolent suspicion, that well-founded objections to the truthfulness of these accusations may reasonably be entertained. Such adversaries might, for the sake of more surely attaining their end of obstructing the work of the Jews, easily represent the act of laying the foundations and building the walls of the temple as a rebuilding of the town walls. The answer of the king, too (Ezr 4:17), would naturally treat only of such matters as the accusers had mentioned.

The argument derived from the names of the kings is of far more importance. The name אחשׁורושׁ (in Ezr 4:6) occurs also in the book of Esther, where, as is now universally acknowledged, the Persian king Xerxes is meant; and in Dan 9:1, as the name of the Median king Kyaxares. In the cuneiform inscriptions the name is in Old-Persian Ksayarsa, in Assyrian Hisiarsi, in which it is easy to recognise both the Hebrew form Ahashverosh, and the Greek forms Ξέρξης and Κυαξάρης. On the other hand, the name Cambyses (Old-Persian Kambudshja) offers no single point of identity; the words are radically different, whilst nothing is known of Cambyses having ever borne a second name or surname similar in sound to the Hebrew Ahashverosh. The name Artachshasta, moreover, both in Est 7:1-10 and 8, and in the book of Nehemiah, undoubtedly denotes the monarch known as Artaxerxes (Longimanus). It is, indeed, in both these books written ארתּחשׁסתּא with ס, and in the present section, and in Ezr 6:14, ארתּחששׁתּא; but this slight difference of orthography is no argument for difference of person, ארתחשׁשׁתא seeming to be a mode of spelling the word peculiar to the author of the Chaldee section, Ezra 4-6. Two other names, indeed, of Smerdis, the successor of Cambyses, have been handed down to us. According to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 7, and Ktesias, Pers. fr. 8-13, he is said to have been called Tanyoxares, and according to Justini hist. i. 9, Oropastes; and Ewald is of opinion that the latter name is properly Ortosastes, which might answer to Artachshasta. It is also not improbable that Smerdis may, as king, have assumed the name of Artachshasta, Ἀρταξέρξης, which Herodotus (vi. 98) explains by μέγας ἀρήΐος. But neither this possibility, nor the opinion of Ewald, that Ortosastes is the correct reading for Oropastes in Just. hist. i. 9, can lay any claim to probability, unless other grounds also exist for the identification of Artachshasta with Smerdis. Such grounds, however, are wanting; while, on the other hand, it is à priori improbable that Ps. Smerdis, who reigned but about seven months, should in this short period have pronounced such a decision concerning the matter of building the temple of Jerusalem, as we read in the letter of Artachshasta, Ezr 4:17, even if the adversaries of the Jews should, though residing in Palestine, have laid their complaints before him, immediately after his accession to the throne. When we consider also the great improbability of Ahashverosh being a surname of Cambyses, we feel constrained to embrace the view that the section Ezr 4:6 is an episode inserted by the historian, on the occasion of narrating the interruption to the building of the temple, brought about by the enemies of the Jews, and for the sake of giving a short and comprehensive view of all the hostile acts against the Jewish community on the part of the Samaritans and surrounding nations.

The contents and position of Ezr 4:24 may easily be reconciled with this view, which also refutes as unfounded the assertion of Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, i. p. 303, and Schrader, p. 469, that the author of the book of Ezra himself erroneously refers the document given, Ezr 4:6, to the erection of the temple, instead of to the subsequent building of the walls 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 one allowable. The assertion that בּאדין is “always connected with that which immediately precedes,” cannot be strengthened by an appeal to Ezr 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, only refers a narrative, in a general manner, to the time spoken of in that which precedes it. When, then, it is said, then, or at that time, the work of the house of God ceased (Ezr 4:24), the then can only refer to what was before related concerning 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 that the 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 is more precisely stated in Ezr 4:24, till the second year of the reign, of Darius king of Persia. With this recapitulation of the contents of Ezr 4:5, the narrative, Ezr 4:24, returns to the point which it had reached at Ezr 4:5. What lies between is thereby characterized as an illustrative episode, the relation of which to that which precedes and follows it, is to be perceived and determined solely by its contents. If, then, in this episode, we find not only that the building of the temple is not spoken of, but that letters are given addressed to the Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, who, as all Ezra’s contemporaries would know, reigned not before but after Darius, the very introduction of the first letter with the words, “And in the reign of Ahashverosh” (Ezr 4:6), after the preceding statement, “until the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezr 4:5), would be sufficient to obviate the misconception that letters addressed to Ahashverosh and Artachshasta related to matters which happened in the period between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis. Concerning another objection to this view of Ezr 4:6, viz., that it would be strange that King Artaxerxes, who is described to us in Ezra 7 and in Nehemiah as very favourable to the Jews, should have been for a time so prejudiced against them as to forbid the building of the town and walls of Jerusalem, we shall have an opportunity of speaking in our 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. The Building of the Temple Continued, and Notice Thereof Sent to King Darius - Ezra 5

In the second year of Darius Hystaspis (Darajavus Viçtaçpa) the prophets Zechariah and Haggai arose, and exhorted the people by words, both of reproof and encouragement, to assist in the work of rebuilding the house of God. In consequence of these prophetic admonitions, the rulers of the community resumed the work (Ezr 5:1, Ezr 5:2); and the royal governor on this side the Euphrates allowed them, when in answer to his inquiries they appealed to the decree of Cyrus, to proceed with their building until the arrival of a decision from King Darius, to whom he addressed a written report of the matter (Ezr 5:3-17).

Opposition Made to the Jews. (b. c. 535.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jews Misrepresented. (b. c. 521.)

6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: 9 Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, 10 And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time. 11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time. 12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. 13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. 14 Now because we have maintenance from the king's palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 15 That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed. 16 We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.

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

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

II. The persons concerned in writing this letter. The contrivers are named (v. 7) that plotted the thing, the writers (v. 8) that put it into form, and the subscribers (v. 9) that concurred in it and joined with them in this representation, this misrepresentation I should call it. Now see here, 1. How the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his temple, with their companions. The building of the temple would do them no harm, yet they appear against it with the utmost concern and virulence, perhaps because the prophets of the God of Israel had foretold the famishing and perishing of all the gods of the heathen, Zeph. ii. 11; Jer. x. 11. 2. How the people concurred with them in imagining this vain thing. They followed the cry, though ignorant of the merits of the cause. All the several colonies of that plantation (nine are here mentioned), who had their denomination from the cities or countries of Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, &c., whence they came, set their hands, by their representatives, to this letter. Perhaps they were incensed against these returned Jews because many of the ten tribes were among them, whose estates they had got into their possession, and of whom they were therefore jealous, lest they should attempt the recovery of them hereafter.

III. A copy of the letter itself, which Ezra inserts here out of the records of the kingdom of Persia, into which it had been entered; and it is well we have it, that we may see whence the like methods, still taken to expose good people and baffle good designs, are copied.

1. They represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and greatly concerned for the honour and interest of it, and would have it thought that the king had no such loving faithful subjects in all his dominions as they were, none so sensible of their obligations to him, v. 14. Because we are salted with the salt of the palace (so it is in the margin), "we have our salary from the court, and could no more live without it than flesh could be preserved without salt;" or, as some think, their pay or pension was sent them in salt; or "Because we had our education in the palace, and were brought up at the king's table," as we find, Dan. i. 5. These were those whom he intended to prefer; they did eat their portion of the king's meat. "Now, in consideration of this, it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonour;" and therefore they urge him to stop the building of the temple, which would certainly be the king's dishonour more than any thing else. Note, A secret enmity to Christ and his gospel is often gilded over with a pretended affection to Caesar and his power. The Jews hated the Roman government, and yet, to serve a turn, could cry, We have no king but Caesar. But (to allude to this), if those that lived upon the crown thought themselves bound in gratitude thus to support the interest of it, much more reason have we thus to argue ourselves into a pious concern for God's honour; we have our maintenance from the God of heaven and are salted with his salt, live upon his bounty and are the care of his providence; and therefore it is not meet for us to see his dishonour without resenting it and doing what we can to prevent it.

2. They represent the Jews as disloyal, and dangerous to the government, that Jerusalem was the rebellious and bad city (v. 12), hurtful to kings and provinces, v. 15. See how Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. xlviii. 2), is here reproached as the scandal of the whole earth. The enemies of the church could not do the bad things they design against it if they did not first give it a bad name. Jerusalem had been a loyal city to its rightful princes, and its present inhabitants were as well affected to the king and his government as any of his provinces whatsoever. Daniel, who was a Jew, had lately approved himself so faithful to his prince that his worst enemies could find no fault in his management, Dan. vi. 4. But thus was Elijah most unjustly charged with troubling Israel, the apostles with turning the world upside down, and Christ himself with perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; and we must not think it strange if the same game be still played. Now here,

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

(2.) Their information concerning what was now doing was grossly false in matter of fact. Very careful they were to inform the king that the Jews had set up the walls of this city, nay, had finished them (so it is in the margin) and joined the foundations (v. 12), when this was far from being the case. They had only begun to build the temple, which Cyrus commanded them to do, but, as for the walls, there was nothing done nor designed towards the repair of them, as appears by the condition they were in many years after (Neh. i. 3), all in ruins. What shall be given, and what done, to these false tongues, nay, which is worse, these false pens? sharp arrows, doubtless, of the mighty, and coals of juniper, Ps. cxx. 3, 4. If they had not been perfectly lost to all virtue and honour they would not, and if they had not been very secure of the king's countenance they durst not, have written that to the king which all their neighbours knew to be a notorious lie. See Prov. xxix. 12.

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

17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time. 18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. 19 And I commanded, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. 20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them. 21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. 22 Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? 23 Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. 24 Then 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.

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 (v. 19), and withal that in times past kings had reigned there, to whom all the countries on that side the river had been tributaries (v. 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, v. 21, 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, v. 23. Their feet ran to evil, Prov. i. 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, v. 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. vi.) they were reproved by the prophets for not doing it, ch. v. 1, compared with Hag. i. 1, &c. 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.

CHAP. IV. Verſe 1. Now when the adverſaries of Judah]

ARrouſed by thoſe loud acclamations and out-cries, chap. 3.12, 13. Theſe adverſaries were thoſe Samaritans; chap. 3.3. a kinde of mongrels that wore Religion as a cloak, which they either put on, or threw off at pleaſure, and as occaſion required. Satan (ſaith one) doth not alwayes appear in one and the ſame faſhion: but hath as many ſeverall ſhapes as Proteus among the Poets. Here he pretends devotion to his miſchievous deſignes, but was fruſtrated.

That the children of the captivity] Iſtos deportatos, by way of contempt as Junius rendereth it: As if the Jews were therefore hated of God, becauſe they had beene tranſported, captivated. Tully paſſeth the ſame cenſure of them in his Oration, pro L, Flacco: Iſtagens quàm chara diis immortalibus eſſet docuit, quòd eſt victa, quòd elocata, quòd ſervata. It appears how dear to God they be by their oft-captivities.

Verſe 2. Let us build with you] Craftily and treacherouſly do they offer their coſt and paines, ut illis intermixti perſonas committerent, atque ita opus interverterent, ſaith one well; that mingling with them, they might ſet them together by the eares, and ſo put a ſtop to the work.Socrat. Theodor. Thus Julian, to ſpight the Chriſtians, firſt ſet the Jewes awork to rebuild their Temple: and when that would not be, he called home the Arian-Biſhops out of baniſhment, to breed new broyles in the Church. The Jeſuites have a practice at this day, of running over to the Lutheran Church, pretending to be Converts, and to build with them: but it is onely to keep up that bitter contention that is betweene the Calviniſts and the Lutherans. And what ill offices they do amongſt us at this day to heighten our diviſions, and hinder the Reformation (by their wiles, much enſnared and hindered) good men are very ſenſible of. The Lord detect and defeat them.

For we ſeeke your God, as ye do] Nay, not as ye do. See 2 Kings 17.32, 33, 34. they feared the Lord, not filially, but for his Lions: as the old Romanes worſhipped their Veiones, leſt they ſhould hurt them: and as the Caffrani (a people in India) worſhip Devils in moſt terrible figure, that they may not puniſh them.

Since the dayes of Eſar-haddon] Sonne and ſucceſſour to Sennacherib, 2 Kings 19.37. grand ſon to Salmaneſer: after whom, it ſeemes, he brought a new colony into the Land of Samaria, who proved deadly enemies to Gods people.

Verſe 3. But Zerubbabel and Jeſhua] Jeſhua would be one to keep them out, though they ſlighted him in their application to Zerubbabel and the chiefe of the fathers, verſe 2.

You have nothing to do with us] You ſhall neither conquer us, nor compound with us. This was right Roman reſolution. They were wont to ſay of cowards in Rome, that there was nothing Roman in them. I can never ſufficiently admire (ſaith one) the ſpeech of bleſſed Luther, who (though he was very earneſt to have the Communion adminiſtred in both kinds contrary to the Doctrine and cuſtome of Rome,) yet he profeſſeth, if the Pope (as Pope) commanded him to receive in both kinds, he would receive but in one kinde; leſt he ſhould ſeeme to receive the mark of the Beaſt. As for theſe Reconcilers, and Moderatours (ſaith another learned man) were they the wiſeſt under heaven, and ſhould live to the worlds end, they would be brought to their wits end, before they could accompliſh this works end, to make a reconciliation betwixt Rome and us. They have nothing to do with us to build an houſe unto our God. From ſuch ſtand off, ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Tim. 6.5. Say to them (when they offer their coſt and ſervice) as here. Pura Deus mens eſt: procul; ô procul eſte profani. This was one of thoſe ancient Lawes of the twelve tables among the Romanes, Impius ne audeto placare donis iram deorum, Let no profane perſon preſume to think to pacifie the gods with their pains, or preſents.

But we our ſelves together will build, &c.] This, the adverſaries call combination, conſpiracy, faction, ſedition, &c. See verſe 13. But what ſaith Tertullian? Cùm boni, cùm probi coeunt — non eſt factio dicenda, ſed curia. Et è contrà, illis nomen factionis accommodandum eſt, qui in odium piorum & proborum conſpirant. When good men get together, Apol. adverſ. gent. num. 520. and hold together, it is not to be called a faction, but a Court. As on to'ther ſide, they are to be counted factious, who conſpire againſt the godly, as theſe Malignants in the Text did.

As King Cyrus, &c.] They had good authority for what they did, and they hold them to it.

Verſe 4. Then the people of the land] Who the nearer they came unto a conjunction with the Jewes in matters of Religion, the deeper hatred they bare them. Thus at this day, a Jew hates a Chriſtian worſe then he doth a Pagan; ſo doth a Turk hate a Perſian worſe then he doth a Chriſtian; a Papiſt, a Proteſtant, worſe then he doth a Turk: a Formalliſt, a Puritan, worſe then he doth a Papiſt. Odia Theologica ſunt acerbiſſima.

Weakened the hands of the people of Judah] Diſcouraged them all they could, endeavouring to transfuſe (as it were) a dead-palſie into their fingers, that they might ſurceaſe, or, at leaſt, ſlack their paines. Well might Solomon ſay, Wrath is cruel, and anger is outragious: but who can ſtand before envie? ſurely the venome of all vices is found in this ſharp-fanged malignity.

And troubled them in building] Heb. Kept ado about them, and terrified them. [non-Latin text not transcribed]: This was to do the work of their father the Devil, that troubler of Gods Iſrael. (ad injuriam inferendam totus comparatus) ſet upon't to vex ſuch as begin but to build the Tower of godlineſſe, and to hinder them to the utmoſt.

Verſe 5. And hired Counſellours againſt them] But good Counſellours would not have beene hired, either to bolſter out a bad cauſe, or to out-face a good; to juſtifie the wicked for a reward, or to take away the righteouſneſſe of the righteous from him.Spartian. There is a notable inſtance of this in Papinian a Pagan Counſellour. Thou mayeſt (ſaid he to Antoninus the fratricide,) command my neck to the block, but not my tongue to the barre. I prize not my life to the pleading of an ill cauſe. Theſe ſordida poſcinummia in the text, were none ſuch. Some think they were Courtiers and Counſellours to the King: ſuch as by whom the King was even bought and ſold, as Aurelian the good Emperour was; who might know nothing but as his Counſellours informed him. This made Alphonſus King of Arragon ſay, that Kings were herein moſt miſerable, that whereas they abounded with all things elſe, the truth of matters they could ſeldome come by.

All the dayes of Cyrus King of Perſia] Who warring abroad, committed the government of his Kingdome to his ſonne Cambyſes a light and lewd loſſel, eaſily prevailed with to hinder ſo good a work.

Even untill the reigne of Darius] i. e. Of Darius Nothus (ſay ſome) the ſonne of Artaxerxes Longimanus (named verſe 7.) the father of Artaxerxes Mnemon. Pemble. But they do better in my opinion, that underſtand the text of Darius Hiſtaſpis, who ſucceeded Cambyſes, and married his ſiſter; ſeeking to ingratiate with the people by ratifying whatſoever Cyrus had decreed, and this of the Temple among the reſt. See chap. 6.1.

Verſe 6. And in the reigne of Ahaſhueroſh] That is, of Cambyſes, who is alſo called Artaxerxes in the next verſe: for theſe two names were given to many Kings of Perſia; like as Pharaoh was to the Kings of Egypt, as a title of honour. Ahaſhueroſh ſignifieth an hereditary Prince. Daniel calleth him the Prince of the Kingdome of Perſia. chap. 10.13. becauſe he was Viceroy in his fathers abſence. Infamous he is for many lewd pranks (as that he killed his brother, and then his owne ſiſter, after he had firſt married her, and made a Law that any man might do the like) yet was he not ſo ungracious a ſonne to Cyrus, as our Henry the ſeconds eldeſt ſonne was; whom he not onely crowned King during his owne life, but alſo, to do him honour at his Coronation, renounced the name of a King for that day, and (as Sewer) ſerved at the table. For which he was thus requited, My father ſaid he, is not diſhonoured by attending on me; for I am both a Kings and a Queens ſon, and ſo is not he.

In the beginning of his reigne] As loth to loſe time (Eſau began in the very womb to perſecute Jacob) and as taking their fitteſt ſeaſon, for granting of ſuits.

Wrote they an accuſation] Heb. a Satanical ſuggeſtion, a diabolical accuſation, hatcht in hell, and dictated by the Devil. He it is that acteth and agitateth the Saints adverſaries and accuſers; ſitting upon their tongues and pens, and ſetting an edge on them.

Verſe 7. And in the dayes of Artaxerxes] This ſeems to be Cambyſes his Perſian name, as Ahaſhueroſh was his Chaldee name. It is as much as Bellator egregius, an excellent warriour. So Scipi, was called Fulmen belli, the light-bolt of warre: Bajazet the great Turk,Turk. Hiſt. Gilderun, or lightning: Albert, Marqueſſe of Brandenburg, was called Achilles Teutonicus. Bucholc. Our black Prince was ſo named, not of his colour, but of his courage, and of his dreaded acts in battel: for he aſſailed no Nation which he over-came not;Speed. he beſieged no City which he took not. Cambyſes had great ſucceſſe in his wars, and added Egypt, and other Countries, to the Perſian Monarchy.

Wrote Biſhlam Mithredath] Theſe were the King of Perſia's Toparches or Deputies, beyond the river Euphrates.

Written in the Syrian tongue] Called alſo the Chaldee, Babyloniſh and Aſſyrian; commonly ſpoken by the Jewes, who in the ſeventy years captivity loſt the purity of their owne language; like as the Latines alſo did, when the Gothes, Vandals and other barbarous Nations over-ran them, and mingled with them.

And interpreted in the Syrian tongue] i. e. with Syrian characters, Et Scriptura & lingua erat Syriaca, ut ſine interprete in aula regis intelligeretur, ſaith Shindler. It was ſo written that it might be underſtood at Court without an interpreter.

Verſe 8. Rehum the Chancellour] Or Preſident of the Councel. It is of the Chaldee termination: the whole hiſtory alſo following to chap. 6.19. is Chaldee, tranſcribed, as ſome think, out of the rolls and regiſters of the Chaldees, and here inſerted.

Verſe 9. The Dinaites and the Apharſathkites, the Tarpalites] This was not unity, but conſpiracy of a rabble of rebels againſt God and his people. So Pſal. 83.5, 6, &c. They have conſulted together with one conſent, they are confederate againſt thee. The Tabernacles of Edom and the Iſhmaelites of Moab, and the Hagarenes, &c. A whole legion of Devils could agree to enter into one poore man, to vex him; and to act, as one, in that poſſeſſion.

Verſe 10. The great and noble Aſnapper] Some great Commander under the Aſſyrian Monarch. There is, they ſay, a greatneſſe Belluine, and a greatneſſe Genuine-Aſnapper, notwithſtanding his big-ſwoln titles, might be rather great then good; and more notable, then noble.Juvenal. Nobilitas ſola eſt atque unica virtus.

On this ſide the river] That ancient river- the river Euphrates, which the more I ſee, the more I admire, ſaith one.

Verſe 11. Thy ſervants] Not thy ſubjects onely, but thine Officers.

Verſe 12. The rebellious and bad City] After ſo many years, doth Jeruſalem rue one perfidious act of Zedekiah: and having once beene treacherous, it ſtill hears, The rebellious and bad City, as if it had beene a very [non-Latin text not transcribed], a profeſſed Sanctuary of roguery, (as the Jeſuites ſay of Geneva) and as Florus ſaith of the Temple at Jeruſalem, that it was impiae gentis arcanum.

And have ſet up the walls thereof] This was no leſſe falſe then ſcandalous. But malice careth not how true the accuſation is, but how miſchievous.

And joyned the foundations] Chald. ſewed together. Or, rather theſe falſe-informers had ſewed a lie together with great Art, that it might ſeeme a truth, Pſal. 119.69. The proud have forged a lie againſt me, aſſuunt mendacium mendacio, they have taught their tongues to ſpeak lies, Jer. 9.5. and are Artiſts at it.

Verſe 13. Be it knowne now unto the King] q. d. This is no light buſineſſe, but of greateſt importance: and therefore fit to be noted and noticed.

Then will they not pay tole, tribute, &c.] This is an old device of the Devil and his Impes, to repreſent Gods people to the world as Antimagiſtratical, and diſturbers of the publike peace. Thus they dealt by the Primitive Chriſtians, who were the Emperours beſt ſubjects, and yielded them greateſt reſpect and profit. Thus Francis King of France pretended and profeſſed to the Princes of Germany (whoſe friendſhip he deſired) that he purſued the Lutherans with fire and ſword, for no other cauſe but for that they were Levellers, and enemies to civil government. This drew from Calvin (who was then but twenty five years of age) that golden book of his Inſtitutions of Chriſtian Religion, to free the Reformed Churches of that ſlurre and ſlander. The like was ſuggeſted by the Arminians in the Low-countries, and by the Epiſcopal party here. It was in Tacitus his time, unum crimen, eorum qui crimine vacabant, the onely fault of ſuch as were indeed without fault.

And ſo thou ſhalt endamage the revenue] Diminiſh the annual Entrado's of the crowne which are well called the Kings ſtrength here; becauſe if theſe faile, little good can be done, either at home or abroad. Henry King of Navarre (afterwards King of France) was wont to ſay, that he was an husband without a wife, a ſouldier without money, and a King without a Kingdome. What would the King of Spaines greatneſſe ſoon come to, were it not for his yearly incomes, his mines of America?

Verſe 14. Now becauſe we have maintenance from the Kings Palace] Chaldee. Are ſalted with the ſalt of the Palace, Salarium de regis palatio percipimus, have our ſalary from the Court, as Junius rendereth it. The great uſe of ſalt makes it here put for all kinde of commodity: like as bread is called panis, as if it were [non-Latin text not transcribed], The all, and whole of our ſuſtenance, Deut. 8.3.

And it was not meet for us to ſee the Kings diſhonour] Chald. Nakedneſſe, privities, which uncovered, cauſe contempt, as it befell Noah in his drunkenneſſe: and the King of Spaine, when by Queene Elizabeth proclaimed Bankrupt.

Therefore have we ſent and certified the King] As knowing that Beneficium-poſtulat officium; Bounty commands duty. Ingratitude is a monſter in nature, a ſoleciſme in good manners, &c. Lycurgus would make no Law againſt it, becauſe he held that none could be ſo unreaſonable, as to be guilty of it. Yet Alphonſus complained of his ungrateful Courtiers; and ſo did Frederick the third, Emperour of Germany. Queen Elizabeth alſo ſaid, that in truſt ſhe had oft found treaſon. That traytor Parry had vowed her death,Speed. although he had beene condemned for burglary, and ſaved by her pardon.

Verſe 15. In the book of the Records] Chald. Of the Remembrances, that is, the Chronicles uſual in all Kingdomes.

And that this City is a rebellious City] See the Note on verſe 12. and learne, that fidelity to governours is ever both ſafe and honourable. Zedekiah's falſifying his oath to the King of Babylon, was the overthrow of that Common-wealth. See what God himſelf ſaith, not without great indignation, Ezek. 17.18. Seeing he (Zedekiah) deſpiſed the oath, by breaking the Covenant (when loe he had given his hand) and hath done all theſe things, he ſhall not eſcape.

Verſe 16. We certifie the King] They doubt not of audience, whileſt they ſang a ſong of Ʋtile; which therefore they thus ſet on with more confidence then charity.

Verſe 17. Peace, and at ſuch a time] As the Latines ſaluting ſay, Ave, or Salve, Hieron. the Greeks [non-Latin text not transcribed], ſo the Hebrews and Syrians ſay, Shalom lach, that is, Peace be to thee. The Turks ſalutation at this day alſo is, Salaum aleek; the reply Aleek Salaum, Blount. Peace is a complexive bleſſing.

Verſe 18. Hath beene plainly read before us] This in the general was commendable: but he ſhould have reſerved (as Alexander uſed to do) [non-Latin text not transcribed], One eare free; and have heard both parties.

Verſe 19. Hath made inſurrection againſt Kings] Chald. Lift up it ſelf againſt Kings. Pride is painted with a triple crowne on her head; Upon the firſt whereof is written Tranſcendo; upon the ſecond, Non obedio; upon the third, Perturbo. Wat Tyler the rebel dared to ſay, that all the Lawes of England ſhould come out of his mouth.Spead.

Verſe 20. Beyond the river] Euphrates the boundary of Solomons Empire, 1 Kings 4.21, 24. as it was alſo promiſed, Geneſis 15.18. Exod. 23.31. Deut. 11.24. Joſhuah 1.4.

Verſe 21. Give you now commandment] Chald. Make a Decree: which yet did but carry on Gods Decree: for while perſecutors ſit backward to his command, they row forwards to his Decree.

Verſe 22. Take heed now that ye faile not] This was to ſpurre a free-horſe: like as litters were ſent from King Philip and Queene Mary to Biſhop Bonner, complaining that Hereticks were not ſo reformed as they ſhould be, and exhorting him to more diligence.

Why ſhould dammage grow] Take heed of that howſoever. Multi reges graviorem ducunt jacturam regionis, quàm religionis, &c. Bucholcer.

Verſe 23. They went up in haſte] Perurgente diabolo, the Devil driving them, and their owne malicious diſpoſitions egging them thereunto. So, when Queene Mary lay a dying, Bern. Acts & Mon. 1562. Harpsfeild Arch-deacon of Canterbury being at London, made all poſt-haſte home to diſpatch thoſe Martyrs, whom he had then in his cruel cuſtody. So ambitious are wicked men of hell, they take long ſtrides, and mend their pace; as if they feared, leſt it ſhould be taken up before they come thither.

Verſe. 24. Then ceaſed the work of the houſe of God] And now the adverſaries have got the ball on the foot, thinking to carry the game before them: But the triumphing of the wicked is ſhort, Job 20.5. and that they proſper at all in their deſignes, it is non ad exitium, ſed ad exercitium Sanctorum; not for the ruine of the Church, but for the exerciſe of the faith and patience of Gods people.