4:1–3 The initial scene of the chapter typifies the conflicts to follow. The “returned exiles” (v. 1; lit., “the sons of the exile”)61 are opposed by those whom we assume are not a part of the exilic community. The exiles are further specified as the tribes of “Judah and Benjamin” (cf. 1:5), two tribes who long ago had remained faithful to the Davidic king at the time of kingdom division (1 Kings 12:20–21; 2 Chron. 11:12) and who now willingly bear the responsibility of rebuilding the temple.

In what follows, Zerubbabel and Jeshua represent Israel in dialogue with the “adversaries.” The author gives no explicit reason as to why this group deserves such a title. Why should the kind offer “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do” be met with such an exclusivist reply: “We alone will build” (Ezra 4:2–3)?62 No doubt, a strict interpretation of Cyrus’s decree necessarily excludes non-Israelites from the building process (cf. 1:3).63 However, a more reasoned theological response relevant to the original audience requires further explanation.

“Adversaries,” sometimes translated “enemies” (Hb. tsar), are found throughout the Bible.64 The term first occurs in Melchizedek’s blessing of Abraham (Gen. 14:20) and refers broadly to anyone who oppresses Israel (Num. 10:9; 24:8).65 In this chapter the adversaries are equated with the “people of the land” (Ezra 4:4). Elsewhere in Nehemiah, the term for “adversaries” refers to those willing to kill the wall rebuilders (Neh. 4:11), and Nehemiah 9:27 reminds Israel that they were given into the hands of “their enemies” in the period of the judges due to their rejection of God’s word.66 In short, although the historical specificity of the enemies varies over time, there is a parallel established between being subject to “adversaries” (i.e., “enemies”) in the day of the judges and being subject now to the “people of the land” (cf. comment on Ezra 4:4–5).

The “adversaries” further specify themselves as descendants of those relocated by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681–669 BC), sacrificing to the Lord ever since (v. 2). The Assyrian practice of repopulating defeated regions with non-natives seemingly continued over a long period after Samaria’s fall (722), when an unnamed “king of Assyria,” likely Sargon II (721–705), transferred non-natives and brought them to the cities of Samaria.67 Afterward, he sent a priest who could teach them about “the law of the god of the land” (2 Kings 17:24–28). Unfortunately, this resulted in syncretistic practices that combined worship of the Lord with worship of the gods of the nations from which these adversaries came. It is in this light that we must understand the leadership’s decision to reject the offer of help. Cooperating with descendants of those who, in their evaluation, manifested a toxic religious stew would lead to sure compromise and perhaps grant inroads into control of the temple itself.68

4:4–5 These verses clearly contrast the “people of the land” with the “people of Judah.” The phrase “people of the land/earth”69 appears in the Bible with varied contexts and referents. In some contexts God desires for “all the peoples of the earth” to know him and his relationship with Israel (Josh. 4:24; 1 Kings 8:43, 60). At other times, God’s protective care and special relationship to his distinct people dispel their own fear of the people of the land (Num. 14:9; Deut. 28:10). Occasionally in 2 Kings the phrase appears to refer not to the nations (outsiders) but to those who are faithful to the Davidic king (e.g., 2 Kings 11:14, 18–20).

But what of the twelve appearances of the phrase in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 3:3; 4:4; 9:1, 2, 11; 10:2, 11; Neh. 9:24, 30; 10:28, 30, 31)? A quick perusal shows that Israel’s identification with (or, conversely, not separating from) the people of the land is much more than a rejection of a kind offer to help, an act of prideful exclusion, or a case of crass nationalism (cf. Ezra 6:21). For returnees to cooperate with the peoples of the land in this new start would indicate ongoing unfaithfulness and a failure to remain faithful to their calling to be God’s distinct people (Ex. 19:5–6; 1 Kings 8:53), the type of compromise that had led them to this very point in the first place.

Further, in Ezra 4 the “people of the land” seek to frustrate the temple rebuilding (cf. vv. 1, 4) These opponents do not attack and then withdraw. Instead they press unrelentingly, as expressed by three similar verbal forms: weakening hands (cf. Jer. 38:4), making builders afraid, and bribing counselors—perhaps government officials—to subvert the very plans of the people (lit., “hiring counselors against them to frustrate their counsel”). The expression “all the days of Cyrus . . . even until the reign of Darius” reveals a nearly twenty-year period of opposition (from around 538 to 520 BC).

4:6 In verses 6–23 opposition is expressed in the form of four letters of accusation. Verse 6 moves forward chronologically, briefly noting a written accusation from the reign of Ahasuerus (486–465 BC), also known as Xerxes, the king prominent in the book of Esther. The particular allegations and historical issues are unmentioned.

4:7 Two further letters of accusation (vv. 7, 8–16) are from the reign of Artaxerxes (464–423 BC), followed by his reply to the second letter (vv. 17–22). Artaxerxes is portrayed in the narrative as reigning from Ezra 7 through Nehemiah 13 (cf. Ezra 7:1; Neh. 2:1; 13:6).70 The first letter (Ezra 4:7) receives only the briefest notice, and, apart from specifying the senders and the receiver, the text provides no further explanation. We know little about the persons mentioned here.71 The observation that this letter was “written in Aramaic” (v. 7b), the imperial language of the Persian Empire, is clear enough. However, the meaning of the concluding comment, “and translated,” is uncertain. The Hebrew attests a second occurrence of the word “Aramaic” at the end of verse 7. Some take the two references to Aramaic together to refer to both the Aramaic script and the Aramaic language (NIV; cf. second NIV mg.). Alternatively, the initial reference to Aramaic may mean that it was written in Aramaic and translated (i.e., “read”) in either Aramaic (NEB) or Persian for the king.72 In this view, the second instance of “Aramaic” at the end of verse 7 is a scribal notice informing the reader that what follows in Ezra 4:8–6:18 is in Aramaic (cf. ESV mg.; see NET, NJPS).73

4:8–11a The second, more extensive letter contains several components: narrative framework (vv. 8, 11a) and preamble (vv. 9–10); greeting (v. 11b); and information and request (vv. 12–16). Apart from the descriptors “commander” and “scribe,” we have no further information on Rehum74 or Shimshai (v. 8). Verses 9–10 repeat their names and add other “associates” (cf. v. 17), identified using seven terms for officials (e.g., “judges”) as well as specific ethnic groups tied to places (e.g., “the Elamites”).75 The letter writers desire Artaxerxes to believe that their expressed loyalty includes everyone but the Jews of Jerusalem. In short, all the nations have once more fully aligned against Jerusalem (cf. Ps. 2:2; Jer. 34:1). Even descendants of those earlier exiled by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (also known as Osnappar; Ezra 4:10) join the opposition.

4:11b The greeting comes explicitly to Artaxerxes from those who further qualify as “your servants” and name their province as “Beyond the River,” following on the first mention of the name in verse 10. The term refers to the satrapy (that is, a province ruled by a governor; cf. 5:3) that included Judea and Samaria along with Syria.76

4:12–16 The letter itself displays an effective rhetoric. Remarkably, the writers never directly ask the king to stop the building project. Instead, they initially suggest that the ongoing rebuilding of Jerusalem will have an unfavorable economic impact. Clearly, the rebuilding effort mentioned here must refer to some period before the later restart by Nehemiah approved by Artaxerxes (c. 445 BC; cf. Neh. 1:3; 2:1). While not always evident in translation, some form of the verb “to know” (e.g., “be it known”) occurs in every one of these verses, often functioning as a not-so-subtle accusation. Jerusalem’s asserted rebellion against prior kings (2 Kings 18:19–20; 24:20) expresses only a partial truth (2 Kings 16:7–9). The rhetoric here seeks to ignite Artaxerxes to action for reasons of economy and pride. The repetitive language (Ezra 4:13, 16) encircling the central request (vv. 14–15) moves beyond what is happening to why it matters by highlighting the imagined negative impact of tax evasion77 upon the king’s treasury. Playing on royal fears of rebellion, the implication is that Artaxerxes must demand cessation of work or risk not only loss of income but potentially his grip on the whole province itself (v. 16).

To this end, the adversaries must soften the king to hear the inference of their letter. The elements that precede the “therefore” of verse 14b do so by establishing their ostensible motivations. First, the phrase “because we eat the salt of the palace” is a figure of speech in which a part (“the salt”) stands for the whole: regular dining at the king’s table. Basically, they argue that their habitual dining at the palace drives the loyalty expressed by the very writing of the letter itself.78 Second, they appeal to concern for royal pride, stating their fear that any inaction on their part may end in seeing the king disgraced. Such are the stated motivations that lead to the primary request that he search the available archives, past and present (v. 15). In so doing, they claim the king will “find” and “learn” the numerous reasons the city was destroyed in the first place. Like a virus constantly reproducing itself in order to destroy its host, they suggest that Jerusalem’s past history of fomenting sedition can be resolved only by destruction. Therefore, the king must act promptly to shut down city and wall reconstruction.

4:17–22 The earlier request (v. 15) generated the hoped-for results, as the records confirm the city’s habitual insurrection (v. 19). Some debate exists as to whether the Aramaic verb translated “plainly” (meparash; v. 18) should be understood to mean that the letter was read with “clarity,” with “accuracy,” “in translation,” or “word for word” (as opposed to a summative report).79 In any case, Artaxerxes communicates that he has heard the message and now acts upon it by decree. Some take the reported rule of “mighty kings . . . over Jerusalem” (v. 20) to signify the domination and income of David and Solomon (1 Kings 4:21; Ps. 72:10) or perhaps later kings. While this is conceivable, the earlier mention of “tribute, custom, and toll” referred to potential lost revenue for Artaxerxes himself (Ezra 4:13 AT). The phrase “tribute, custom, and toll” now repeated in verse 20 (cf. 7:24) more likely denotes levies obtained by the previous mighty kings of Assyria and Babylonia, of whom Artaxerxes is now the successor. In either case, the letter of the adversaries is effective, as Artaxerxes now grants authority to demand the cessation of work (4:21). Nevertheless, by retaining “until a decree is made by me” (v. 21b), Artaxerxes leaves himself room for a possible later reversal, a permission in fact eventually granted to Nehemiah (Neh. 2:7–8).

4:23 This illustrative account of opposition in Artaxerxes’s reign concludes with a final set of observations. Finally granted royal authority, the adversaries implement the king’s wishes not only by making the building cease (cf. v. 21)—and doing so immediately (cf. v. 22)—but also “by force and power,” which is likely a reference to an armed threat.80 There is some speculation that the opponents go beyond the king’s orders and actually destroy the work already done on the walls (cf. v. 12), perhaps providing correlation with the destruction mentioned in Nehemiah 1:3.81 In any event, the original audience better understands that the delays in rebuilding the temple, wall, and city were due in part to the unending external resistance faced by the exiles.

4:24 After the chronological advance through the reigns of Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes, the word “then” heading this verse does not refer to something that happens directly after verse 23, during Artaxerxes’s reign. Instead we are returned to the earlier narrative time indicated at verse 5 and the restart of temple reconstruction under Darius, an event recounted fully in the next chapter. The verb translated “stop,” “made cease” with regard to the walls (vv. 21, 23) now occurs twice (“stopped,” “ceased”) with regard to the temple. In returning to Darius’s reign, the narrative theme is again underscored: every attempt at forward progress encounters resistance.