Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were building a temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel; they came near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of fathers’ households, and said to them, “Let us build with you; for we seek your God, as you do; and we have been sacrificing to him since the days of Esar Haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here.”
But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ households of Israel, said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves together will build to Yahweh, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”
Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building. They hired counselors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
In the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in Syrian, and delivered in the Syrian language. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows, then Rehum the chancellor, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth, wrote.
This is the copy of the letter that they sent: To King Artaxerxes, From your servants the men beyond the River.
Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us to Jerusalem. They are building the rebellious and bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations. Be it known now to the king that if this city is built and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful to the kings. Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not appropriate for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore we have sent and informed the king, that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. You will see in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have started rebellions within it in the past. That is why this city was destroyed. We inform the king that, if this city is built and the walls finished, then you will have no possession beyond the River.
Then the king sent an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions who live in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace.
The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me. I decreed, and search has been made, and it was found that this city has made insurrection against kings in the past, and that rebellion and revolts have been made in it. There have also been mighty kings over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, custom, and toll, was paid to them. Make a decree now to cause these men to cease, and that this city not be built, until a decree is made by me. Be careful that you not be slack doing so. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and made them to cease by force of arms. Then work stopped on God’s house which is at Jerusalem. It stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 24 Meaning, the inhabitants of Samaria, whom the king of…
Meaning, the inhabitants of Samaria, whom the king of Assyria had placed in the stead of the ten tribes, 2 Kings 17:24 and 19:37. These professed God, but worshipped idols also, and therefore were the greatest enemies to the true servants of God.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Ezr 4:1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and…
Ezr 4:1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel;
Ver. 1. Now when the adversaries of Judah] Aroused by those loud acclamations and outcries, Ezr 3:12-13. These adversaries were those Samaritans, Ezr 4:3, the kind of mongrels who wore religion as a cloak, which they either put on or threw off at pleasure, and as occasion required. Satan, saith one, doth not always appear in one and the same fashion; but hath as many several shapes as Proteus among the poets. Here he pretends devotion to his mischievous designs, but was frustrated.
Read full note →
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 been transported, captivated. Cicero passeth the same censure of them in his oration, pro L. Flacco: Ista gens quam chara diis immortalibus esset docuit, quod est victa, quod elocata, quod servata. It appears how dear to God they be by their frequent captivities.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 24 The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin; the Samaritans, as…
The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin; the Samaritans, as appears from Ezr 4:2,10.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 17 We have here an instance of the old enmity…
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, (Kg1 5:4); 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 (Ezr 4:1), 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.
Read full note →
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, Kg2 17:33. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods too. They are called the people of the land, Ezr 4:4. The worst enemies Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews and were not, Rev 3:9.
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," Ezr 4:2. 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, Ezr 4:3. 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, Joh 4:22. 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, Mat 10:16, Mat 10:17. 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, Ezr 4:4. 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 (Ezr 4:5), or dissuade the men of Tyre and Sidon from furnishing them with the timber they had bargained for (Ezr 3:7); 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–23 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,.... The…
Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,.... The Samaritans, as appears from Ezr 4:2,
heard that the children of the captivity; the Jews, who had been in captivity seventy years, and were just come out of it, and still were not quite free, but under the jurisdiction and control of the king of Persia:
Read full note →
builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; that they were going about it, and had laid the foundation of it, which might soon come to their ears, the distance not being very great. Josephus (c) says they heard the sound of the trumpets, and came to know the meaning of it.
(c) Antiqu. l. 11. c. 4. sect. 3.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 23, 24 THE adversaries, not being allowed to build with them,…
THE adversaries, not being allowed to build with them, endeavour to hinder the work, ver. 1-5. They falsely accuse them to Artaxerxes, ver. 6-16. Who thereupon orders the work to be stopt, ver. 17-22. It is stopt, ver. 23, 24.
The adversaries - The Samaritans. The relicks of the ten tribes, and the foreigners who had joined with them.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 The Samaritans endeavour to prevent the rebuilding of the
CHAPTER IV
The Samaritans endeavour to prevent the rebuilding of the
Read full note →
temple, 1-5.
They send letters to Artaxerxes, against the Jews, 6-9.
A copy of the letter, 10-16.
He commands the Jews to cease from building the temple, which
they do; nor was any thing farther done in the work till the
second year of Darius, 17-24.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV
Verse 1. 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 4:9-10.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 Ezr 4:1. Now when the adversaries of Judah, &c.…
Ezr 4:1. Now when the adversaries of Judah, &c. — The Samaritans, the relics of the ten tribes, and foreigners that had joined themselves to them, and patched up that mongrel religion of which we had an account 2Ki 17:33, where it is said, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods. They are called the people of the land, Ezr 4:4. Thus, the worst enemies that Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews, and were not.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 24 Adversaries - i. e., the Samaritans, a mixed race,…
Adversaries - i. e., the Samaritans, a mixed race, partly Israelite but chiefly foreign, which had replaced to some extent the ancient inhabitants after they were carried into captivity by Sargon (see 2Ki 17:6 note).
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 Enemies; Samaritans, and others, ver. 9.
Enemies; Samaritans, and others, ver. 9.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 I. The Interruption of the Building of the Temple.…
B.—THE INTERRUPTION AND AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RESPECTING THE MACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES
Ezr_4:1-24
Read full note →
I. The Interruption of the Building of the Temple. Ezr_4:1-5
1Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; 2Then 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 Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither. 3But 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. 4Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, 5And 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.
II. An Original Document respecting the Hostile Machinations. Ezr_4:6-24
6And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7And 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. 8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this 9sort: 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, 10And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, 11and at such a time. 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. 12Be 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. 13Be 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. 14Now 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; 15That 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. 16We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have 17 no portion on this side the river. 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. 19And 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. 20There 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. 21Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. 22Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? 23Now 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. 24Then 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.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Ezr_4:1-5. The interruption. Ezr_4:1-3 first give its occasion. When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard of the undertaking in Jerusalem, they wished to unite with them in building. They are called the adversaries, not of the children of the captivity, but of Judah and Benjamin, because their opposition and hostility had arisen already in pre-exile times, and indeed against the southern kingdom, which was then most suitably called that of Judah and Benjamin. בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה—children or members of the captivity, is the name given to the returned exiles in Ezr_6:19 sq.; Ezr_8:35; Ezr_10:7, Ezr_10:16, etc.; so also briefly הַגּוֹלָה—e.g., Ezr_1:11. In order to establish their claim they maintain: We seek your God as ye (do).—דָרַשׁ with לְ or אֶל, also with the simple accusative, is the constant expression for our somewhat colorless expression worship God; properly it is to turn to God with petition or questions, or with desires in general, to apply to Him.—And sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon,etc.—The Kethib: “we do not offer” cannot well mean: we do not offer to other gods, for then it would be necessary to mention expressly these other gods. If it were original to the text it might perhaps simply have the sense we did not offer at all, not even to Jehovah, since we well knew that Jehovah would accept offering only at the one legitimate place of worship at Jerusalem. Then it would involve the meaning that they would gladly sacrifice to Jehovah, and on this very account desired to take part in building the temple at Jerusalem. But this view is opposed by the fact that they then would without doubt have too openly and boldly gone in the face of all truth, since they certainly had very many altars and sacrificed often enough. Moreover the emphatic position of אֲנַהֲנוּ does not accord with this view; besides, in such a case we would expect the perf. זָבַחְנוּ instead of the part. זֹבְחִים. It is very probable that לא here, as in fifteen other passages (comp. e.g.Exo_21:8; 1Sa_2:3; 2Sa_16:18 ; 2Ki_8:10) is for לוֹ, in consequence of a mistake, or of design, in that they would state that their sacrifices did not properly deserve the name of sacrifices, as then לוֹ likewise is found in Qeri, and is read by Esdras (αὐτῷ), by Sept., Syriac, and also indeed by the Vulg., which at least does not have the negative. Since the speakers designate themselves as those whom Esar-haddon had brought into their present abode (comp. Bähr on 2Ki_19:37), we have to identify them beyond question with those colonists referred to in 2 Kings 17, with the Samaritans so-called, whom the king of Assyria, 2Ki_17:24, had brought up out of Babylon, Cutha, and other eastern countries, into the cities of Samaria. These colonists, when they first settled in Canaan, it is true, did not fear Jehovah; it was not till a considerable later period that they asked for an Israelite priest out of Assyria, in order to be instructed by him in the worship of Jehovah; but the words: since the days when Esar-haddon brought us up, are either a somewhat inexact statement, or are to be explained from their efforts to date their worship of Jehovah as far back as possible. Knobel (Zur Geschichte der Samaritaner, Denkschr. der Gesellsch. für Wissensch. und Kunst in Giessen, I. 1, S. 147 sqq.), on account of these words, improperly holds them for those who had emigrated from Assyria with the Israelite priests. It is clear from our passage that the colonization spoken of in 2 Kings 17, if it perhaps had already begun under Sargon and Sennacherib, yet chiefly took place under Esar-haddon. With this agree the cuneiform inscriptions, in accordance with which Esar-haddon had despoiled, not expressly, it is true, the land of the ten tribes, but yet Syria and Phœnicia of their ancient inhabitants, and provided them with new ones, comp. Schrader, l. c., upon our passage.1 The occasion of this request of the Samaritans, was the correct recognition of the fact that those who should have the temple at Jerusalem, would be regarded as the leading nation, whilst those who should be excluded from this central point of the worship of the land would appear as less authorized, as intrusive; they likewise no doubt expected, if they were admitted to participation in the building of the temple, as well as to consultation with reference to it, to gain thereby influence in shaping the affairs of the congregation in general. If in addition to this they had also a religious interest in the matter, it was only in order to secure for themselves the favor of the God of the land, whom they recognised as Jehovah, and then therewith also the same possessions and blessings in their new home as the Jews designed for themselves. We cannot regard them as actuated by any higher and purer motive,—for their entire subsequent behaviour, which makes them appear as quite indifferent to religious affairs, and also that which we elsewhere learn of their religion, is opposed to that view. That which is said in 2 Kings 17 on this subject cannot be understood (as Bähr on that chap.) as stating that they only in part retained their heathen gods, that many had already worshipped Jehovah only, that these latter had worshipped Him, if indeed in the form of a bull, yet, as the only God. There is no distinction between the different classes; for 2 kings4:33 is not, as Bähr translates, “there were also worshippers of Jehovah,”—but it is said of all; they feared Jehovah, and served their own gods, and of all it is then likewise said in 2 kings4:34: “they feared not Jehovah;” they prayed to Jehovah only as one of many, only as a limited being, only as an idol, not as the only true God. It is true the question then arises whether this syncretistic stand-point that in no respect can be regarded as even an approximative worship of Jehovah, that in truth was only ordinary heathenism, was still maintained by them in the times subsequent to the exile, whether they had not made an advance in religion beyond it. The question is, how the remnant of the ten tribes, who had maintained themselves in their habitations in the midst of the colonists, especially according to Jer_41:4 sq.; and 2Ch_34:9-10 (comp. Bähr on 2 Kings 17, S. 401, and Nägelsbach on Jer_41:4 sq.), acted both with reference to these colonists in general, and to the claim here made by them. But if the long prevailing opinion were correct that the Samaritans for the most part consisted of the Israelites who remained in the land at the exile, so that they might bo regarded as an actual continuation of the people of the ten tribes, and the heathen elements among them had become more and more conformed to the Israelites, we cannot conceive why they did not maintain already now this their external and internal connection with Israel as well as on later occasions when it suited them so to do. That would have been the strongest reason that could have influenced the Jews to admit their claim. For great and respected predecessors, as Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 30.; and Josiah, 2Ch_34:33, had expressly occupied themselves in attracting the remnants of Israel to the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. At first the remnant may have kept themselves concealed from the new comers and the masters of the land, by contenting themselves with the more distant regions and lurking-places of the mountains. They certainly constituted merely despised and scattered bands, which neither sought nor offered any communication, whom therefore the colonists could not trust. Otherwise they would not have had a priest sent to them from Assyria, when they wished to worship Jehovah as the god of the land, comp. 2Ki_17:2. Very soon, it is true, many of them approached the colonists, and mixed with them by marriage; but instead of exerting any influence in shaping them, they rather subordinated themselves—of themselves having quite a strong inclination to heathenism—to the colonists as the more powerful and more favored on the part of the government and united with them in their manners and customs, and also in their religion, so that they more and more disappeared among them. This is very clear partly from the way in which the Samaritans here speak of themselves, partly from their subsequent actions, in that they in contrast to the Jews still preferred to be the representatives of the royal prerogatives of Persia, and designate themselves after their Assyrian places of origin (comp. Ezr_4:7 sq.), but give not the slightest hint of a connection with the ancient Israelites, or of having been in any way modified by them.2 Therefore it is improbable that they should have been influenced by these latter in making their claim upon the new congregation, as Berth. and after him Keil supposes. If they subsequently more and more decidedly went over to monotheism and the observation of the Mosaic law, they were moved thereto, not by the remnants of Israel, which had blended with them, but by the Jews themselves. They would not remain behind the new congregation in Jerusalem, for they could not conceal from themselves on reflection that the stand-point of the religion of Jehovah, as it was represented in Jerusalem, was higher than their own. And it was for this reason that they then accepted the first Manasseh, and under his direction built the temple on Gerizim, by which circumstance the transformation was as a matter of course still further favored. Besides this there was the entire tendency of those times that was decidedly towards a higher and more spiritual worship of God. Moreover, in addition to such fragments of Israel as were lost among the Samaritans, others still were left in the land who Sought to preserve their independence. It is probable that these, who were of themselves more devoted to the religion of Jehovah, let themselves be directed by the judgments that passed over their kingdom, and the contrast that was exhibited between themselves and the colonists, still more decidedly to Jerusalem and the worship there conducted. In favor of this view is the fact that some of them already in the time of Josiah contributed to the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem (2Ch_34:9-10), and that still after the destruction of the temple eighty men of Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria came in mourning to bring their gifts to the place where up to this time they had worshipped, Jer_41:5-6. In accordance with some other evidence, there were still at the time such better elements in the northern region of the land. Among those who had separated themselves from the impurities of the nations to unite with the returned exiles in seeking Jehovah (Ezr_6:21) belonged probably at least remnants of Israel as well as of Judah. And this sheds light upon the obscure question, how we are to account for the origin of the Jewish population in Galilee. Bertheau properly remarks with reference to such better elements: “They are the ancestors of a great part of the Jews whom we meet in subsequent times in northern Palestine.” There in northern Palestine they had not been dislodged by the colonists, who occupied the cities of Samaria. There, as to their old ancestral abodes, and to their kindred, must those return who now and subsequently gradually returned from any of the ten tribes. It is possible, indeed, that this better remnant of the northern kingdom soon still more decidedly than the Samaritans directed their attention to the temple at Jerusalem. But perhaps they had not yet concluded what relation they should assume to the congregation at Jerusalem; we may suppose that it was in consequence of the impulse that went forth from Jerusalem for them certainly much more than for the Samaritans, that they reflected more deeply upon themselves, and finally attached themselves to the worship at Jerusalem.
Ezr_4:3. The Jews refused the Samaritans. The sing.וַיֹאמֶר is used not only because the number of the verb is freer when it precedes the subject, but because Zerubbabel was the chief person who gave the answer; e. g. Zerubbabel spake in agreement with Jeshua, etc. Jeshua and the heads of the fathers of Israel had united in the answer. יִשְׂרָאֵל is used with לְ, and accordingly is not the stat.abs. of the foregoing הָאָבוֹת, for otherwise this would not have the article, according to the usual combination with רָאשֵׁי.—Ye have nothing to do with us to build, that is, it is not for you and us in common; comp. the expression “ what is to me and thee‚” namely, in common, Jos_22:24; Jdg_11:12; 2Ki_3:13. In that they say: house—not unto God, as Ezr_1:4, but unto our God, they mean that Jehovah belongs to them more than to the Samaritans, yea, to them alone.—But we ourselves together=we as a compact unity, excluding others. They might appeal to the decree of Cyrus in this refusal, since if they were obliged to admit the Samaritans, they would not have gained, according to their feelings and knowledge, that which they had the right to expect from it, namely, an undisturbed worship of Jehovah in all its truth, free from all dangers. It is true it could not escape the congregation, that it was a very serious matter to make those their enemies who had probably connections, consideration and influence at the seat of government, and who naturally regarded themselves as the outposts and guardians of the sovereignty of Persia in Canaan. But nevertheless the dangers to which they would have exposed themselves by a union with these Samaritans who appeared so objectionable, especially in a religious point of view, would have been far greater, and they should not be charged with too great anxiety, or one that cannot be entirely approved (against Ewald, Gesch. IV., S. 125, 135). Those who gradually imitated them when they kept themselves pure from their mixed religion, and through them were impelled to a monotheistic development, would, if they had gained an influence and rightful position in Jerusalem from the beginning, have involved them in their heathen doubt and obscurity. Their renunciation of the external advantages which were set before them by the proffered alliance was the result, on the one side, of a correct appreciation of that which they must regard as of the most importance, and on the other side of a candid and humble recognition of their weakness. As a matter of course they were obliged to take an entirely different course with reference to the remnants of the northern kingdom, when these in another way began to seek Jehovah again in sincerity, and on this account desired to be admitted into Jerusalem. That they did not fail in this particular we see in the circumstance that the Galilean ever had an undisputed admission.
Ezr_4:4-5. The consequence of this refusal was the interruption of the building of the temple. The Samaritans are called the people of the land in Ezr_4:4 because they, at least until this time had been the proper inhabitants of the land, and at all events constituted the chief part of the population. As such they were strong enough to slacken the hands of the people of Judah, that is, the people now inhabiting Judah. יְהוּדָה, already in pre-exile times the name of the southern kingdom is used here also as the name of the country (comp. Ezr_4:6). הָיָה with the part. (slackening and affrighting) expresses the continuance of the action; the second participle is explanatory of the first, מְבַלֲהִים לִבְנוֹת, affrighting with reference to building=from building. The Kethibמְבַלֲהִים is sufficiently established by the noun בַלָּהָה (Isa_17:14) and by the Syriac; the Qeri,מְבַהֲלִים prefers the usual form בָּהַל.—Without doubt they threatened the Jews with violence, and with punishment on the part of the government, as soon as they had frustrated the edict of Cyrus.—They hired counsellors against them—for a cancelling of the edict according to Ezr_4:5, in that they were able to influence probably the ministers to whom Ezr_7:28; Ezr_8:25 refer, or other influential persons, to give advice to Cyrus unfavorable to the Jews. At court they naturally did not understand how it could be that those who were as much the inhabitants of the land as the returned exiles, and therefore seemed entitled to the God of the land, should be excluded. If Cyrus had seen in Jehovah his own supreme God, it must have been all the more annoying to him that those who apparently had the best intentions of worshipping Him, should be rejected. It would seem as if the reason why the Jews opposed the union could only be a national and political one, and the suspicion was quite natural, that they already designed to form not merely a religious community, but also had national and political designs, that they thus gave an entirely false interpretation to the decree of Cyrus. The part. סֹכְרִים is in continuation of the part. of the previous verse; סָכַר is a later form of שָׂכַר. The time during which they succeeded in frustrating the purposes of the Jews, (for which הֵפֶר is to a certain extext the term.techn.), consisted of about fourteen years—from about the third year of Cyrus in Babylon (comp. Dan_10:2 sq.) until the second of Darius, comp. Hag_1:1.
Ezr_4:6-22 contains the original document respecting the hostile efforts of the Samaritans. The author adds what the Samaritans did and accomplished in the time of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, and the question arises first of all, what kings were meant under these names?3 Most ancient and modern interpreters, (comp. J. H. Michaelis, in loco.) had supposed that the author from Ezr_4:6 onward would explain why the building of the temple was discontinued for so long a time, as stated in Ezr_4:5, that he then entered into the period between Cyrus and Darius. They were led to this opinion by Ezr_4:24, which leads over to Darius, and what happened under him, in such a manner that it seems certainly, at first, as if the kings mentioned here in Ezr_4:6-7 had ruled before him. Luther, from this point of view, united this 6th verse by “for” to the previous verse, instead of by the conjunction “and‚” and some, as Hartmann in the Chron. bibl., have appealed to this “for” as if it stood in the original text. Ahasuerus must, accordingly, have been Cambyses, Artaxerxes, Pseudo-Smerdis (so still Ewald, Gesch. IV., S. 137, and Köhler in Komm. zu. den. nachexil. Proph.4). But the strongest objections at once arise against this view. How is it that these two kings should have names given them that they bear no where else ? How can we suppose that whilst all other Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian kings bear essentially the same names among the Israelites with which they elsewhere appear, these two kings on one occasion should have had entirely different names among the Jews from those among their own people; for among the Persians Cambyses, so far as we know, only bore the name of Cambyses (old Persian Kambudschja), Smerdis however., after whom the Ps. Smerdis named himself, had only that of Tanyoxares or Tanyoxarkes (Cyrop. VIII. 7, and Ctesias, Pers. fr. 8–13), or also Orapastes (Justin. Hist. Ezr_1:9), which name cannot be identified with אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׁתְּא. This supposition is still less admissible, in that both these names every where else in the Old Test. designate other kings, and the same as those who had the corresponding names among the Persians. Ahasuerus, in the book of Esther, as is now generally recognized, is Xerxes; in Dan_9:1, the Median king Cyaxares. These two Greek terms, Xerxes and Cyaxares, may be readily derived from the Persian fundamental forms of these names, which we find in the cuneiform inscriptions, Khsay or Khsay-arsa, by modification of vowels. So also the Hebrew term אחשׁורושׁ, However ארתּחשסתּא is in Ezr_7:8. and so also in the book of Nehemiah, without question, Artaxerxes (Machrochir). It is true that it is there written ארתחשׁסתא (with שׁס), in our passage, however, תרתחשׁשׁתא (with שׁש); but a different person cannot be inferred from this difference in writing. This is clear from Ezr_6:14, where the name is written as it is here, and yet must be referred to a Persian king ruling subsequently to Darius—certainly, therefore, to Artaxerxes Machrochir. In connection with these names that are used in our section, some other marks beside which point beyond Darius, gain importance. If the sixth verse really came as is supposed to speak explanatory of the previous interval of time, it would at least have been more natural to connect with the conjunct, “for‚” as indeed Luther, without reason, has supplied it, rather than by “and.” At the outset it is improbable that Pseudo-Smerdis should have had time during his brief reign (only seven months) to reply to his officers in the manner narrated in Ezr_4:7-23; namely, after an accurate investigation with reference to the previous conduct of the Jews. In the letter of the Samaritans, or rather of the Persian officers among them, to the king, it no longer has to do with the building of the temple, but only with that of the city and its walls, which is all the more remarkable, as in the letter to Darius in Ezr_5:6 sq. the temple throughout is in the foreground. Furthermore Bertheau properly reminds us in notes on Ezr_4:4 that if the transaction with these kings had already previously transpired, the question of the Persian officers in the time of Darius, who had given the Jews commandment to build the house of God, would not have been very appropriate. Moreover the Jews would have spoken of the steps of the Samaritans and the prohibition of ארתחשׁשׁתא when it must have been obligatory upon them to explain to the Persian officers in Ezr_5:16 why the building already begun under Cyrus had not been completed. By all these circumstances we are compelled to understand by אחשורוש really Xerxes, and by ארתחששתא really Artaxerxes, and to refer our section accordingly to the period subsequent to Darius. If it is objected to this view that the answer of ארתחששתא does not accord with the sending of Ezra under Artaxerxes in chap. 7.; so far as the one was unfavorable to the Jews and the other favorable, the fact is overlooked that in his answer (Ezr_4:21) the king expressly reserves another command, which possibly would ordain the building of the city and its walls. When, however, Ewald (Gesch. 4. S. 138) asserts that in the time of Artaxerxes no intelligent person could any longer speak thus of the building of the city and its walls, as is the case in the letter of the Samaritans, the book of Nehemiah shows how very necessary it still was that the city should be built up, and the walls re-established even after Ezra. That which really appears to be against the view here advocated, is the manner in which Ezr_4:24 passes over from this king to Darius. By the use of one and the same verb in Ezr_4:21 (give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease), in Ezr_4:23 (they went up to Jerusalem and made them cease) and in Ezr_4:24 (then ceased the work) and apparently also by the use of בֵּאדַיִן at the beginning of Ezr_4:24, the twenty-fourth verse is so closely united to the previous context, that it in fact seems to contain the result of that which immediately precedes. Hence then Herzfeld also (Gesch. Israels I., S. 303) and Schrader (Stud. u. Krit., 1867, S. 469) have supposed that our section, if it indeed originally extended to the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, must be referred by the author of our book, notwithstanding all, to Cambyses and Pseudo Smerdis, who placed it here under an error. But no real necessity for such a doubtful supposition can be found. The verb בטל might be written by the author again, in Ezr_4:24, after that he had used it in Ezr_4:21-23, notwithstanding he was here treating of a previous time. The temporal particle בֵּאדַיִן, moreover, which in itself has the indefinite meaning of “illo tempore” can just as well refer to the beginning as to the middle or the end of the time spoken of before. If the twenty-fourth verse had been placed at the beginning of the fifth chapter instead of at the end of the fourth chapter, it would apparently occasion us no difficulty at all in giving it its proper reference. Should it be objected that such an anticipation of later events as the view here advocated involves in Ezr_4:6-23, is in itself improbable, this objection is removed to a certain extent by Ezr_6:14, from which it results that our author was readily inclined to connect together in the closest way Artaxerxes and his time with Darius and the previous times. In this passage, where the elders of Judah in the time of Darius are spoken of, and where it is said of them, they built and completed in consequence of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, and on the commandment of the God of Israel, and on the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, the additional clause “and Artaxerxes” is still more singular than in our passage. As the author there would embrace all who had afforded the congregation justice, protection, and help up to the time of Ezra, so here he might have very well had the intention of at once putting together summarily all the interruptions that were occasioned by the Samaritans. In as much as here the narrative was of their operations, it was really the best place for this purpose. Besides, another reason probably co-operated. The author probably had at his command no other document respecting the machinations of the Samaritans and their success at the court of Persia than this one of the time of Artaxerxes. Since now, as we have shown in the introduction, it was his method to accompany everything as far as possible with original documents, since moreover besides it was of the highest importance to justify by such a document the behaviour of the Jewish congregation towards the Samaritans, which had such great, severe, and long-lasting consequences, he here inserted it, after that he had made the transition through Ezr_4:6 to the latter period, since the disposition of the Samaritans in the somewhat later period here meeting us, was, to a certain extent, an evidence likewise of their previous hostility; and the disturbing interference which they occasioned according to the letter of Artaxerxes, was only the continuation of previous interruptions.
Ezr_4:6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation,etc.—This shows the zeal of the Samaritans; at once and at the very outset they sought to prejudice this king against the Jews. If the time of Darius, which had been favorable to the Jews, during which the Samaritans had impatiently waited for a change of affairs, had passed, this zeal can the more readily be explained. שִׂטְנָה, hostility (comp. Gen_26:21) has here the special meaning of accusation, just as שָׂטָן readily gains the special meaning of accuser. Since the author does not enter into particulars with reference to this writing of accusation, or even say whether it had any results at all, it seems here to be mentioned only in order briefly to show that the Samaritans, even in the subsequent period, were still active, and in order thus to give a transition to the following narrative as the principal thing.
Ezr_4:7. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam,etc.—The Jewish congregation probably increased from the time of the building of the temple onward, and under Artaxerxes thought more seriously of re-establishing the walls of the city, which then likewise through Nehemiah actually took place. Bislam, Mithredath, Tabeel, etc., accordingly went to work anew against them. These names certainly indicate Samaritans who, without being Persian officials, enjoyed just as Sanballat subsequently, a certain degree of consequence. The pure Persian name Mithredath need not astonish us, since even Zerubbabel had a similar one (Sheshbazzar). We should expect instead of כְּנָוֹתָו, for which the qeri has the usual form כְּנָוֹתָיו, in accordance with Ezr_4:9; Ezr_4:17; Ezr_4:23; Ezr_5:3, etc., כְּנָוָוֹתָם.To whom the sing. suffix properly refers, whether to the first named Bislam or to the last named Tabeel is doubtful, is yet without any real importance. כְּנָת, from which our plural is to be derived (comp. Ewald, § 187 d) is contracted from כְּנְוַת as פֹּרָת, Gen_49:22 from פֹרְוַת and אָחוֹת for אָחָת from אַחְיַת or אַחְוַת (comp. Olsh.§ 198 c). It is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, and was here without doubt chosen simply with reference to Ezr_4:9; in Aramaic it is more frequent. Formed from כָּנָה it designates those qui eodem cognomine, sive titulo utitur, sive eodem munere fungitur, according to Gesen., Thes.; in the Peschito it is more frequently employed for σύνδουλος.—And the rest of their companions.—This is according to Ezr_4:9 sq.: the others who were their companions.—And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic.—כְּתָב is no more here than in Est_4:8, to be taken in the improved meaning of copy, (against Berth.) as if the author would say, that only the copy was in Chaldee, but the letter itself in another language. It means only writing, and the sense is, that the writers translated into Aramaic what they had thought in Samaritan or any other language, and therefore also at the same time wrote down in Aramaic, without doubt, for the reason that in Babylon at court, and among the Persian officials in anterior Asia the Aramaic language was the usual one, so to say, the official language, which otherwise would not have been employed in the letter of authority given to Ezra in Ezr_7:12 sq. נִשְׁתְּוָן is of Arian origin, to be compared with the new Persian nuwischten, to write, and means letter. Comp. Ezr_4:18. מְתֻרְגָּם is part. pass. of תַּרְגֵּם, interpret, translate into another language.
Ezr_4:8. Rehum the chancellor and Shim-shai the scribe, wrote a letter in this sort.—Although other authors of a letter are adduced here, yet it is impossible that another third letter should be introduced (against Berth.); for 1) it is inconceivable that the author should have left the contents of the letter referred to in Ezr_4:7 so entirely undetermined. The contents of the letter mentioned in Ezr_4:6 he has at least characterized as an accusation. It is all the more inconceivable since the author has expressly designated the language of the letter mentioned in Ezr_4:17. Without doubt he regarded this as of especial importance. 2) Already the fact that the remark that the letter in Ezr_4:7 was written in Aramaic, is immediately followed by a section in Aramaic, and so also the fact that in accordance with Ezr_4:7, where Samaritans are designated at the outset as authors of the letter; again after the Persian officials in Ezr_4:9, Samaritan tribes are mentioned as taking part in the letter—all this is in favor of the view that it is only the contents of that letter which now follow (comp. Köhler, Nachexil. Proph. S.21). 3) The word כְּנָוֹתָו in Ezr_4:7, which is found nowhere else in Hebrew, looks evidently forward to the same word in Ezr_4:9. 4) If another letter were referred to in Ezr_4:8, a connecting copula could no more be lacking here than at the beginning of Ezr_4:7, (Keil). Without doubt the Samaritans mentioned in Ezr_4:7, who had become known to the author elsewhere, had been the proper instigators of the letter, the Persian officials mentioned in Ezr_4:8 merely their instruments. The verb כָּתַב which is likewise used of the former, does not by any means always mean: to write with one’s own hand. That the Persian officers had written the letter in combination with the Samaritans is besides expressly declared in a short introduction which had been given to it probably at Jerusalem, when they there added it to other important documents, in the form of an explanatory superscription. This introduction, which so to say had grown together with the document, the author has for accuracy and perspicuity taken up in Ezr_4:8-11, leaving it to the reader to put together correctly the different statements respecting the authorship in the manner indicated. Other interpreters, as Keil and Köhler (l.c.) suppose that he found the verses 8–11a, and so also then the following letter itself in the history of the building of the temple written in Chaldee, which he used in Ezr_4:5-6. Whether however ho really had before him such a document is doubtful, as we have shown in the Introduction, § 2. Besides the abbreviation וכְעֶנֶת and the like, which stands at the end of Ezr_4:10, is found only in the superscriptions of letters, where things that are self-understood may be omitted (comp. Ezr_4:11; Ezr_4:17), not in a historical narrative.—בְּעֵל טְעֵם = lord of understanding, counsellor, is not a proper name (Esdras, Alex., Syr., Vulg.), but a designation of the office of Rehum [the title apparently of the Persian governor of the Samaritan province. Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.], as סַפְרָא, scribe, chancellor, is the designation of the office of Shimshai. [“According to Herodotus (III. 128) every Persian governor was accompanied to his province by a ‘royal scribe’ or ‘secretary’ (γραμματεύς), who had a separate and independent authority,” Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.]. אִגְּרָא = אִנֶּרָת, in the later Hebrew חֲדָא is used as an indef. article, as in the later Hebrew. כְּנֵמָא ·אֶחָד has, according to Raschi and Ab. Ezra, arisen from כְּ and נֵאמַר = נֵימָא = נֵמָא, comp. in the Talmud אֵימָא, I say תֵּימָא, thou sayest; thus literally: as we say,—then: in the following manner, or also, according as has been stated.
Ezr_4:9-10 add to the summary statement of authorship a closer explanation: Then Rehum..… and the rest of their companions.—The verb “write” is to be supplied from the previous verse. Then the sense is, when they wrote the letter in question, they were active in common with their companions. As their companions, the communities transplanted to Palestine are then adduced according to their native lands in Eastern Asia. The Dinaites were perhaps from the Median city Deinaver, which still had this name in a quite late period (Abulf. Geogr. ed. Par., p. 414). Schrader would find it as Da-ya-a-ni, also Da-ya-i-ni in the inscription of the older Tiglath Pileser, who reckons them among the Nahiri, that is, to the Armenians, I. c., S. 246. The Apharsathchites, perhaps identical with the Apharsachites in Ezr_5:6, were compared by Hiller (Onom. p. 655, 745) with the robber Parætakites (Herod. I. 101; Strabo 15:3, 12), on the boundary of Media and Persia; Rawlinson regards the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sittaces, according to the inscriptions, and the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sacæ (comp. Rœd. in Gesen. Thes., app. p. 107). [But in his Com., in loco, Rawlinson regards these two names as only variations of the third form Apharsites, all referring to the same people, the Persians.—Tr.].—The Tarpelites remind us of the τάπουροι (Ptol. VI. 2, 6) dwelling on the East of Elymais.5 The Apharsites are identified with the Persians, whose name is here provided with א prosthetic; Hiller (Onom. p. 655) thought of the Parrhasians in Eastern Media. The Archevites had their name probably from אֶרֶךְ (Gen_10:10), Arku in the inscriptions, the present Warka on the left bank of the Euphrates, southeast of Babylon (comp. Schrad. I. c., S. 18). The Babylonians are the inhabitants of Babylon, the Susanchites those of Susa, the Dehavites (Qeriרְּהָיֵא), the Δάοι of the Greeks (Herod. I. 125), the Elamites, those of Elam or Elymais.
Ezr_4:10. And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over.—Since the author adds these words as a summing up, it is clear that he could not or would not enumerate all in detail, that he would represent them as all taking part together, and indeed not only so far as they dwelt in Samaria, but further than this also those in the other lands on this side of the river.—Thus did all these colonists here act in common, even those who dwelt as it were in Phœnicia and Syria, because they perhaps under all circumstances as foreigners over against the natives felt themselves united by the bond of a common situation, because they perhaps all feared also for their territory, if the Jews should grow into a power, upon which the Israelites dwelling at a greater distance round about might lean. Since here all the colonists are to be mentioned in entirely general terms, we cannot regard it as singular that at this time on the one side entirely different names are mentioned from those in 2Ki_17:24, where only those transported to Samaria are mentioned, that moreover on the other side the Samaritan nations are not so particularly mentioned as in that passage, where instead of the Babylonians in general, people from Babylon, Cuthah, etc., are named. Asnapper here might be regarded as another name of Esar-haddon, in Ezr_4:2, and indeed the more as we here have a Chaldee document; yet the supposition of different names for one and the same person is ever a doubtful one. It is not suitable, however, to understand thereby the commander-in-chief of Esar-Haddon [Rawlinson], for the epith. orn. “great and noble” are in favor of a king, although the title of king is not expressly added. It is probable therefore that a mutilation of the name Esar-Haddon has taken place.6 After the designation of the place: in the city of Samaria, the following וּשְׁאָר, etc., may also be merely a designation of place; accordingly the בּ, which is before קִרְיָה is to be supplied before it, and שְׁאָר is to be taken as neuter of the land or places. עְבַר־נַהֲרָה, on that side of the river, of the land to the west of the Euphrates, is explained as a now universally prevailing geographical expression. וּכְעֶנֶת contracted into כְּעֶת (comp. Ezr_4:17) = etc., or “the like.” Perhaps the author himself already placed this expression of abbreviation at the introduction of the letter, in order to indicate that still other designations of lands are to be thought of as a matter of course; perhaps, however, it is derived from the author of our book, who would not copy that which was to be understood of itself.
Ezr_4:11. These are the contents of the letter which they sent.—Here we have at once announced in the first half of the verse the contents of the letter. It seems that already the beginning of the letter itself was used for this announcement, since it was certainly the style for the letter-writer to designate more closely in a superscription as well himself—which is now no longer the case here—as also the receiver of the letter. For only from such superscriptions can it be explained how at the beginning of every letter in our book almost the same formula occurs, comp. Ezr_4:17; Ezr_5:6; Ezr_7:11.—פַּרְשֶׁגֶן, in the book of Esther thrice פַּתְשֶׁגֶּן, which two forms are likewise used interchangeably in the Targums, is translated by many after the Sept., Vulg., which, however, are not uniform in their usage, and the rabbin. interpreters as copy [so A. V.]. But very properly Benfey (Monatsnamen, p. 193 sq.) rendered this meaning doubtful. In Ezr_4:23 it does not suit, since the Persian officers had not received a copy, but the letter itself; and it is no more appropriate to Est_3:14; Est_8:13, and in Est_4:8 another meaning suits at least as well. Accordingly the word seems to have rather the meaning of contents, as then indeed the Vulg. in Est_3:14 has rendered it summa. Gildermeister (D. M. Zeitschr. IV., S. 210) and Haug (Ewald’s bibl. Jahrb. V., S. 163 sq.) conjectures in the syllable פַּר the Persian fra, the Sanscrit pra=πρό, pro, the new Persian far, in the corresponding פַּת the Zend paiti (Sanscrit prati) =προτί and ποτί, πρός; in שֶׁגֶן a word like çenghana, old Persian thanhana, from cenghdicere, prædicare.—In the second half of the verse, the letter begins: thy servants, the men on this side of the river, etc.—Here also there has been left off what usually stands at the beginning of a letter; the sense is: thy servants wish thee, O king, peace, comp. Ezr_4:17. Alongside of the form of the Qeri, עַבְרָּךְ, that of the Kethib,עַבְדָּיִךְ, is also justified.
Ezr_4:12-16. The information given to the king: Be it known unto the king.—לֶהֱוֵא for יֶהֱוֵא as לֶהֱוֹן for יֶהֱוֹן and לֶהֶוְיָן for יֶהֶוְיָן, Ezr_7:25-26; Dan_2:20; Dan_2:28-29; Dan_2:45, etc. ל has in Bib. Chald., occasionally also in the Targums, more frequently in the Talmuds, vindicated itself as preformative like נ in Syriac. Comp. Zöck., Dan_2:20.7—That the Jews—unto us have come.—אֲתוֹ, they have come, is certainly more closely defined by the following participle “building.” But yet it is singular that in the time of Artaxerxes there was still mention made of coming. It seems that the coming of the Jews, even after the time of Cyrus, still went on; with the close connection, which those who remained behind maintained with the returned (comp. Zec_6:9 sq.; Neh_1:2 sq.), this might indeed have been pre-supposed as a matter of course.—Building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. מָרָֽדְתָּא, with metheg in the second syllable, and so with kametz under ר, is hardly a correct reading. We should read either מָרָדְתָּא (so Norzi) with short o sound in the second syll. from the form מָרוֹד, which occurs in the Targums, and is given by the Peschito—an intensive formation like Hebrew קַנּוֹא; or מָרַדְתָּא (J. H. Mich.) as stat. emphat. of the stat. abs., מָרָדָא (comp. Ezr_4:15). We must certainly prefer the Qeriוְשׁוּרַיָא שַׁכְלִלוּ to ושורי אשכללו. A similar false separation of words is found in 2Sa_11:12. שׁכלל is shaphel of כלל, and means to make ready. That the perf. שַכְלִלוּ should follow the part., is in historical narrative not unusual; here, however, it has its special reason perhaps in the fact that the Samaritans would co-ordinate this expression: and they have made the walls ready, to the first and principal statement (אֲתוֹ), in order to bring it into suitable prominence. Besides they may be charged in all probability with a kind of exaggeration, even if the perfect was not meant to be taken strictly. If the Jews had now really brought the walls so near to completion, Nehemiah would not have found them still under this same king in the condition described in Nehemiah 2. Since they yet let an imperfect follow the perfect, they indicate of themselves, as it were involuntarily, that the work still continued; otherwise the transition to the imperfect would be without any reason. יָחִיטוּ might be the imperf. Aphel of חטט, dig, dig out, which is also found in Syriac, since יָחִיט would be for יַחֵט; to dig out the foundations would then be simply=make excavations for the foundations; it might, however, still easier be taken as imperf. Aphel of חוט, properly sew together, then heal, improve; alongside of יְקִים the sharper form יַקִּים is to be maintained, after the analogy of which under the influence of the guttural we have יָחִיט.
Ezr_4:13. Be it known now unto the king that they will not pay toll, tribute and custom.—The three usual kinds of taxes are here meant, comp. Ezr_4:20; Ezr_7:24.מִנְדָּה, for which Ezr_6:8 has מִדָּה, which expression is also usual in Syriac, is etymologically= measure; here, however, the appointed general tax. כְּלֹו after בלה is perhaps the consumption tax, and הֲלָךְ the toll for highways.—And that it finally will prepare damage to the king.—The meaning of אַפְּתֹם, which is entirely disregarded by the ancient versions, is entirely uncertain. The meaning “income” is simply invented by the Jewish interpreters of the middle ages, and is not recommended by Ezr_4:15; Ezr_4:22 in so far as the kings themselves are those who are there injured. Haug (l.c.) compares אוֹדוֹם in the Pehlewi language, which=the last, hindermost, Sansc. apa, superl. apama, and thus gains for our word the meaning of “finally, at last,” which certainly is entirely appropriate. מַלְכִים is a Hebraism, or perhaps only a copyist’s mistake for תְּהַנְזִק .מַלְכִּין is tert. fem, in Aphel, in which conjugation the Bib. Chald. sometimes chooses the prefix ה, which it preserves even in the imperf. and part., comp. תְּהַשְׁכַּח in Ezr_4:15. The subj. is the city of Jerusalem, or the indef. subject, referring to the design of Jerusalem.
Ezr_4:14. Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace.—The writers would here at any rate state a reason for the following statement, that it was not meet for them to see the injury of the king. The rabbinical explanation followed by Luther: “we all, who have destroyed the temple,” is therefore not recommended; besides we would then have to expect at least instead of: salt the salt of the temple, scatter salt on the temple, comp. Jdg_9:45; Jer_17:6; Isa_51:6. To salt the salt of any one probably means to live through any one’s bounty, perhaps pay, and therefore be obligated to him, stand in his service. Syriac and Persian expressions accord with this, comp. Gesen., Thes., p. 790. We may also compare salarium. Whether the writer as an official really received pay from the palace of the king, or speaks figuratively, we cannot say.8עַרְוַת מַלְכָּא is according to the analogy of the Heb., עֶרְוַת, the uncovering, not in the sense of deprivation, but of dishonoring; the Sept. has properly ἀσχημοσύνη, whilst the Vulg. employs læsiones. It would be a dishonoring of a great king if the Jews should throw off their allegiance (refuse to fulfil their duties).אֲרִיךְ, also in the Talmud= appropriate, fitting, is connected with עָרַךְ , arrange.—Therefore have we sent, namely, this letter, and made known to the king, namely, the following.
Ezr_4:15. That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers.—subj. of יְבַקַּר is he whose duty it is to search, the keeper of the archives, properly indef. subj.—דַּכְרָנָה and דִּבְרוֹנָה (comp. Ezr_6:2) is the memorable occurrence from זבר=דבר. In Est_6:1; this book is called more completely: the book of the memorable events of the day. The fathers of Artaxerxes are here his predecessors on the throne, and indeed including also those not Medo-Persian, especially the Chaldean, who in this connection come very particularly into consideration. For the rebellions that follow must mean above all those under Jehoiachim and Zedekiah. The manner of expression is properly explained from an inclination of the inhabitants of Western Asia to assume a connection of families between the dynasties that succeeded one another, but also from figurative language, which was all the more natural if Artaxerxes already had had many real ancestors for predecessors on the throne.—So shalt thou find.—These words may be taken as depending upon the verb make known in the previous verse, but yet really contains the consequence of the investigation. אֶשְׁתַּדּוּר is nom. verb, of Ithpaal of the verb שְׁדַר, uproar; it is found elsewhere only in Ezr_4:19. עָבְדִין, they make (continually) uproar, indefin. subject, they make; in Ezr_4:19 there is made.מִן יוֹמַת עַלְמָא, from the days of old. The fem. form יוֹמַת is also found in Syriac alongside of the masc.; otherwise in Bib. Chald. the masc. יוֹמֵי is used, as then in Heb. likewise the masc. is throughout the usual form, the fem. only occurring in poetry. With the clause: For which cause was this city destroyed, we certainly are to look back to the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar. הָחָר֭בַת is Hoph., which is used throughout in Bib. Chaldee for the Ittaphal.
Ezr_4:16. We certify the king, that if—by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.—The verse concludes with this inference and summing up. לָקְבֵל דְּנָה=on this account, in consequence of this circumstance as in Dan_2:12. They supposed that the fortified Jerusalem would not merely free itself from taxes, but also appropriate to itself all the territory on the west of the Euphrates, so that the great king would have nothing left, comp. Ecc_9:6; 2Ch_10:16; Jos_22:25; Jos_22:27.
Ezr_4:17-22. The writers of the letter had manifestly desired to obtain by means of their information authoritative measures, authorizing them to restrain the Jews. These they obtained.—The king sent an edict—The abrupt way in which the letter of the king is mentioned may be explained from the fact that the same address as in Ezr_4:11 is here used, even if with slight differences. פִּתְגָּמָה from the Zend. patigama (modern Persian paigam, Armenian pattkam) is the command, and in this sense has even passed over into the Hebrew, comp. Ecc_8:11; Est_1:20. At its root is the word paiti (πρός) and gam = go, accordingly=the approaching message (comp. Keil on Dan_3:16). Moreover, comp. notes on Ezr_4:10.
Ezr_4:18. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.—מְפָרַשׁ, Pael part, passive, means here, since the Aramaic without doubt was chosen only because it was used at court, not translated, but explained, or adverbially, plainly, comp. the Pual part. in this sense in Neh_8:8, as then this word has the same meaning also in the Talmud.9
Ezr_4:19. And I commanded.—שׂים properly, Kal passive part.; in Bib. Chaldee is used instead of a tertia pers. praet. pass, accordingly, instead of the Ithpael (comp. Ezr_5:17; Dan_4:3); moreover the Peil part, in Bib. Chald. usually gives a new preterite passive, and is for this purpose conjugated throughout with the afformatives of the verb. Alongside of שִׂים, the form שׂוּם also occurs, in fem שׂוּמַת, Dan_6:18.—Search hath been made, and it is found that this city—hath made insurrection.—הִתְנַשָּׂא is here used as in 1Ki_1:5 in Hebrew, of rising up in rebellion. Comp. Ezr_4:15.
Ezr_4:20. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem which have ruled.—The reference is to Uzziah, Jotham, and perhaps David and Solomon, if in any way a rumor of them had come to Babylon and to the Persians.10 Since these kings had subjugated the land to the west of the Euphrates, especially the territory of the Moabites and Ammonites and similar tribes, the suspicion was quite natural that Jerusalem would again strive for such a supremacy. בְּ before כֹּל depends upon the previous שַׁלִּיטִין: ruling over all on that side of the river. With reference to the following clause comp. Ezr_4:13.
Ezr_4:21. Give ye now commandment, namely, to those who are building in Jerusalem. טְעֵם is here as in Ezr_4:19, not in the sense of investigation, observation, as in Dan_3:12, in connection with שׂוּם עַל, but in the sense of decision, command, לְבַּטָּלָא = that you cause to cease by your command. From this infinitive, as frequently in Hebrew, the construction passes over into the finite verb: and that this city be not built. The additional clause: until a command shall be given from me, namely, that defined by the context, for building, hence the stat. emph.טַעֲמָא. This is not a mere phrase, that would make all things dependent upon himself and his words, but a product of his prudence, since he really had in view the possibility of a change. With this agrees very well the earnestness and severity with which in
Ezr_4:22 he sharpens the previous command: and be careful—so זְהִיר, which is especially frequent in Syriac,—to make a mistake = that you may not make a mistake with reference to this matter. לְמָה properly “to what” = that not, comp. Ezr_7:23, so also in Syriac. Accordingly the meaning is, that חֲבָלָהּ, damage, which easily grows as a pest, may not become great.
Ezr_4:23. The consequences of the royal edict are now added, probably by the same hand, that had added the introductory address of the original document.—Now when the contents of the letter . . . were read. A parenthetical clause begins with מִן־דּי. It is not until אֲזַלוּ that the principal clause continues.—They went up to Jerusalem, unto the Jews.—אַזָל may be connected with לְ and עַל in the sense of “going to or unto” (comp. Ezr_5:8Dan_2:24; here both prepositions follow. The subject is supplied from the parenthetical clause. בְּאֶדְרָע, properly, “with arm,” or “the power of the arm,” but this could not be the meaning here, were it not for וְחָיִל= troops, which is accordingly added. The Sept. renders freely, but not incorrectly (against Keil): ἐν ἵπποις κὰι δυνάμει, comp. the Hebrew זְרוֹעַ, Eze_17:9, and זְרוֹעוֹת, or זְרוֹעִים, Dan_9:15, 31, where also Keil explains the meaning as warlike powers. Instead of אדרע, almost always דּרע occurs without the prosthetic א.
Ezr_4:24. Then ceased the work of the house of God.—This verse already begins the continuation of Ezr_4:1-5, the further history of the building of the temple; at least it is introductory thereto. Our author himself (comp. notes on Ezr_4:6) here gives the results of the hostile effort, but not those of the last struggle, but those of the first under Cyrus, which already results from the idea of בטל, if it is taken in the strict sense. The author would not have gone back to the cessation, were it not that he would come to something that had already connected itself with the first intimation which had occasioned the cessation.11
thoughts upon the history of redemption
Ezr_4:1-3. (1) The release of Israel and the re-establishment of Jerusalem and the temple connected therewith was a beginning of the fulfilment of the great prophetic promises. Among these promises were those that said that the heathen would come near, to walk in the light of the Lord (especially Micah 4. Isq.; Isa. 2:2, 24; 60:1 sq.); they were to take part in the communion with Him, and accordingly in His worship and kingdom, and rejoice in His blessings. When now the Samaritans drew nigh with the request that they might help in building the temple, was not their claim sustained by these prophets? Should not Israel have been ready gladly to contribute their part for the accomplishment of the prophecy, even if it should for the moment be burdensome to them? Did they not have to fear lest they should by a refusal strive against God’s own great thoughts and designs which had been expressed long before? If the one prophecy is compared and explained by the other, then it follows, certainly, that this conversion of the heathen was not to be expected until the appearance of the Messiah. But if the Lord had given the one thing that was to come with the better and Messianic times, namely the return to the land of their fathers, could He not then very soon also afford them the other, the appearance of the Messiah itself? At present, indeed, Israel had no other prince than Zerubbabel, who did not even have the majesty of an ordinary king, not to speak of Messianic majesty and glory. But if now the congregation had gained in strength and numbers by the reception of the Samaritans, would it not thereby have also gradually advanced an important stage, and would not other tribes and families also have gradually followed the Samaritans ? The congregation was obliged in those times, when so much was but feeble, and began to have but little prospect of improvement (comp. Zec_4:10), to look at so many things with the eye of faith, if they would make no mistakes; and grasp them in faith, if they would not lack courage for them from the outset—should they not then have seen here also in faith a beginning, that would have its continuation and completion; should they not have covered over with the veil of mildness and forbearance the many weaknesses which might still adhere to the Samaritans, and have excused them with the hope of better things? They felt themselves too weak to overcome the heathen elements that were natural to them, and to meet the influences which they would exert in case of a union. But should they not have overcome their feeling of weakness in the power of the enthusiasm of their faith? They were obliged to recognise likewise that something of good was in the Samaritans, and were in duty bound to God to trust in Him that He would make the good to prevail over the evil and secure the victory to the truth. Was it not, if they rejected the Samaritans, looking deeper, a lack of faith, unnecessary anxiety, and was not national narrow-mindedness, and uncharitable-ness mingled therewith? There are many who take this view of it, and are very much inclined to make use of such thoughts with reference to similar things, which are not entirely lacking at present. But however difficult it may appear to take a safe course in such a state of affairs, one thing is sure: The Samaritans had no right to an entrance into the congregation on their assertion that they had already always and from the beginning worshipped the Lord, for on the contrary this could have been the case only in that they could have shown at some period of their history a decisive break with their previous heathenism and a real conversion to Jehovah. Such a conversion, however, of a true and hearty character, such as the prophets had prophesied as taking place in the Messianic time (comp. Isa_19:16 sq ) was not at all possible on their part. They needed first for this a turning unto them, a change on the part of the Lord. Israel was what it was in consequence of the divine election. The Samaritans also, and indeed all other nations, can become God’s people only when God extends His election clearly and effectually unto them likewise. They cannot choose Him, but He must choose them. It was His prerogative in this as in all other things, to take the initiative, if indeed He was the God of revelation, and was to be honored as such. It was necessary that He should reveal Himself in some manner, that He should draw near them and become apprehensible; He must send a mediator, under whom they likewise might find themselves, and in whom there should be a righteousness, a perfection and glory which would be undoubtedly for them, yea, overpowering them, and above all, likewise rendering satisfaction for them, and of a sufficiently representative character; He must do a redemptive act, by which He should purchase and fake them to Himself. It was necessary that there should first be a new manifestation, which should lay anew foundation, and even on this account also another instrument than Zerubbabel and Jeshua, coming from heaven, the appearance of the Sum of righteousness itself, with healing in its beams even for the heathen. That the congregation in Jerusalem rightly judged the Samaritans has been attested by the Lord Himself in Joh_4:22, as Hengstenberg has well shown in his Gesch. des Reiches Gottes (“ye worship ye know not what”) and the history itself has shown that they justly estimated that the hour of God had not yet come. This hour did not strike until Christ the Lord authoritatively removed the fence that had been erected between Israel and the heathen.
(2) The congregation had at first for their own sake as well as for the sake of the Samaritans, to adopt an exclusive policy. Whilst, if they had taken the Samaritans into their membership they would have been ruined by the latter through their worldly conformity, now they remained a salt, that in good time might become useful even to them, yea, they became already in advance a warning and an impulse to them, in consequence of which they gradually turned to better things. The good Samaritan in the gospel makes it probable that the lord found here and there among them, hearts that were less hard than those of the priests and Levites in Jerusalem. The story of the Samaritan who was healed of leprosy, who alone rendered thanks to the Lord, is an evidence that the noblest virtue might easily thrive among them better than among the Jews. The Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well and the people of Sychar, then those in Samaria itself (Acts 8) show a susceptibility for the Saviour, by which they might become true members of the people of God before many in the ancient congregation. Would that those, who as the Samaritans do not worship the true and holy God who does not allow His people to be put to shame, but only their own idols who are easily satisfied might have a clearer and stronger conception of the chasm that separates them from the true con gregation of the Lord! It would be a help for them that they need first of all.
(3) The congregation had to do without an increase such as would have come through the Samaritan element; they must rather remain small and suffer persecutions than abandon unto corruption the blessings entrusted to them. But after that Jesus Christ has come into the world and redemption has been made for all, so that only the innermost inclination of the heart need be brought into consideration, it is much more difficult to properly recognize the Samaritan influence that would press into the Church, and there is need in this respect of a very great and especial care. Above all we must take this to heart, that no one has to be converted to us, to our opinions and methods, but that every one is to be converted to Jesus Christ alone. The two do not coincide as long as we are still in an imperfect state. But at all events conversion is the decisive thing. How necessary this is and how fundamental it must be has now become still clearer in the light of Jesus Christ. He who now without conversion thinks that he can take part in the kingdom of God, who disputes the necessity of conversion, the depth of human sinfulness, the strictness of the divine holiness, in that he sets before him the grand aim of humanizing Christianity, reconciling it with culture, would set aside the opposition of the world against the Church, the Church’s rigor, narrowness, lack of culture, whilst in truth he seeks to make the Church conformable unto the world—such an one is in fact to be placed on a par with the Samaritans: he is, indeed, because he is more accountable, worse than a Samaritan.—The state of affairs, however, to-day is an entirely different one, inasmuch as Samaritanism is not without, but within the congregation [that is, in the State Churches especially; to a limited extent in the free evangelical churches—Tr.], yea, at times indeed is to be found in those who govern the congregation, where then at any rate the parable of the wheat and tares comes into consideration with reference to the way of judging it and treating it.
Ezr_4:4-5. The Samaritans were able for a time to prevent the building of the house of God. But what God would have, must finally come to pass. Just as at a previous time when David could not at once and himself execute his design of building a temple to the Lord (2 Samuel 7), so the Lord now showed that He did not require under all circumstances that which the world was still able to take away from Him and His people. Thus then the Church should never be discouraged when their enemies triumph for a season, and when it is as if they accomplished nothing, as if they lacked the most necessary things, and walked in a way that is not good. When the progress of their work is rendered more difficult by a thousand persecutions, by the spread of many calumnies and the like, then is the time, as Starke says, to pray the third petition that God would prevent all and every wicked counsel and purpose. But we should not judge by success whether we have chosen the right or the wrong way, but only by God’s word and truth. We should not find it too hard to be miserable and poor so long as it pleases God. It so easily happens, as it is elsewhere said, that the better the work, the greater hindrances are found, and that where God proposes something good, the devil does not rest, but sows tares with it (Starke).
Ezr_4:7-16. It was calumniation when the Samaritans charged the Jews behind their back at the Persian court with pursuing political ends, although in Artaxerxes’ time the question was no longer of the temple, but of the city and its walls. The Jews had nothing to do with political deliverance and independence, but with securing their existence and freedom of worship which could hardly be refused them by the Persians. But such slanders were almost a necessity. The Church must ever be prepared for them. The world knows only worldly motives, worldly aims, and cannot but ascribe them also to the Church; with all things that they allow themselves, they make a crime for the Church. But all the more care must the Church take that such calumniations may not gain ground; all the more carefully accordingly must it hold itself aloof from the world and its aims. Otherwise it not only injures itself for the present, but also for the future; it makes itself suspected. For their accusers already, to gain credence for their word, refer to the fact that the Jews had already in former times snatched to themselves a great worldly power. O that the congregation might not be so much denied by their own and their forefathers’ sins ! how much more irreproachably, powerfully and charmingly would they be able to carry out their work of missions in the world.
Ezr_4:17-23. The Persian king Artaxerxes commanded that the building of the walls of Jerusalem should cease. We might ask how it was possible that the only true God, the Lord of heaven and earth, should make the lot of His people, and accordingly the history of His kingdom dependent upon the command of the king of Persia; that He should allow His people, and indeed His cause in general, to fall into such dependence upon men, and indeed heathen? But this is indeed His method. Even the individual is allowed a free and determining influence upon his action. And in the very fact that He limits Himself, makes Himself dependent, lets Himself be satisfied, so that the world may enjoy an independent, true existence, and men may have a real freedom, He shows His highest and best greatness. Only the false God, the one merely conceived, is the entirely unlimited one who takes away every freedom of the creature, who wills and does everything himself, and thereby becomes of the nature of the creature and sinful. It is shown here so truly how that which is truly great and important may be externally weak and inversely.
Ezr_4:24. When Cyrus had given the congregation permission to return and build the temple of the Lord, it almost appeared as if already heathenism was capable and ready under the circumstances to establish a free church in a free state. But when afterwards the building was obliged to stop and remain so long unfinished, when so to speak the Church must lie down in chains, the saying of the free church in the free state became a fable, and as such must it ever anew prove itself to be. The interests and also the callings of the State and the Church are involved in too many ways and in too close relations for the former not to claim when it has the power an oversight of the latter and an influence upon it. The most favorable thing for the Church is ever the Christian State, which really wishes the Church well and ministers to it; as the last thing, however, it has to expect the antichristian state, which restrains it, persecutes it, and where it is possible, enchains and destroys it.
[The author’s view of the relations between Church and State are the usual ones prevailing on the continent of Europe and among State-church men in Great Britain. It has been sufficiently proved, however, in the United States and the British colonies that a free Church in a free State is no fable, but a historical fact, and a condition in which the Church is purest, strongest and most dominant in the land through the Christianizing influence that it freely exerts on all classes of the community. And whilst Church and State are closely related in many questions of morals and religion, in education, in marriage and divorce, the observance of the Sabbath, questions of property, individual rights, etc., and conflict will more or less arise, yet the relations will become more and more accurately defined without interfering with the prerogatives of either. Comp. the section on Church and State in the Evangelical Alliance proceedings, N. Y., 1873.—Tr.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Ezr_4:1-3. The Church cannot receive every one into her communion or suffer all to remain therein. Her duty to excommunicate is shown: 1) From what would happen if she excluded none—they would be made to conform to the world by the worldly-minded; 2) From what happens when they do exclude them—they manifest the worldly disposition in their hearts, and do much damage by their hostility; but they cannot ruin the congregation: the possibility remains that they themselves may be the subjects of saving influences.—Starke: No one should enter into communion in religious matters with strange and false religious opinions, 2Co_4:14; Tit_3:10. Tale-bearers and false and wicked talkers are cursed; for they perplex those who enjoy good peace (Sir_28:15), and invent villany, Psa_64:7; Psa_140:4 The Church of God and its members suffer greater injury by false friends than by open enemies, Psa_41:10; 2Co_11:26.
Ezr_4:1-5. The duty of the congregation to be apparently intolerant: 1) Towards whom—even against many who would enjoy its communion; 2) how—excluding that which is excluded by its entire character and then bearing whatever evil is ascribed to them on account of this; 3) for what purpose—in order to preserve its best things and thereby at the proper time likewise offer salvation to their enemies.—Brentius: Ejusdem farinæ sunt, qui nunc hujus nunc illius religionis sunt. Injustum est; qui fides est persuasio certa de divinis promissionibus. Hi autem, cum hinc inde fluctuent, non habent fidem.—The foolish behaviour of the world towards the Lord’s people: 1) The world would belong to the Lord’s people, and yet not be converted unto God; 2) They seek to set aside the worship of the true God, and yet can prosper only in the light that streams forth from it.
Ezr_4:7-16. The charges raised by the world against the people of God; their apparent justice and their lack of grounds. 1) The congregation builds itself at present not with peaceful, but rebellious disposition: in fact, it must obey God rather than men; but they know also how falsely this word is applied by those who have forgotten that the kingdom of the Lord is not of this world. 2) They have in past times constantly sought after worldly power, and have been guilty of manifold encroachments; in fact, the Church has at first more and more taken a political form and equipped itself with external worldly power; but the consciousness that according to its own idea something different was more appropriate has never been able to be entirely suppressed. 3) The church will, if it have its own way, in future endanger the existence of the state; in fact, it cannot acquiesce in the state as it is; the church must seek to gain power over the king, but in a spiritual sense; not with power, but kindness; not from without, but from within. It would not oppress, but change, transform, glorify.—Brentius: Vide, mirabilem piorum sortem in hoc sæculo. Pii sunt, propter quos omnia bona hominibus hujus seculi eveniunt. Attamen accusantur, quod soli hi sint, propter quos omnia mala, bella, fames et seditiones eveniant.—Starke: God’s church has at all times been subjected to false accusations. Christ and His apostles could give sufficient witness of this. Let us only avoid the doing, the lie is good counsel, Act_24:5 sq.
Ezr_4:14-24. The church’s independence of the state. God makes His church dependent on the world: 1) on its own account to glorify its faith and to exercise its patience; 2) for His own sake in order to bring it to a proper conception of the fact that it does not need external majesty and power, a magnificent cultus, etc.; 3) for the sake of the world—that it may learn to see that the church cannot be suppressed by it, that there is something higher than it can reach with all its power.—Starke: God often lets it happen that a good intention is interrupted by the craft of enemies, in order to try His believers. Magistrates are God’s officers. If, however, they do not properly fulfil their office, a severe judgment will pass over them, Wis_6:5-6. God is a long-suffering God who allows Himself to be interfered with and presents Himself as a hero who is faint-hearted (Jer_14:9), but He will wake up some time, Sir_17:19.
[Scott: Every vigorous and successful attempt to revive true religion will excite the opposition of Satan and of the children of disobedience in whom he worketh.—Henry: The worst enemies Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews and were not, Rev_3:9.—Take heed who we go partners with, and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with a pious confidence, we must trust men with a prudent jealousy and caution.—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.—A secret enmity to Christ and His gospel is oft gilded over with a pretended affection to Cæsar and his power.—At some times 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.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][Also Smith, the Assyrian Canon, p. 138, and Rawlinson in loco, who says: “There appear to have been at least three colonizations of Samaria by the Assyrian Kings. Sargon, soon after his conquest, replaced the captives whom he had carried of by colonists from Babylonia and from Hamath (2Ki_17:24). Later in his reign he added to these first settlers an Arabian element (Ancient Monarchies, II., p. 415). Some thirty or forty years afterwards, Esar-haddon, his grandson, from largely augmented the population of colonists drawn from various parts of the empire, but especially from the southeast, Susiana, Elymais, and Persia. Thus the later Samaritans were an exceedingly mixed race.”—Tr.]
[2]It was not until very late that their historians invented a return of three hundred thousand men from the Assyrian banishment, and a new establishment of ancient Israel in the midst of the land by this great band, and especially on Mt. Gerizim. (Comp. Abulfatah’s Arab. Chronik. in Paulus’ Memorabilien. II., S. 54–100, and in the Samaritan book of Joshua, published at Leyden, in 1848. Vid. Ewald IV., S. 125.)
[3]Kleinert already in the Beitragen der Dorp. Professoren Theol., 1832, Bd. 1, had to a certain extent pointed to the correct opinion which has been commonly recognized, as in my article “Cyrus der Grosse” Stud. u. Krit. 1853, S. 624 sqq.; by Baihinger. Stud. u. Krit. 1857, S. 87 sqq.; by Hengst., Christologie II., S. 143; by Berth. and Keil in their Commentaries, et al..
[4][So also Rawlinson in loco, who refers to the “well-known fact of history,” that Persian kings had often two names.—Tr.]
[5][Rawlinson in loco regards them as colonists from the nation which the Assyrians called Tuplai, the Greeks “Tibareni,” and the Hebrews generally “Tabal.”—Tr.]
[6]According to Hitzig’s faithful disciple Egli, it would be an appellative, that would show us the relationship of the Assyrian with the German and would be essentially the same as the German “Schnapper.”
[7][More properly it is the characteristic of the subjunctive or optative force of the verb. See Luzatto’s Gram. der bib chald., § 109, and Rigg’s Manual of Chaldee, p. 65.—Tr.]
[8][“The Persian satraps had no salaries, but taxed the provinces for the support of themselves and their courts.” Rewlinson in loco.—Tr.]
[9][“It is doubtful if the Persian monarchs could ordinarily read (Ancient Monarchies, Vol. IV., p. 185). At any rate it was not their habit to read, but to have documents read to them (comp. Est_6:1).” Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.]
[10][Rawlinson in loco doubts the reference to David and Solomon, and thinks the reference more probable to Menahem (2Ki_15:16), and Josiah (2Ch_34:6-7; 2Ch_35:18).—Tr.]
[11][“The stoppage of the building by the Pseudo Smerdis is in complete harmony with his character. He was a Magus, devoted to the Magian elemental worship, and opposed to belief in a personal god. His religion did not approve of temples (Herod. i. 130); and as he persecuted the Zoroastrian (Behist. Inscr., Colossians 1, par. 14), so would he naturally be inimical to the Jewish faith (comp. Ancient Monarchies, Vol. IV., pp. 347, 398)” Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 24 we seek your God, as ye do; and we…
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 Kg2 17:26-34, Kg2 17:41).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24 THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE SUSPENDED, Ezr_4:1-24.
THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE SUSPENDED, Ezr_4:1-24.
1. The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin — The foreign population, who had been transported from various cities of Chaldaea and settled in the depopulated towns of Israel, especially the cities of Samaria. Compare Ezr_4:2; Ezr_4:9-10; Ezr_4:17 with 2Ki_17:24. The names of their principal leaders and counsellors are given in Ezr_4:7-8.
Read full note →
The children of the captivity — Those who had gone into exile, and had returned again. Most of the returned had been born in exile.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Ch. 4. The Record of Opposition. (1) Ezr_4:1-5, from…
Ch. 4. The Record of Opposition. (1) Ezr_4:1-5, from the reign of Cyrus to the reign of Darius. (2) Ezr_4:6, during the reign of Xerxes. (3) Ezr_4:7-23, during the reign of Artaxerxes
1. Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin] Here called ‘adversaries’ by anticipation. From the Compiler’s point of view, the Samaritans were never anything but foes of the Jews.
Read full note →
The word ‘adversaries’ is applied to them again Neh_4:11.
Judah and Benjamin] as in chap. Ezr_1:5. The great majority of those who returned, exclusive of priests and Levites, belonged to these two tribes. In view of the use of the expression chap. Ezr_1:5, there is no necessity to see here (as some commentators have done,) an allusion to the old hostility between the Northern and Southern Tribes.
the children of the captivity] i.e. the ‘b’nê hag-gôlah’. The phrase occurs also in Ezr_6:16; Ezr_6:19-20; Ezr_8:35; Ezr_10:7; Ezr_10:16. On ‘the Captivity’ see note on Ezr_1:11. The meaning is the same as ‘the children of the province’ Ezr_2:1. ‘The children of the captivity’ recalls their past calamities; ‘the children of the province’, their new position of subjection in the old homes.
unto the Lord God of Israel] R.V. unto the lord, the God of Israel cf. Ezr_1:3.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24 (1) The adversaries.—The Samaritans, so termed by Nehemiah (Ezr_4:11).…
(1) The adversaries.—The Samaritans, so termed by Nehemiah (Ezr_4:11). These were a mixed race, the original Israelite element of which was nearly lost in the tribes imported into the northern part of the land by Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esar-haddon. (See 2Ki_17:24-34.)
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 OPPOSITION MADE TO THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE BY…
OPPOSITION MADE TO THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE BY THE SAMARITANS. (Ezr_4:1-24)
In this world, whenever a good work is begun, some kind of opposition is sure to show itself, since Satan will never suffer any attack upon his kingdom without resenting it. The opposition may, however, be of two kinds. It may be open and proclaimed, or it may take the subtler and more dangerous shape of seeming approval and patronage. In the case before us, the opposition to Zerubbabel"s mission was, at the first, of this latter kind. The mixed race, partly Israelite but mainly heathen, which had been settled by the Assyrian monarchs in central Palestine (2Ki_17:24; Ezr_4:9, Ezr_4:10) made a specious proposition to the Jewish prince, acceptance of which would have been fatal to the entire movement. The movement was one for the reestablishment of God"s peculiar people in their own land, under their own system, as a witness to the nations against polytheism, against idolatry, against materialism and sensualism in religion. As the Samaritans had adopted a mixed or mongrel worship, uniting idolatrous rites with the acknowledgment of Jehovah, (2Ki_17:29-41) their admission by Zerubbabel to a partnership in his work would have been equivalent to the abandonment of pure religion, and the acceptance of a syncretism inherently vicious, and sure to develop into pronounced forms of impurity and corruption. Zerubbabel therefore declined the offer made him most properly, since there is no "communion between light and darkness", (2Co_6:14) no "agreement between the temple of God and idols" (ibid. ver. 16). His determination was bitterly resented. Unable to seduce him into alliance with them, the Samaritans became his open and avowed enemies; during three reigns the remainder of the reign of Cyrus, the reign of Cambyses (Ahasuerus), and that of the Pseudo-Smerdis (Artaxerxes) they so worked upon the Persian court that the rebuilding of the temple was almost wholly stopped; no progress was made until the second year of Darius, when a new opposition showed itself, as appears by the next section.
Read full note →
The adversaries. Notwithstanding the friendly guise in which they came, the historian sees from the first that the Samaritans are in reality "adversaries," or "persecutors" (tsazey), identical in spirit with Sanballat and his followers, whom Nehemiah designates by the same word. (Ezr_4:11)
Vers. 1-3.
The work endangered.
Moses was exposed to danger whilst still in his cradle. The same was true about Christ. There is yet another parallel in this. passage. No sooner is the foundation-stone of the restored temple laid, than we hear of that branch of the great work of Restoration being in imminent peril. To profit rightly by this story of danger, two things must be pondered, viz., the nature of the danger, in the first place; and the manner of the deliverance, in the second.
I THE NATURE OF THE DANGER. This was
1. Serious in itself. It was a serious thing for the Jews, in their circumstances, that their work should have so strongly attracted the notice of their "adversaries." "The adversaries". (see Ezr_4:3) "heard" of their doings. This was bad, to begin. Such hearing was only too likely to lead to "doing;" and to unfriendly doing, of course. So, in fact, it turned out. After unfriendly notice came unfriendly interference. The people referred to "came." How unwelcome a sight to the Jewish builders and rulers. How far from "beautiful" the "feet" of these strangers on the "mountains round about Jerusalem". (Psa_125:2) "What have they come for?" Not merely to inquire and observe; but to interfere, and that not for good (1Sa_16:4; 2Ki_9:17-23) Still more serious, when these adversaries did come, was the course which they took. We must bear in mind who they were. A "mixed multitude" in every sense. Of various stocks; of various creeds. The descendants of men brought to the cities and hills of Samaria from widely-distant provinces of the great Assyrian empire; bringing with them, in all cases, their old idols and creeds; but grafting on to these afterwards, through the mere motive of fear, something of that already grievously-corrupted worship of Jehovah which had prevailed in the kingdom of the ten tribes previously to its final overthrow and dispersion. (see 2Ki_17:7-18, 2Ki_17:24-33) Such mingled worship, being in violation of the very first of the ten commandments, was especially displeasing to the one true God; and had, indeed, in this instance, been already condemned by him as no true worship of his name (see ibid. vers. 34-39). It was the children then of these men, walking in the steps of their fathers, who now came to Mount Zion. To whom had they come? To those "children of the captivity" who had been so careful to prove themselves of the stock of Israel only, (see Ezr_2:59) and who had been brought back to that holy mountain to restore there, in a for ever purified form, the worship of Jehovah alone. To such men came this mixed multitude, as though brothers in blood and religion. "We seek your God; we would help in your work; let us build by your side." A serious proposal, indeed; being a proposal virtually to break down the very division which they were engaged in constructing, and for neglecting and despising which that long, just-completed Babylonian exile had come upon their race. To consent to such a proposal would be to consent to their ruin. They could never so build the house of Jehovah. What could they so build, in fact, but a Babel, a monument of displeasure and disaster to themselves, and of no benefit even to their adversaries? Better not build at all than build thus. At the same time this danger was
2. Most insidious as to its form. After all, the proposal made came in the shape of an offer of help. Better to have that help than be without it. So many would think. Better to have such neighbours for us than against us; (2Ch_25:9) especially they being so many and we so few. Besides which, to all appearance, it was an offer of help made in perfect good faith; and by men even of tried sincerity, it also appeared. "We seek your God, as ye do; we have done so ever since coming to these regions, some 150 years from this date." How harsh it would seem to reject such assistance! How bigoted! How "narrow!" How opposed indeed to true religion! Even supposing these men to be seeking Jehovah in a somewhat ignorant and unacceptable way, might they not be won over to the truth by a little brotherly kindness? Might not the influence of the Jews tell for good on them, if they two were associated in so good a work? Whereas, if rejected and driven away from the work, would they not also be driven away even more from the truth? In a word, be servants to them so far; afterwards they will be your servants and, what is more, the servants of Jehovah for ever. So plausible, and, therefore, so doubly dangerous, was this offer of help.
II THE DELIVERANCE vouchsafed from this danger has, next, to be marked. God, who allowed this great and subtle temptation to come on his servants, made them also a way of escape. (1Co_10:13) This he did by granting to them
1. A spirit of discrimination. Ye have nothing to do with us to build." In other words, This is not a task" for you and us in common" (see Lange, who compares; Jos 20 Jos 24 sic Jud_1:11:12; 2Ki_3:13) The root or foundation of the proposal made lay in the assumption that there was much in common between the Samaritans and the Jews. In reality, so far as this matter was concerned, there was nothing in common except a name. The Samaritans worshipped other gods first, and Jehovah only second. The Jews worshipped Jehovah first, and no one else second. This was not holding common ground, but being at opposite poles. How could forces thus intrinsically antagonistic work efficiently together?
1. A spirit of decision. Besides seeing the truth thus clearly, the Jewish leaders were also enabled to act on it boldly. Was it indeed for "them alone" to undertake this enterprise? They alone, as one body, would do so. They would say so openly, and in so many words. Let their Samaritan neighbours at once understand that so their minds were made up. "We ourselves together" will be responsible for this task.
2. A spirit of discretion. God gave them this in conclusion, so that they put the matter, in concluding, on a very wise ground. The decision arrived at might not be pleasing to the Samaritans; but at any rate it ought not to be regarded by them as an injury or a grievance; for it was only in strict accordance with the will of one whom they were all bound to obey. "King Cyrus, the king of Persia King Cyrus, our common ruler has given express commands on this point, as you know. He has commanded us to erect this building. He has commanded us alone to do so (see ch. 1. beginning of ver. 3). That being so, let us all obey him; some by labouring, some by abstaining. Possibly, also, this further thought can be traced in their words: Cyrus himself as a Gentile did not engage personally in this work, but only commissioned us Israelites to perform it, why should any others who are not Israelites put their hands to the task?" At any rate the reply answered the immediate purpose in hand. It delivered the Jews completely from that great danger to which they were at that moment exposed. The Samaritans were compelled thereby to retire, and, like another adversary in another case on a subsequent occasion, to leave them alone "for a season". (Luk_4:13) Amongst other general lessons the following may be noted:
1. The need of patience in Gods work. True progress, from its very nature, creates resistance and opposition. This applies to our work for others. (1Co_16:9) Also to much of the scepticism of the day. That scepticism is not a wholly desperate sign. (see Rev_12:12) Also to our own spiritual progress (Luk_9:42; Act_13:7, Act_13:8) Per aspera ad ardua tendo is a very wide rule.
2. The need of firmness it, Gods work. True toleration will not go out of its way to interfere with others; but it will not allow others to interfere with it. Neither will it prevent us from telling others the truth. Compare, in connection with certain later Samaritans, "They went to another village", (Luk_9:56) and, "Salvation is of the Jews". (Joh_4:22)
3. The need of scrutiny in Gods work. Scrutiny, first, as to faith. There are some errors of doctrine which affect the root of the tree. There are some which only tend to hinder its full development and fruitfulness. These must be dealt with in different ways. Scrutiny, next, as to persons. Those who are altogether "without" we leave in God"s hands. Not so those who, though really aliens, claim to be considered as brethren. (comp. 1Co_5:9-13) None are so truly the enemies of the Church as those "who call themselves Jews but are not". (see Rev_3:9)
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 1-3.
Peace and purity.
No sooner had the "children of the captivity begun their good work of rebuilding the house of the Lord than difficulties began to arise. They found, as we find, that the work of God does not proceed smoothly from beginning to end, as, at the outset, we are apt to think it will; that from without and from within obstacles and discouragements spring up and beset us. They soon found that they had to do with
I A PROFFERED ALLIANCE (vers. 1, 2). Their neighbours, the Samaritans, a mixed people, composed in part of the remnant of the ten tribes and in part of the Assyrians deported by Esar-haddon from their own country and planted there, made offers of alliance. Moved by jealousy, thinking that the name and fame of a temple at Jerusalem would eclipse anything of the kind they had, perhaps fearing lest it should win the hearts of the people away from the "mongrel religion" which they had adopted a miserable compromise between pure religion and gross superstition they came proposing to make common cause with the returned Israelites. "Let us unite our forces," they said. "We will build together; this temple, erected by our joint labours, shall be common property: we worship the same God whom you worship, and there need not be any separation between us." Thus impurity approaches purity; thus error seeks alliance with truth; thus worldliness addresses piety. "Let us walk together," it says. "We will sink our differences; we will keep unpleasant divergencies of conviction in abeyance, and stroll together in sweet communion along the path of life." Here was
II A POWERFUL TEMPTATION. Jeshua and still more Zerubbabel, who was answerable for the peace and order of the community may well have thought that it was a time for conciliation. The little state was not yet fairly established. It was still in its very infancy, and might well shrink from the field of contention. It was a time when they might excusably go far in the direction of peace. Would it not be wrong, by any churlishness or obstinacy on small points or narrowness of view, to plunge the infant Church into strife, perhaps mortal strife, with those who had so much in common with them, and whom charity might consider brethren? What a pity to endanger the work in hand and, it might be, bring everything to failure when the prospects of success were so bright, if, by entering on an alliance with these men, they could insure the consummation of their hopes! Perchance, too, they might win these men to a purer faith; the sight of the temple on its old site, the performance of the old rites, the singing of the old psalms, etc. might purge their hearts of the evil leaven that had crept in, etc. Thus their minds may have been agitated by doubt and distraction, questioning whether they should have a perilous alliance or a defiant and dangerous isolation. So purity, truth, piety find themselves courted by those who are their adversaries, but who speak with the voice and use the language of friendship. And often do they find themselves greatly tempted to make peace and enter into alliance. Sometimes they do, and disastrous is the" result. Like the Rhone and the Arve outside Geneva, the pure blue waters of the one flow for some time side by side, without mingling, with the muddy and earth-discoloured waters of the other; but farther down they intermix, and the blueness and the purity are gone! But here we have
III A STOUT-HEARTED REFUSAL (ver. 3). Zerubbabel and Jeshua peremptorily declined the offered alliance. "Ye have nothing to do with us." "We ourselves will build," etc. (ver. 3). Whatever inward conflict there might have been, there was no vagueness or hesitancy in their answer. It was explicit and downright, as an answer should be to a deceitful offer. It was seen to be their duty to keep apart from men whose association would too probably have ended in corruption, and they dared all consequences. First purity, then peace. (Jam_3:17) Let there be nocompromise when the maintenance of principle is at stake. There is far more to lose than to gain in having the help of those who are not really and heartily at one with us. Mere matters of detail are things for arrangement, and it is often wise and Christian to forego our preferences for the sake of brotherly accord. But when great and vital truths are at stake, truths on which human hearts live, truths which heal and save and sanctify the soul, truths for the purity and integrity of which we exist to testify, then let us put our foot firmly down, and, risking misrepresentation and attack, say, "Ye have nothing to do with us." We must walk apart. C.
HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL Vers. 1-5.
A sinful alliance sought and rejected.
I A sinful alliance SOUGHT. "Let us build with you" (ver. 2).
1. The people. "The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" (ver. 1). These were a mixed race, partly Israelitish but chiefly foreign. The more dangerous because the more nearly related to Israel; error is more dangerous when allied with truth.
2. The pretext.
(1) Utility. "Let us build." They would help in the enterprise of Israel. Sinful alliances always seem advantageous.
(2) Religion. "For we seek your God" (ver. 2). Those who seek sinful alliances often assume the garb of piety; they come as angels of light.
(3) Community of interest. The Samaritans wanted to make a common cause with Israel; what fellowship hath light with darkness?
3. The plan.
(1) Secret, and not open. They concealed their real intentions. Suspect the world.
(2) Friendly, and not hostile. They came not as warriors, but as helpers. Be not deluded by the smiles of sin.
(3) Dangerous, and not safe. The kiss of sin is perilous; the dagger is behind.
II A sinful alliance REJECTED. "Ye have nothing to do with us" (ver. 3).
1. Wisdom. The hypocrisy was detected by the leaders of Israel. We need spiritual discernment in dealing with the world; we must try the spirits. Be wise as serpents.
2. Independence. "But we ourselves together will build" (ver. 3).. The Church can do its own work; it needs not the aid of the unholy. God requires the good man to be independent of carnal helpers and of worldly compacts; dare to reject apparent advantage.
3. Determination. A most decided reply was given to the proposed allies, and Israel was prepared to brave the result. Hesitation would have been fatal.
4. Disaster. The professed friends soon reveal their enmity: reject the world, and it will soon "trouble you in building." The enmity of sin is better than its friendship; sin triumphs for a time. E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-5.
The friendship of the world.
Two classes, strongly contrasted, divide the human race (see 1Th_5:4-8; 1Jn_3:10) There is no intermediate class. (see Mat_12:30) Between these classes genuine sympathy is impossible. The syren voice of "charity" must not be heeded here; it is treachery to Christ. "The friendship of the world," however this may be taken, "is enmity against God." Selfishness and hypocrisy often guide the policy of malignity. Hence
I THE FRIENDSHIP OF THE WORLD IS PROFFERED TO THE GODLY IN THEIR PROSPERITY.
1. The world is cold to them in their adversity.
(1) No sympathy came to Israel from the Samaritans when nothing apparently was to he gained. They were only "children of the captivity born in captivity, scarcely emerging from bondage, impoverished by a four months" march; comparatively few, 50, 000 persons, scattered over the south, and likely to be absorbed into the mass of "the people of the land.
(2) There were even signs of hostility. For the elders of Israel did not venture to build the altar of the Lord until encouraged by the demonstration of strength in the universal response to their summons to the convocation (see 3:1-3). Lesson It is folly to look to the wicked for help. Even Rabshakeh spoke truly. (2Ki_18:21; comp. Eze_29:6, Eze_29:7)
2. But when prosperity comes this policy is changed.
(1) The "children of the captivity" had made rapid progress towards national consolidation. Not content to become gradually absorbed in other nationalities, they have raised a national altar, and laid the foundations of their national temple. Note Religion is the strongest bond of national union. It touches the deepest sympathies of our nature. (see Pro_14:31)
(2) This made its impression upon "the people of the land." They discerned in Israel the elements of future greatness. By the laws of association the value of the patronage of Cyrus would gain in importance, and the traditions of the ancient greatness of Israel would revive.
(3) Therefore they now volunteered their friendship. They said, "Let us build with you." Let us share your labours and the charges, and we will reap with you also. "We seek your God as you do." "Do not hesitate to trust us." "We do sacrifice to him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us hither." "We will not cause you embarrassment by any disagreement with your worship." Lesson First, be aware of worldly plausibility. Why was not all this pleaded earlier? Secondly, discern the selfishness which guides the policy of worldly friendship. Thirdly, never lose sight of the nature of the carnal mind. (Rom_8:7)
II WHEN THE POLICY OF THE WORLD"S FRIENDSHIP IS FRUSTRATED, MALICE WILL DISCOVER ITS HYPOCRISY.
1. The reply discovered to the Samaritans that they were comprehended (ver. 3).
(1) "Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God." You say, "We seek your God as ye do." This we do not accept. You say, "We do sacrifice to him," etc. This also we dispute. We have too good reason to do so. (see 2Ki_17:34-38) Note,
(a) The true God is not worshipped at all if other gods are worshipped along with him. (see also Joh_4:22) Note,
(b) No sacrifice to God is true that is associated with spurious sacrifices. Query Is not the sacrifice of Christ "made of none effect" to those who associate with it the sacrifice of the mass and works of supererogation?
(2) Therefore "we ourselves together," in a unity of faith and love which we would not have interrupted by your heresy and malignity, "will build unto the Lord God of Israel," our own covenant God, "as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us." So, take notice that in thus serving God we are countenanced by the pleasure of the king. Note, here, the lawful mingling of the wisdom of the serpent with the harmlessness of the dove.
2. They now appear as the "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin. " They have now no policy of selfishness to restrain their malignity. So
(1) "the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah." They stirred up dissension. Their proposition would be variously viewed by the people; worldly men would no doubt think that the Samaritans" offer should have been accepted by the chiefs, who with advancing years were grown too conservative and narrow. Note Dissension in sentiment is a weakening of the hands.
(2) "They troubled them in the building." This would be the effect of dissension. They would aggravate the embarrassment by ridicule, etc.
(3) "They hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose." Some of these would operate upon the workmen; others in the Persian court.
(4) This was continued "all the days of Cyrus." To what extremities will the malignity of the wicked carry them! Reflect The worst enemies of Judah and Benjamin were those "who said they were Jews and were not". (Rev_3:9) Let those who discourage a good work consider whose example they follow. J.A.M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 14, 15, 17 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard.
Ezr_4:1-3
Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard.
Read full note →
The proposal of the Samaritans to the Jews
I. The proposal made by the Samaritans
1. Plausible in its form.
2. But evil in itself.
(1) They were not Israelites.
(2) They did not worship Jehovah as the true God. To have received such a people into community and co-operation with the true people of God would have been an set of utter unfaithfulness and disloyalty to Him.
(3) Their design in making this proposal was an unworthy one.
(4) The acceptance of their proposal would have been perilous to the Jews.
II. The proposal rejected by the jews.
1. An exclusive obligation in relation to the work is asserted.
2. The alleged similarity of worship is indirectly denied.
3. The command of Cyrus is adduced in support of this rejection. This was prudent. Be ye wise as serpents, etc.
4. The rejection of the proposal was unanimous.
5. The rejection of the proposal was prompt and decided. (William Jones.)
The proposals of the wicked and how to treat them
I. That the wicked often propose to enter into alliance with the good. These alliances are of different kinds.
1. Commercial.
2. Social
3. Matrimonial.
4. Religious.
II. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good are often supported by plausible reasons.
III. That the alliances proposed by the wicked are always perilous to the good.
IV. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good should always be firmly rejected. (William Jones.)
The uses of an enemy
1. The having one is proof that you are somebody. Wishy-washy, empty, worthless people, never have enemies. Men who never move, never run against anything; and when a man is thoroughly dead and utterly buried, nothing ever runs against him. To be run against, is proof of existence and position; to run against something, is proof of motion.
2. An enemy is, to say the least, not partial to you. He will not flatter. He will not exaggerate your virtues. It is very probable that he will slightly magnify your faults. The benefit of that is twofold. It permits you to know that you have faults; it makes them visible and so manageable. Your enemy does for you this valuable work.
3. In addition, your enemy keeps you wide awake. He does not let you sleep at your post. There are two that always keep wash--namely, the lover and the hater. Your lover watches, that you may sleep. He keeps off noises, excludes light, adjusts surroundings, that nothing may disturb you. Your hater watches that you may not sleep. He stirs you up when you are napping. He keeps your faculties on the alert.
4. He is a detective among your friends. You need to know who your friends are, and who are not, and who are your enemies. The last of these three will discriminate the other two. When your enemy goes to one who is neither friend nor enemy, and assails you, me indifferent one will have nothing to say or chime in, not because he is your enemy, but because it is so much easier to assent than to oppose, and especially than to refute. But your friend will take up cudgels for you on the instant. He will deny everything and insist on proof, and proving is very hard work. Follow your enemy and you will find your friends, for he will have developed them so that they cannot be mistaken. The next best thing to having a hundred real friends, is to have one open enemy. (C. F. Deems, D. D.)
The adversary an abiding quantity in life
The adversary is a man who seeks to discover flaws, disadvantages, mistakes; a man who magnifies all that is unworthy until he makes a great sore and wound of it, so as to offend as many as possible; he knows how the work could have been better done; he sees where every mistake has been committed; and under his breath, or above it, as circumstances may suggest, he curses the builders and their building, and thinks that such an edifice built by such men is but an incubus which the earth is doomed to bear. Regard the criticism of adversaries as inevitable. If we think of it only as incidental, occasional, characteristic of a moments experience, we shall treat it too lightly; the adversary is an abiding quantity in life. (J. Parker, D. D)
Let us build with you. Beware of your associates
Beware of your associates. With some men we ought not to build even Gods house. We may spoil the sacred edifice by taking money made by the ruin of men. The Samaritans who thus spoke to Zerubbabel and to the chief of the fathers were not telling an absolute lie. No absolute lie can ever do much in the world; its very nakedness would cause it to be driven out of society; it must wear some rag of truth. The Samaritans in the ancient time did worship God after their fashion, but they did not give up a single idolatrous practice; they wanted to have two religions--to serve in some sort all the gods there were, and then when one failed they could flee to another; so they would build any wall, any altar, any city, any sanctuary; they wanted to be at peace with all the gods, then they would know what to do in the day of adversity. We have spoken of the Samaritans of the ancient time: why not speak of the Samaritans of the present day who wish to do this very thing--men who can bow their heads in prayer, and drink toasts to the devil? Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. (J. Parker, D. D)
Simulated unselfishness
How oftentimes are people overcome by manner, by persuasiveness of tone, by assumed gentleness of spirit! The young creature is often so overcome; she says she knows he who has spoken to her is not a bad man; whatever he be he has a guileless tongue; his words are well chosen; he speaks them as a man might speak them who knows the gentleness of pity, all the sympathy of love; it is impossible that he can be simulating such tenderness; it is impossible that he can for selfish reasons be putting himself to such inconvenience and sacrifice. It is to-morrow that she finds out that beneath the velvet there lay the claw of the tiger. Nothing stands but character--real, simple, transparent, solid character. That will bear a thousand blasts of opposition and hostility, and at the end will seem the richer, the chester, for the rude discipline through which it has passed. (J. Parker, D. D)
The true builders of the spiritual temple of God
That Christian work should be done only by Christians may be supported by the following reasons.
I. They alone will build on the true foundation.
II. They alone will build with the true materials.
III. They alone will build in accordance with the true plan.
IV. They alone will build with the true aim. This is the glory of God.
V. They alone will build in the true spirit. That of--
1. Obedience.
2. Humility.
3. Patience.
4. Trust in God.
5. Self-consecration. (William Jones.)
Compromising help refused
How strangely history repeats itself. In this early struggle between the Jews and the Samaritans we have a foreshadow of many a struggle in the Christian Church. When Paul and the other apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, the Greeks and the Romans would willingly enough have tolerated Christianity if Christianity would but tolerate their idolatrous systems. They would even have patronised the new religion, and would have offered no opposition to the erection of an image of Jesus amongst the images of other gods. But, when they saw that Christianity demanded the renouncing of idolatry and the exclusive worship of the one living and true God, at once priests, rulers, and people rose in arms against the preachers. Every obstacle was placed in the way of the spread of Christianity. But in spite of all persecution the Church prospered. Idolatry fought for its life and gradually lost every battle, until, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the Gospel had conquered the Roman Empire, and Christianity became the nominal religion of all her people. This is the battle, too, that the Church has to fight to-day. We can and we ought to be liberal in many things, but the followers of Jesus dare not be so liberal as to allow men of the world and men of sin to engage hand in hand with them in the Masters work. The Church ought, and she does, invite into her fellowship all classes. However fallen and bad men may be they are welcome to enter the Church. But they must leave the world and their sins behind them. There cannot be two masters. Christ must have the whole heart, the whole strength, and the entire devotion. (J. Menzies.)
Questionable money help should be refused
The Church will take money from anybody; the whole Christian Church in all her ramifications and communions cheats herself into the persuasion that she can take the money of bad men and turn it to good uses. Grander would be the Church, more virgin in her beauty and loveliness, more snow-like in her incorruptibleness, if she could say to every bad man who offers her assistance, Ye have nothing to do with us in building the house of our God: the windows shall remain unglazed, and the roof-beams unslated, before we will touch money made by the sale of poison or by practices that are marked by the utmost corruption and evil. (J. Parker, D. D)
Doubtful men a source of weakness to a church
Thus we can learn from the Old Testament a good deal that would bear immediate modern application. This is the right answer to all doubtful Christians as well as to all unbelievers. We should say to them, So long as you are doubtful you are not helpful: your character is gone on one side, and therefore it is ineffective on the other. But would not this class of discipline and scope of criticism shear down the congregations? Certainly. Would God they were shorn down! Every doubtful man amongst us is a loss, a source of weakness, a point of perplexity and vexation. We are only unanimous when we axe one in moral faith and consent. The critic will do us no good; the clever man who sees our metaphysical error will keep us back: only the soul that has given itself to Christ, out-and-out, in an unbargaining surrender, can really stand fire in the great war, end build through all weathers, and hope even in the midst of darkness. We may have too many people round about us; we may be overburdened and obstructed by numbers. The Church owes not a little of its strength to the purity of its discipline. (J. Parker, D. D)
Mental penetration in leaders
Leaders must be critical. The man who has little responsibility can soon achieve a reputation for energy. Leaders must halt, hesitate, balance, and compare things, and come to conclusions supported by the largest inferences., There are men who would take a short and ready method in accomplishing their purpose: there are men of rude strength, of undisciplined and unsanctified force. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua must look at all the offers of assistance, and ask what their real value is; they must go into the sanctuary of motive, into the arcana of purpose end under-meanings. Zerubbabel and Jeshua--men who could undertake to build a city--were men who had mental penetration; they could see into other men. They saw into the Samaritan adversaries, and said, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God. (J. Parker, D. D)
.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 6 Ezr_4:1-5; Ezr_4:24
THE LIMITS OF COMPREHENSION
Ezr_4:1-5; Ezr_4:24
Read full note →
THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra introduces the vexed question of the limits of comprehension in religion by affording a concrete illustration of it in a very acute form. Communities, like individual organisms, can only live by means of a certain adjustment to their environment, in the settlement of which there necessarily arises a serious struggle to determine what shall be absorbed and what rejected, how far it is desirable to admit alien bodies and to what extent it is necessary to exclude them. The difficulty thus occasioned appeared in the company of returned exiles soon after they had begun to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. It was the seed of many troubles. The anxieties and disappointments which overshadowed the subsequent history of nearly all of them sprang from this one source. Here we are brought to a very distinguishing characteristic of the Persian period. The idea of Jewish exclusiveness which has been so singular a feature in the whole course of Judaism right down to our own day was now in its birth-throes. Like a young Hercules, it had to fight for its life in its very cradle. It first appeared in the anxious compilation of genealogical registers and the careful sifting of the qualifications of the pilgrims before they left Babylon. In the events which followed the settlement at Jerusalem it came forward with determined insistence on its rights, in opposition to a very tempting offer which would have been fatal to its very existence.
The chronicler introduces the neighbouring people under the title "The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin"; but in doing so he is describing them according to their later actions; when they first appear on his pages their attitude is friendly, and there is no reason to suspect any hypocrisy in it. We cannot take them to be the remainder of the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom who had been permitted to stay in their land when their brethren had been violently expelled by the Assyrians, and who were now either showing their old enmity to Judah and Benjamin by trying to pick a new quarrel, or, on the other hand, manifesting a better spirit and seeking reconciliation. No doubt such people existed, especially in the north, where they became, in part at least, the ancestors of the Galileans of New Testament times. But the men now referred to distinctly assert that they were brought up to Palestine by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. Neither can they be the descendants of the Israelite priests who were sent at the request of the colonists to teach them the religion of the land when they were alarmed at an incursion of lions; {2Ki_17:25-28} for only one priest is directly mentioned in the history, and though he may have had companions and assistants, the small college of missionaries could not be called "the people of the land" (Ezr_4:4). These people must be the foreign colonists. There were Chaldaeans from Babylon and the neighbouring cities of Cutha and Sepharvaim (the modern Mosaib), Elamites from Susa, Phoenicians from Sidon-if we may trust Josephus here (Ant., 12, v. 5) - and Arabs from Petra. These had been introduced on four successive occasions-first, as the Assyrian inscriptions show, by Sargon, who sent two sets of colonists; then by Esarhaddon; and, lastly, by Ashurbanipal. (The "Onsnappar" of Ezr_4:10) The various nationalities had had time to become well amalgamated together, for the first colonisation had happened a hundred and eighty years, and the latest colonisation a hundred and thirty Years, before the Jews returned from Babylon. As the successive exportations of Israelites went on side by side with the successive importations of foreigners, the two classes must have lived together for some time; and even after the last captivity of the Israelites had been effected, those who were still left in the land would have come into contact with the colonists. Thus, apart from the special mission of the priest whose business it was to introduce the rites of sacrificial worship, the popular religion of the Israelites would have become known to the mixed heathen people who were settled among them.
These neighbours assert that they worship the God whom the Jews at Jerusalem worship, and that they have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon, the Assyrian king to whom, in particular, they attribute their being brought up to Palestine, possibly because the ancestors of the deputation to Jerusalem were among the colonists planted by that king. For a century and a half they have acknowledged the God of the Jews. They therefore request to be permitted to assist in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. At the first blush of it their petition looks reasonable and even generous. The Jews were poor; a great work lay before them; and the inadequacy of their means in view of what they aimed at had plunged the less enthusiastic among them into grief and despair. Here was an offer of assistance that might prove most efficacious. The idea of centralisation in worship of which Josiah had made so much would be furthered by this means, because instead of following the example of the Israelites before the exile who had their altar at Bethel, the colonists proposed to take part in the erection of the one Jewish temple at Jerusalem. If their previous habit of offering sacrifices in their own territory was offensive to rigorous Jews, although they might speak of it quite naively, because they were unconscious that there was anything objectionable in it and even regard it as meritorious, the very way to abolish this ancient custom was to give the colonists an interest in the central shrine. If their religion was defective, how could it be improved better than by bringing them into contact with the law-abiding Jews? While the offer of the colonists promised aid to the Jews in building the temple, it also afforded them a grand missionary opportunity for carrying out the broad programme of the Second Isaiah, who had promised the spread of the light of Gods grace among the Gentiles.
In view of these considerations we cannot but read the account of the absolute rejection of the offer by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the twelve leaders with a sense of painful disappointment. The less pleasing side of religious intensity here presents itself. Zeal seems to be passing into fanaticism. A selfish element mars the picture of whole-hearted devotion which was so delightfully portrayed in the history of the returned exiles up to this time. The leaders are cautious enough to couch their answer in terms that seem to hint at their inability to comply with the friendly request of their neighbours, however much they may wish to do so, because of the limitation imposed upon them in the edict of Cyrus which confined the command to build the temple at Jerusalem to the Jews. But it is evident that the secret of the refusal is in the mind and will of the Jews themselves. They absolutely decline any co-operation with the colonists. There is a sting in the carefully chosen language with which they define their work; they call it building a house "unto our God." Thus they not only accept the polite phrase "Your God" employed by the colonists in addressing them; but by markedly accentuating its limitation they disallow any right of the colonists to claim the same divinity.
Such a curt refusal of friendly overtures was naturally most offensive to the people who received it. But their subsequent conduct was so bitterly ill-natured that we are driven to think they must have had some selfish aims from the first. They at once set some paid agents to work at court to poison the mind of the government with calumnies about the Jews. It is scarcely likely that they were able to win Cyrus over to their side against his favourite proteges. The king may have been too absorbed with the great affairs of his vast dominions for any murmur of this business to reach him while it was being disposed of by some official. But perhaps the matter did not come up till after Cyrus had handed over the government to his son Cambyses, which he did in the year B.C. 532-three years before his death. At all events the calumnies were successful. The work of the temple building was arrested at its very commencement-for as yet little more had been done beyond collecting materials. The Jews were paying dearly for their exclusiveness.
All this looks very miserable. But let us examine the situation.
We should show a total lack of the historical spirit if we were to judge the conduct of Zerubbabel and his companions by the broad principles of Christian liberalism. We must take into account their religious training and the measure of light to which they had attained. We must also consider the singularly difficult position in which they were placed. They were not a nation; they were a Church. Their very existence, therefore, depended upon a certain ecclesiastical organisation. They must have shaped themselves according to some definite lines, or they would have melted away into the mass of mixed. nationalities and debased eclectic religions with which they were surrounded. Whether the course of personal exclusiveness which they chose was wisest and best may be fairly questioned. It has been the course followed by their children all through the centuries, and it has acquired this much of justification-it has succeeded. Judaism has been preserved by Jewish exclusiveness. We may think that the essential truths of Judaism might have been maintained by other means which would have allowed of a more gracious treatment of outsiders. Meanwhile, however, we must see that Zerubbabel and his companions were not simply indulging in churlish unsociability when they rejected the request of their neighbours. Rightly or wrongly, they took this disagreeable course with a great purpose in mind.
Then we must understand what the request of the colonists really involved. It is true they only asked to be allowed to assist in building the temple. But it would have been impossible to stay here. If they had taken an active share in the labour and sacrifice of the construction of the temple, they could not have been excluded afterwards from taking part in the temple worship. This is the more clear since the very grounds of their request were that they worshipped and sacrificed to the God of the Jews. Now a great prophet had predicted that Gods house was to be a house of prayer for all nations. {Isa_56:7} But the Jews at Jerusalem belonged to a very different school of thought. With them, as we have learnt from the genealogies, the racial idea was predominant. Judaism was for the Jews.
But let us understand what that religion was which the colonists asserted to be identical with the religion of the returned exiles. They said they worshipped the God of the Jews, but it was after the manner of the people of the Northern Kingdom. In the days of the Israelites that worship had been associated with the steer at Bethel, and the people of Jerusalem had condemned the degenerate religion of their northern brethren as sinful in the sight of God. But the colonists had not confined themselves to this. They had combined their old idolatrous religion with that of the newly adopted indigenous divinity of Palestine. "They feared the Lord, and served their own gods." {Isa_56:7} Between them, they adored a host of Pagan divinities, whose barbarous names are grimly noted by the Hebrew historian-Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, etc. {2Ki_17:30-31} There is no evidence to show that this heathenism had become extinct by the time of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. At all events, the bastard product of such a worship as that of the Bethel steer and the Babylonian and Phoenician divinities, even when purged of its most gross corruption, was not likely to be after the mind of the puritan pilgrims. The colonists did not offer to adopt the traditional Torah, which the returned exiles were sedulously observing.
Still it may be said, if the people were imperfect in knowledge and corrupt in practice, might not the Jews have enlightened and helped them? We are reminded of the reproach that Bede brings so sternly against the ancient British Christians when he blames them for not having taught the gospel to the Saxon heathen who had invaded their land. How far it would have been possible for a feeble people to evangelise their more powerful neighbours, in either case, it is impossible to say.
It cannot be denied, however, that in their refusal the Jews gave prominence to racial and not to religious distinctions. Yet even in this matter it would be unreasonable for us to expect them to have surpassed the early Christian Church at Jerusalem and to have anticipated the daring liberalism of St. Paul. The followers of St. James were reluctant to receive any converts into their communion except on condition of circumcision. This meant that Gentiles must become Jews before they could be recognised as Christians. Now there was no sign that the mixed race of colonists ever contemplated becoming Jews by humbling themselves to a rite of initiation. Even if most of them were already circumcised, as far as we know none of them gave an indication of willingness to subject themselves wholly to Jewish ordinances. To receive them, therefore, would be contrary to the root principle of Judaism. It is not fair to mete out a harsh condemnation to Jews who declined to do what was only allowed among Christians after a desperate struggle, which separated the leader of the liberal party from many of his brethren and left him for a long while under a cloud of suspicion.
Great confusion has been imported into the controversy on Church comprehension by not keeping it separate from the question of tolerance in religion. The two are distinct in many respects. Comprehension is an ecclesiastical matter; tolerance is primarily concerned with the policy of the state. Whilst it is admitted that nobody should be coerced in his religion by the state, it is not therefore to be assumed that everybody is to be received into the Church.
Nevertheless we feel that there is, a real and vital connection between the ideas of tolerance and Church comprehensiveness. A Church may become culpably intolerant, although she may not use the power of the state for the execution of her mandates; she may contrive many painful forms of persecution, without resorting to the rack and the thumb-screw. The question therefore arises, What are the limits to tolerance within a Church? The attempt to fix these limits by creeds and canons has not been wholly successful, either in excluding the unworthy or in including the most desirable members. The drift of thought in the present day being towards wider comprehensiveness, it becomes increasingly desirable to determine on what principles this may be attained. Good men are weary of the little garden walled around, and they doubt whether it is altogether the Lords peculiar ground; they have discovered that many of the flowers of the field are fair and fragrant, and they have a keen suspicion that not a few weeds may lurk even in the trim parterre; so they look over the wall and long for breath and brotherhood, in a large recognition of all that is good in the world. Now the dull religious lethargy of the eighteenth century is a warning against the chief danger that threatens those who yield themselves to this fascinating impulse. Latitudinarianism sought to widen the fold that had been narrowed on one side by sacerdotal pretensions and on the other side by puritan rigour. The result was that the fold almost disappeared. Then religion was nearly swallowed up in the swamps of indifference. This deplorable issue of a well-meant attempt to serve the cause of charity suggests that there is little good in breaking down the barriers of exclusiveness unless we have first established a potent centre of unity. If we have put an end to division simply by destroying the interests which once divided men, we have only attained the communion of death. In the graveyard friend and foe lie peaceably side by side, but only because both are dead. Wherever there is life two opposite influences are invariably at work. There is a force of attraction drawing in all that is congenial, and there is a force of a contrary character repelling everything that is uncongenial. Any attempt to tamper with either of these forces must result in disaster. A social or an ecclesiastical division that arbitrarily crosses the lines of natural affinity creates a schism in the body, and leads to a painful mutilation of fellowship. On the other hand, a forced comprehension of alien elements produces internal friction, which often leads to an explosion, shattering the whole fabric. But the common mistake has been in attending to the circumference and neglecting the centre, in beating the bounds of the parish instead of fortifying the citadel. The liberalism of St. Paul was not latitudinarian, because it was inspired by a vital principle which served as the centre of all his teaching. He preached liberty and comprehensiveness, because he had first preached Christ. In Christ he found at once a bond of union and an escape from narrowness. The middle wall of partition was broken down, not by a Vandal armed with nothing better than the besom of destruction, but by the Founder of a new kingdom, who could dispense with artificial restrictions because He could draw all men unto Himself.
Unfortunately the returned captives at Jerusalem did not feel conscious of any such spiritual centre of unity. They might have found it in their grandly simple creed, in their faith in God. But their absorption in sacrificial ritual and its adjuncts shows that they were too much under the influence of religious externalism. This being the case, they could only preserve the purity of their communion by carefully guarding its gates. It is pitiable to see that they could find no better means of doing this than the harsh test of racial integrity. Their action in this matter fostered a pride of birth which was as injurious to their own better lives as it was to the extension of their religion in the world. But so long as they were incapable of a larger method, if they had accepted counsels of liberalism they would have lost themselves and their mission. Looking at the positive side of their mission, we see how the Jews were called to bear witness to the great principle of separateness. This principle is as essential to Christianity as it was to Judaism. The only difference is that with the more spiritual faith it takes a more spiritual form. The people of God must ever be consecrated to God, and therefore separate from sin, separate from the world-separate unto God.
NOTE.-For the section Ezr_4:6-23 see Chapter 14. This section is marked by a change of language; the writer adopts Aramaic at Ezr_4:8, and he continues in that language down to Ezr_6:18. The decree of Artaxerxes in Ezr_7:12-26 is also in Aramaic.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.] In this chapter we have—(i.)…
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.] In this chapter we have—(i.) The proposal of the Samaritans to unite with the Jews in building the Temple, and its rejection (Ezr_4:1-3). (ii.) The opposition of the Samaritans because of the rejection of their proposal (Ezr_4:4-5). (iii.) The letters of the Samaritans to King Artaxerxes against the Jews, one of which is here given (Ezr_4:6-16). (iv.) The reply of Artaxerxes to their letter (Ezr_4:17-22). (v.) The stoppage of the building of the Temple (Ezr_4:23-24).
Ezr_4:1. The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin] These “adversaries” speak of themselves in the second verse as having been brought up hither by Esarhaddon king of Assur. They are the peoples spoken of in 2Ki_17:24 : “And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.” They described themselvess in Ezr_4:9-10, as “the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations,” &c. They “were called Samaritans after the central point of their settlement.” They were a very mixed people, including some Israelites, but chiefly composed of heathens.
Read full note →
Ezr_4:2. For we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him] They did worship Jehovah, but not as the faithful Jews did. They worshipped Him not as the only living and true God, but as one amongst others, according to the statement in 2Ki_17:29-33.
Ezr_4:3. Ye have nothing to do with us to build] &c. “The question was not,” as Keil observes, “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. 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.” But we ourselves together] = “we as a compact unity, excluding others.”—Schultz.
Ezr_4:4. The people of the land] i.e. “the adversaries,” of Ezr_4:1. Weakened the hands] &c. Hindered them by diminishing their courage and strength for the work.
Ezr_4:5. And hired counsellors against them, to frustate their purpose] Whether by “hired counsellors” we are to understand ministers of state whom the Samaritans bribed, or legal agents whom they employed to bring about a stoppage of the work, is uncertain. All the days of Cyrus king of Persia] &c. “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 till 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 years of his reign).”—Keil.
Ezr_4:6-7. Ahasuerus.… Artaxerxes. Heb. Ahashverosh.… Artachshashta] Dr. Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta, says that Ahasuerus “must be Cambyses,” the successor of Cyrus, and Artaxerxes “must be the Pseudo-Smerdis” (Bibl. Dict.). So also Rawlinson, et al. But Keil, Schultz, et al., hold that by Ahasuerus we must understand Xerxes, and by Artaxerxes “really Artaxerxes” Longimanus. The question is argued by them at considerable length in their observations in loco. Bishop Hervey takes the same view, and states it thus: “Ezr_4:6-23 is a parenthetic addition by a much later hand, and, as the passage most clearly shows, made in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. The compiler who inserted chap. 2, a document drawn up in the reign of Artaxerxes, to illustrate the return of the captives under Zerubbabel, here inserts a notice of two historical facts—of which one occurred in the reign of Xerxes, and the other in the reign of Artaxerxes—to illustrate the opposition offered by the heathen to the rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses. He tells us that in the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, i.e. before Esther was in favour, they had written to the king to prejudice him against the Jews—a circumstance, by the way, which may rather have inclined him to listen to Haman’s proposition; and he gives the text of letters sent to Artaxerxes, and of Artaxerxes’ answer, on the strength of which Rehum and Shimshai forcibly hindered the Jews from rebuilding the city. These letters doubtless came into Ezra’s hands at Babylon, and may have led to those endeavours on his part to make the king favourable to Jerusalem which issued in his own commission in the seventh year of his reign. At Ezr_4:24 Haggai’s narrative proceeds in connection with Ezr_4:5.” Fuerst also holds that Ahasuerus was Xerxes, but on Artaxerxes he says that the name was “borne by Pseudo-Smerdis and Artaxerxes Longimanus.” But if Ahasuerus was Xerxes, the Artaxerxes of the text must have been Artaxerxes Longimanus. Matthew Henry propounds another view, viz., that Ahasuerus (Ezr_4:6) was also called Artaxerxes (Ezr_4:7), and is identical with Cambyses. The view of Rawlinson is perhaps correct, that the theory that Ahasuerus is Cambyses and Artaxerxes the Pseudo-Smerdis “presents fewer difficulties than any other.” But, notwithstanding difficulties, the other theory seems to us to be the true one. It is beyond our province to enter further into the question.
Ezr_4:7. Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel] “These names certainly indicate Samaritans who, without being Persian officials, enjoyed, just as Sanballat subsequently, a certain degree of consequence.”—Schultz. And the rest of their companions] Margin: “Heb. societies.” Fuerst: “Associates, colleagues.” The writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue] It was written in Syriac or Aramaic characters. And interpreted in the Syrian tongue] It was in the Syriac or Aramaic language. Both the characters and the language were Aramaic. The Samaritans “spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to” Aramaic; and what they had thought in their own language they translated into Aramaic, and wrote in Aramaic characters.
Ezr_4:8. Rehum the chancellor] Heb. בְּעֵל־טְעֵם. Fuerst: “Properly, lord of the (royal) decree, i.e. either stadtholder, and so the parallel is פֶּחָה, (comp. Ezr_5:3; Ezr_6:6, or, according to Ezra Apocr. ii. 25; Jos. (Arch. xi. 2), and Kimchi, &c.) = סָפֵר מַזְכִּיר, chancellor; but the former is more probable.” It is probably the title of the Persian governor of the Samaritan province. Shimshai the scribe] Margin: “Or, secretary.” Fuerst: “Royal scribe.”
Ezr_4:9. The Dinaites] were probably, as suggested by Ewald, people from the Median city Deinaver. Rawlinson suggests that they were the people of Dayan, a country bordering on Cilicia. The Apharsathchites] were probably the same as the Apharsachites” (chap. Ezr_5:6), and were perhaps identical with the Parætacæ, or Parætaceni, a tribe of mountaineers living on the borders of Media and Persia. The Tarpelites]: “The territory Tarpel has been supposed to be found in (Τάπουροι) of Ptolemy, cast of Elam, with which it is mentioned; more correctly, perhaps, the territory Tarpel is at the Mæotic swamp, whose inhabitants Ταρπητες are mentioned in Strabo (i. p. 757). In no case can it be the Phœnician Tripolis.”—Fuerst. The Apharsites] are by some regarded as Persians, by others as the Parhasü, in eastern Media. The Archevites] were people from the city Erech, now Warka. The Susanchites], or Susanites, were from the city of Susa. The Dehavites] were the Dai or Dahi, mentioned by Herodotus (i. 125) among the nomadic tribes of Persia. The Elamites] were the original inhabitants of the country called Elam.
Ezr_4:10. The great and noble Asnapper] seems to have been a distinguished officer in the service of Esarhaddon (Ezr_4:2), and employed by him to conduct the colonists to Samaria and arrange their settlement there. And at such a time.] Chaldee וּכְעֶנֶת = “and so now, Ezr_4:10; Ezr_7:12, i.e. and so forth, et cetera.”—Fuerst.
Ezr_4:12. And have set up the walls] &c. Keil would translate: “And are setting up its walls and digging its foundations.” “Repairing” (Fuerst) “its foundations” would perhaps be better.
Ezr_4:13. Toll] Rather tax or tribute; the money payment required from every one. Tribute] “A tax on articles consumed, excise.—Fuerst. Custom] “A road tax, a toll.” Ibid. Thou shalt endamage the revenue] The meaning of the word rendered “revenue” in the text, and “strength” in the margin, is entirely uncertain. Keil, Rawlinson, and others say that אַפְּתֹם depends upon the Pehlevi word אודום, and signifies “at last.” “And so at last thou shalt endamage the kings.” Fuerst, however, says that this “gives no suitable sense.” But it seems to us, as Schultz observes, that “the meaning of ‘finally,’ ‘at last,’ is entirely appropriate.”
Ezr_4:14. We have maintenance from the king’s palace] Margin: “We are salted with the salt of the palace.” The Heb. is, “We salt the salt of the palace;” i.e. we eat the salt of the palace; a figurative expression, signifying to be in the king’s service and to obtain subsistence from him, and implying the obligation to look after his interests. The king’s dishonour] Keil: “The damage of the king” עַרְוָה, deprivation, emptying, here injury to the royal power or revenue.”
Ezr_4:15. The book of the records of thy fathers.] It is called in Est_6:1, “the book of the records of the chronicles.” Thy fathers] are the predecessors of the king on the throne, and the term applies not only to the Medo Persian but also to the Chaldean sovereigns. Of old time] Heb.: “From the days of eternity,” i.e. from time immemorial. For which cause was this city destroyed]—by Nebuchadnezzar.
Ezr_4:16. No portion on this side the river] The statement amounts to this, that the returned Jews, if allowed to rebuild and fortify Jerusalem, would seize all the country west of the Euphrates, and so the king would lose that part of his dominions. A very absurd exaggeration.
Ezr_4:17. And at such a time] Rather, “And so forth.” (See on Ezr_4:10.)
Ezr_4:18. Read before me] Persian monarchs were not accustomed to read letters or records themselves, but to have them read to them by others (comp. Est_6:1).
Ezr_4:20. There have been mighty kings] &c. This is most applicable to David and Solomon, and in a smaller degree to Uzziah, Jotham, and Josiah. Ruled over all beyond the river] i.e. over all the region west of the Euphrates.
Ezr_4:23. By force and power] Or, as in the margin, “By arm and power.” They compelled the Jews to desist from building.
Ezr_4:24. According to Keil, Schultz, et al., the historian in this verse takes up the thread of the narrative which he dropped at the close of Ezr_4:5, in order that, by inserting the episodical section (Ezr_4:6-23), he might give in this place “a short and comprehensive view of all the hostile acts against the Jewish community on the part of the Samaritans and surrounding nations.” In their view this verse refers to the opposition which was commenced in the reign of Cyrus, while Ezr_4:6-23 narrate subsequent hostilities. But according to the view of Bishop Cotton, that Ahasuerus (Ezr_4:6) must be Cambyses and Artaxerxes (Ezr_4:7) the Pseudo-Smerdis, and that this chapter is one continuous narrative, the enforced suspension of the work lasted for about two years.
THE PROPOSAL OF THE SAMARITANS TO THE JEWS
(Ezr_4:1-3)
Notice:
I. The proposal made by the Samaritans. “Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel; then they came to Zerubbabel,” &c. (Ezr_4:1-2). This proposal was—
1. Plausible in its form. They proposed—
(1) To render help in a great and good work. “They said, Let us build with you.” They do not ask for anything for themselves, except permission to co-operate in building “the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel;” but they offer something to the Jews, even their assistance in their great undertaking.
(2.) To render help in this work for an excellent reason. “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.” They urge that they were worshippers of Jehovah even as the Jews were; that they were interested in the promotion of His honour; and that it would therefore be appropriate for them to unite in building a temple unto Him. Moreover, the returned Jews being neither a strong nor a wealthy people, and having much to occupy their time and energies, would naturally be prepared to welcome any suitable offers of assistance. Temptation is always plausible in its presentation to the tempted. (a). But this proposal was—
2. Evil in itself. Fair and plausible in appearance, it was false and perilous in reality. The evil of their proposal will appear if we consider that—
(1.) They were not Israelites. They were brought into Samaria by Esarhaddon king of Assur. “And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim,” &c. (2Ki_17:24). They were “Dinaites, Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians, Susanchites, Dehavites, and Elamites” (Ezr_4:9). If it be allowed that these peoples had become mixed by marriage with the remnant of the Israelites who remained in the land at the captivity, still the heathen elements and usages and influences were predominant amongst them. They were not Israelites either by descent or by sympathy.
(2.) They did not worship Jehovah as the true God. When they were first planted in Samaria they were ignorant of the worship of Jehovah; and after they had been instructed in it, they adopted it not as exclusive of the worship of other gods but in common with such worship. “They feared the Lord, and served their own gods,” &c. “These nations feared the Lord, and served their graven images,” &c. (2Ki_18:24-37). To have received such a people into community and co-operation with the true people of God would have been an act of utter unfaithfulness and disloyalty to Him.
(3.) Their design in making this proposal was an unworthy one. “The occasion of this request of the Samaritans,” says Schultz, “was the correct recognition of the fact that those who should have the Temple at Jerusalem would be regarded as the leading nation, whilst those who should be excluded from this central point of the worship of the land would appear as less authorised, as intrusive; they likewise no doubt expected, if they were admitted to participation in the building of the Temple, as well as to consultation with reference to it, to gain thereby influence in shaping the affairs of the congregation in general. If in addition to this they had also a religious interest in the matter, it was only in order to secure for themselves the favour of the God of the land, whom they recognised as Jehovah, and then therewith also the same possessions and blessings in their new home as the Jews designed for themselves. We cannot regard them as actuated by any higher and purer motive; for their entire subsequent behaviour, which makes them appear as quite indifferent to religious affairs, and also that which we elsewhere learn of their religion (2Ki_17:24-41), is opposed to that view.”
(4.) The acceptance of their proposal would have been perilous to the Jews. Proneness to associate with their heathen neighbours and to adopt their idolatrous customs had been painfully prevalent in the Israelites previous to their captivity, and had been the chief cause of their miseries. To have acceded to the proposal of the Samaritans would have been to have placed themselves in the utmost danger of falling again into their former sins with all their train of bitter consequences. They were not strong enough to overcome the heathen elements and influences which they must have encountered in association with the idolatrous Samaritans. In such association there was grave peril to their best interests. Separation from the Samaritans was essential to the spiritual safety of the Jews. (b).
II. The proposal rejected by the Jews. “But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them,” &c. (Ezr_4:3). In this rejection there are several noteworthy points—
1. An exclusive obligation in relation to the work is asserted. “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel.” In such an undertaking the Jews and the Samaritans had nothing in common. The obligation to build the Temple devolved upon the Jews, and they alone would fulfil that obligation.
2. The alleged similarity of worship is indirectly denied. The rulers of the Jews in their reply to the Samaritans speak of “our God” and of “the Lord God of Israel,” implying that He was not the God of the Samaritans. The returned exiles worshipped Jehovah as the only living and true God, while the Samaritans worshipped Him simply as a local deity, as one god amongst others. In this sense, then, He was “the Lord God of Israel,” but not of the Samaritans. (c).
3. The command of King Cyrus is adduced in support of this rejection. “As King Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.” The authority of Cyrus was binding upon both the Jews and the Samaritans. The Jews had his commission to come to Jerusalem and build the Temple; but if it was a work which the Samaritans could appropriately undertake, he need not have encouraged or even allowed the Jews to leave Babylon to do it. Again, if it was a work which might be done by others than Jews, why, seeing that he was so much interested in it, did he not undertake it himself? The mentioning of the authority of King Cyrus by the Jewish leaders was certainly a prudent thing. “Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”
4. The rejection of the proposal was unanimous. “Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel,” i.e., all the heads of the people, concurred in declining the co-operation of the Samaritans. This unanimity is further indicated in the expression, “We ourselves together will build,” which Schultz correctly explains, “we, as a compact unity, excluding others.” If the Church of Christ would stand against and conquer its enemies, it must present to them a compact opposition. (d).
5. The rejection of the proposal was prompt and decided. There is neither hesitation nor uncertainty in the reply of the heads of the Jewish people to the Samaritans. It is perilous to parley with evil proposals. They should be immediately and firmly repudiated. (e).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) It was but a shallow device, and showed a very inadequate conception of devilish art, to represent Satan a hideous and repulsive figure, with frightful marks to be recognised by, with a beastly foot to certify his track, and all concentrated malignities on his distorted features. Why, men would run from such ugliness by instinct; and if this were the type of evil, it could never come near enough to tempt us. Our virtue would be safe against a seducer that inspired nothing but disgust. In the real Satan we must look for a shrewder cunning, a more subtle diplomacy, a more politic disguise. Whatever he may have been to the superstitious fears of ruder ages, to try the temper of the nineteenth century he takes on the address of a courtier, the self-possession of a man of the world, the royal dignity of a prince, the beauty of a seraph, and the manners of a gentleman. If you meet him now—and meet him you certainly will to-morrow and to-day—he will be transformed into an angel of light.—F. D. Huntington, D.D.
(b) Let not any so much presume upon their own strength as to imagine that they can retain their sincerity, though they keep wicked company, and rather convert them to good than be perverted by them to evil, seeing this is a matter of great difficulty. “To be good among the good,” says Bernard, “has in it health and safety; among the wicked to be so, is also commendable and praiseworthy: in that, happiness is joined with much security; in this, much virtue with difficulty.” For as he who is running down the hill can sooner pull with him one that is ascending, than he who is going up can cause him to ascend that is running down; so he who holds a headlong course in wickedness can more easily carry with him one that is ascending the hill of Virtue, being a motion contrary to natural disposition, than he can cause him to ascend with him. For in common experience we see that the worser state prevails more in altering the better to its condition, than the better to make the worse like itself. The infected are not so soon cured by the sound, as they are tainted with their contagion. Rotten apples lying with the sound are not restored to soundness, but the sound are corrupted with their rottenness. Dead carcasses united to living bodies are not thereby revived, unless it be by miracle, as we see in Elijah and Peter; but the living, if they continue any time united to the dead, partake with them in their mortality and corruption. And thus it is in our spiritual state, wherein the worse more prevails to corrupt the better, than the better to reform the worse.—Downame.
(c) Prone before, on every occasion, to adopt the idolatrous practices of the adjacent nations, the Jews now secluded themselves from the rest of the world in proud assurance of their own religious superiority. The law, which of old was perpetually violated, or almost forgotten, was now enforced, by general consent to its extreme point, or even beyond it. Adversity endeared that, of which in prosperity, they had not perceived the value. Prone, the mass of them, all but the wiser and more enlightened who worshipped Jehovah, to worship Him but as a national God, greater and mightier than the gods of other nations (a conception in itself polytheistic), they threw aside this lower kind of pride, to assume that of the sole people of the one true God. Their city, their native soil, their religion, became the objects of the most passionate attachment. Intermarriages with foreigners, neither forbidden by statute nor by former practice, were strictly inhibited. The observance of the Sabbath, and even of the sabbatical year, was enforced with rigour of which we have no precedent in the earlier annals, even to the neglect of defence in time of war. In short, from this period commences that unsocial spirit, that hatred towards mankind and want of humanity to all but their own kindred, with which, notwithstanding the extent to which they carried proselytism to their religion, the Jews are branded by all the Roman writers. The best of these writers could not but be unconsciously or involuntarily impressed by the majesty of this sublime monotheism, but their pride resented the assumption of religious superiority by this small people; and the stern self-isolation of the Jews from all religious communion with the rest of mankind was beheld only in its seemingly proud and lonely obstinacy—in its refusal to contaminate itself with what it openly declared to be the unholy and unrighteous and foolish usages of the world.—H. H. Milman, D.D.
(d) Union is power. The most attenuated thread, when sufficiently multiplied, will form the strongest cable. A single drop of water is a weak and powerless thing; but an infinite number of drops, united by the force of attraction, will form a stream; and many streams combined will form a river; till rivers pour their waters into the mighty ocean, whose proud waves, defying the power of man, none can stay but He who formed them. And thus forces which, acting singly, are utterly impotent, are, when acting in combination, resistless in their energies, mighty in power. And when this great union of the several powers of the Church shall be brought to bear unitedly on one point, its triumph will be the subjection of a world to Christ which now defies the solitary efforts of single forces.—H. G. Salter.
(e) Decision of character and promptitude of action, qualities so important on board ship in a storm, in the manœuvring of troops in battle, are indispensable to the Christian life, both to our getting through the “strait gate,” and our getting on in the “narrow way.” How often, for example, does it happen that to hesitate even for one moment between resisting and yielding to temptation is to fall! The battle is lost in that moment of vacillation. In such cases, our safety lies in coming to an immediate decision; in promptly resolving to dally with the tempter not an instant, to flee if we can, and if we cannot flee to fight—so resisting the devil that if we cannot flee from him, he shall flee from us, and leave us.—Thomas Guthrie, D.D.
THE PROPOSALS OF THE WICKED AND HOW TO TREAT THEM
(Ezr_4:1-3)
“The children of the captivity” who had returned to their own land were true Israelites, both in their origin and in their sympathies; the Samaritans were heathens of various races, or at best only heathens mingled with Israelites. The Jews were decided monotheists; the Samaritans were confirmed polytheists, and are here correctly described as “the adversaries of” the Jews. For these reasons we may fairly regard the Jews as representing the true and good, and the Samaritans the false and evil. Viewed in this respect, the text suggests—
I. That the wicked often propose to enter into alliance with the good. “Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel; then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you.” For selfish reasons these idolaters propose to co-operate with the Jews in building the Temple of the true and only God. In like manner worldly and wicked men often seek to form alliances with the religious and the godly. These alliances are of different kinds, e.g.—
1. Commercial. Partnerships in business, &c.
2. Social. Reception into their society, or personal friendship.
3. Matrimonial. From various selfish motives the non-religious man may seek a religious woman for his wife; or the worldly woman a godly man.
4. And even, as in this case, Religious. Persons who have no real godliness, actuated by unworthy motives, sometimes seek to co-operate in religious enterprises.
II. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good are often supported by plausible reasons. “For we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him,” &c. How plausible! And men argue with equal plausibility for the formation of alliances between the worldly and the godly in our own day. Take the alliances mentioned above, and see how men argue for them.
1. Commercial. It is argued that religious principles have nothing to do with business transactions.
2. Social. That the advantage and enjoyment of social intercourse is independent of the question of personal piety.
3. Matrimonial. That the ungodly partner will soon be won over to the beliefs and practices of the godly one; or, at the very least, will derive much moral benefit.
4. Religious. That there is very little difference between the two parties; as, in the argument of the Samaritans. Such proposals must needs be plausibly supported, or they would not have even the remotest chance of acceptance. (a).
III. That the alliances proposed by the wicked are always perilous to the good. The Samaritans were “the adversaries of the” Jews, and their proposal was a dangerous one to the Jews. And the alliances we have spoken of place the best interests of the godly in jeopardy. In such business partnerships the good man’s high standard of morality and business principle is in sore danger of a sad reduction. In social and matrimonial relationships of this mixed moral character there is great danger that the delicate bloom of piety will be soon swept away, that zeal for truth and for God will grow cold, that habits of devotion will gradually fail, and thus the very life of the soul will be gravely imperilled. And if the wicked be admitted into religious alliances and enterprises, such enterprises will run imminent risk of being first degraded and then defeated. (b).
IV. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good should always be firmly rejected. The leaders of the Jews are an example to us in this respect. “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,” &c. When the difference of character is essential and radical, there should be no hesitation as to the treatment of such proposals. Occasional association between the unmistakably good and the unmistakably wicked is sometimes justifiable and necessary; as in business transactions and in the efforts of the good to benefit the wicked. “I pray not,” said Christ, “that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” (c). But the first suggestion of intimate association or close alliance between them, however plausibly presented and enforced, should be at once and decisively checked by the good. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” &c. (2Co_6:14-18). Resist temptation promptly and firmly. (d).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Satan never plays a bold game. He wins by not showing his worst at first, by concealing his tricks, transformed into an angel of light. It takes a great deal of effort to put us thoroughly on our guard against his wiles; but when it is done, it is worth the pains. Tempting men imitate their great leader and prototype. They never go directly and openly to their object. If they would bend you from your integrity, they will flatter your self-respect by holding out to you a moral inducement. If they would corrupt your purity, they insinuate the poison through some appeal to your better affections. If they would weaken the holy restraints that gird in, with their blessed zone, the innocence of childhood, they will urge some sly argument to an honourable pride, or else to a friendly sympathy, or else to a praiseworthy love of independence; and the first battery that has been plied against many a boy’s virtue has been the cunning caution that bade him not be afraid of his elders. They may say, as Milton makes the Archfiend say, sitting like a cormorant on a tree that overlooked the sinless Eden and the yet innocent inmates, deceiving even his own black heart—
“Should I at your harmless innocence
Melt, as I do, yet public reason just,
Honour and empire, with revenge enlarged
By conquering this new world, compels me now
To do what else, though damned, I should abhor.”
Theologians can cover their sectarian misrepresentations with the plea of “zeal for the cause,” and controversialists baptize their bigotry with language of Holy Writ wrested from its meaning.
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose …
Oh what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
Says the Apostle Paul, “If Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”—F. D. Huntington, D.D.
(b) Man, being a sociable creature, is mightily encouraged to do as others do, especially in an evil example; for we are more susceptible of evil than we are of good. Sickness is sooner communicated than health; we easily catch a disease of one another, but those that are sound do not communicate health to the diseased. Or rather, to take God’s own expression that sets it forth thus,—by touching the unclean the man became unclean under the law, but by touching the clean the man was not purified. The conversation of the wicked has more power to corrupt the good, than the conversation of the virtuous and holy to correct the lewd.—Manton.
(c) All company with unbelievers or misbelievers is not condemned. We find a Lot in Sodom, Israel with the Egyptians, Abraham and Isaac with their Abimelechs; roses among thorns, and pearls in mud; and Jesus Christ among publicans and sinners. So neither we be infected, nor the name of the Lord wronged, to converse with them that we may convert them is a holy course. But still we must be among them as strangers: to pass through an infected place is one thing, to dwell in it another. The earth is the Lord’s, and men are His; wheresoever God shall find the merchant, let him be sure to find God in every place.—Thomas Adams.
(d) Keep the devil at arm’s length, and fight him at a distance. Suffer him, in easy security, to draw near, and resistance is over; the citadel of your soul is won. Nine-tenths of the gross, degrading, damning sins into which people are betrayed, are committed without premeditation, nay, with a clear purpose against them; but a man or a woman has toyed with temptation—just thus far I can venture, and stop short of foul and fatal sin. And then, as the poor bird when he sees the bait in the trap, Satan knows he has you fast; he knows that those encroachments are never staid. The art of godly living in its earlier stages is an art of wise defences, a constant, earnest vigilance at the outworks of the spirit, that they may never be stormed or sapped by the foe. Gradually, as a man grows in grace and godliness, the outer defence may be abandoned. Paul, the aged, could look steadily in the face many a peril which Paul the neophyte would have wisely shunned. But let the young pilgrim of life beware, and if he feels himself in an atmosphere of temptation, let him raise bulwarks of habits and self-denials by which the pestilent foe may be kept as far as may be from the near neighbourhood of the soul.—J. B. Brown, B.A.
THE TRUE BUILDERS OF THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE OF GOD
(Ezr_4:3)
The chiefs of the Jewish community here affirm that the building of the Temple at Jerusalem was their work, that the Samaritans had no proper part in it; and that, therefore, they would do the work themselves, without the proffered aid of the Samaritans. This position, which they took up and maintained, suggests that the true spiritual Israelites are the only authorised and legitimate builders of the spiritual Temple of God, or that Christian work should be done only by Christians. This position may be supported by the following reasons:—
I. They alone will build on the time foundation. “Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” He is the only foundation of a true character; the only corner-stone of a true church. Neither theological creeds or systems, nor ecclesiastical politics, nor even divinely instituted sacraments, nor schemes of social improvement, nor the unreliable excellences and fancied merits of individuals—none of these, nor all of them combined, can be the true foundation of the spiritual Temple of God. Christ is the only true and sure foundation. And the true Christian, who is both a stone in the edifice and also a builder of the edifice, is himself built upon Christ and builds others upon Him. He who is not himself a true Christian will suggest some other foundation, &c. (a).
II. They alone will build with the true materials. The spiritual temple is to be built of living and Christly souls. “Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood.” The Christian Church should be composed of Christian persons, and only of them. The great spiritual dwelling-place of God must be constructed of spiritual persons. The carnally-minded, the worldly-minded, the ungodly, have no true place in it. The Christian builder will seek to build the edifice of true materials; he will “build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones.” Those who are not them selves true Christians would build of “wood, hay, stubble;” they would put into the edifice unsuitable materials, &c. (b).
III. They alone will build in accordance with the true plan. The design of the Church is Divine. They who labour in the erection of the spiritual temple are not to carry out their own ideas, but to fulfil the plan of God. The Lord Jesus is the great Master Builder: He also superintends the work. The business of the workmen is to carry out His directions. Here are some glimpses of the Divine design for this temple. “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.” “A glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Only the members of the true spiritual Israel will keep the Divine plan in view, and faithfully build in accordance with it.
IV. They alone will build with the true aim. What is the great end of the spiritual temple which is being built amongst men? The glory of God. For this end the Jews rebuilt their Temple. This is the end of the great redemptive work of our Lord and Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, and of all Christian agencies. “Ye are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” “Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” “Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God.” The final cause of this spiritual temple is that God shall be manifest in it everywhere, realised everywhere, obeyed everywhere, adored everywhere. Only the godly will faithfully labour for this end. The ungodly, like the Samaritans, will be moved by political or other inferior considerations, and will aim at some selfish end.
V. They alone will build in the true spirit. The true spirit for Christian work is that of—
1. Obedience, as opposed to self-will.
2. Humility, as opposed to haughtiness and self-conceit.
3. Patience in dealing with difficulties and disappointments, as opposed to petulance.
4. Trust in God, as opposed to self-confidence.
5. Self-consecration, as opposed to self-seeking. This is the true spirit for the builders of the spiritual Temple of our God; and this spirit belongs only to the true people of God. The first and chief condition of doing good to others is being good ourselves. To accomplish successful Christian work we must live sincere Christian lives. And so our subject brings us to the cross and to the Saviour, to the atonement and the example of the Lord Jesus. Fitness for holy work begins by trusting in Him, and is maintained by imitating Him. (c).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Christ is often called the foundation; the stone; the corner-stone on which the Church is reared (Isa_28:16; Mat_21:42; Act_4:11; Eph_2:20; 2Ti_2:19; 1Pe_2:6). The meaning is, that no true church can be reared which does not embrace and hold the true doctrines respecting Him—those which pertain to His incarnation, His Divine nature, His instructions, His example, His atonement, His resurrection, and His ascension. The reason why no true church can be established without embracing the truth as it is in Christ, is, that it is by Him only that men can be saved; and where this doctrine is wanting, all is wanting that enters into the essential idea of a church. The fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion must be embraced, or a church cannot exist; and where those doctrines are denied, no association of men can be recognised as a Church of God. Nor can the foundation be modified or shaped so as to suit the wishes of men. It must be laid as it is in the Scriptures; and the superstructure must be reared on that alone.—Albert Barnes, D.D.
(b) By going to the lowest stratum of human nature, Christ gave a new idea of the value of man. He built a kingdom out of the refuse of society. To compare small things with great, it has been pointed out by Lord Macaulay that in an English cathedral there is an exquisite stained window which was made by an apprentice out of the pieces of glass which had been rejected by his master, and it was so far superior to every other in the church, that, according to tradition, the envious artist killed himself with vexation. All the builders of society had rejected the “sinners,” and made the painted window of the “righteous.” A new Builder came; His plan was original, startling, revolutionary; His eye was upon the contemned material; He made the first last, and the last first; and the stone which the builders rejected He made the head stone of the corner.—Joseph Parker, D.D.
(c) The true philosophy or method of doing good is, first of all and principally, to be good—to have a character that will of itself communicate good. There must and will be active effort where there is goodness of principle; but the latter we should hold to be the principal thing, the root and life of all. Whether it is a mistake more sad or more ridiculous, to make mere stir synonymous with doing good, we need not inquire; enough, to be sure that one who has taken up such a notion of doing good is for that reason a nuisance to the church. The Christian is called a light, not lightning. In order to act with effect on others, he must walk in the Spirit, and thus become the image of goodness; he must be so akin to God, and so filled with His dispositions, that he shall seem to surround himself with a hallowed atmosphere. It is folly to endeavour to make ourselves shine before we are luminous. If the sun without his beams should talk to the planets, and argue with them till the final day, it would not make them shine; there must be light in the sun itself, and then they will shine, of course. And this, my brethren, is what God intends for you all. It is the great idea of His Gospel, and the work of His Spirit, to make you lights in the world. His greatest joy is to give you character, to beautify your example, to exalt your principles, and make you each the depositary of His own Almighty grace. But in order to this, something is necessary on your part—a full surrender of your mind to duty and to God, and a perpetual desire of His spiritual intimacy; having this, having a participation thus of the goodness of God, you will as naturally communicate good as the sun communicates his beams.—H. Bushnell, D.D.
THE HOSTILITY OF THE SAMARITANS TO THE JEWS
(Ezr_4:4-5; Ezr_4:24)
The advances of the Samaritans having been firmly declined by the Jews, they resorted to opposition, and endeavoured to thwart them in their great work. Notice:
I. The tactics of the wicked. Having failed to accomplish their selfish purposes by the proposal to co-operate in the work, “the people of the land” at once proceeded to hinder the work. If the Jews would not accept their proffered assistance, they were resolved that they should experience their hostility. The Jews had said that they would do the work alone, whereupon the Samaritans determined that they should not do it at all. They “weakened the hands of the people of Judah,” “i.e., they discouraged and intimidated them as regards their great work. The wicked are, alas! fertile in resources for the accomplishment of their evil designs. Their methods are often manifold and crafty. If they cannot bend the good to their wishes and aims by plausible pretences, they alter their tactics and betake themselves to unscrupulous opposition in various forms.
II. The venality of the wicked. The Samaritans “hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose.” M. Henry suggests that these counsellors, “pretending to advise them for the best, should dissuade them from proceeding, and so ‘frustrate their purpose,’ or dissuade the men of Tyre and Sidon from furnishing them with the timber they had bargained for (chap. Ezr_3:7); 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.” Or, as Schultz suggests, they were hired to get the edict of Cyrus cancelled by influencing “the ministers to whom chap. Ezr_7:28 and Ezr_8:25 refer, or other influential persons, to give advice to Cyrus unfavourable to the Jews. At court they naturally did not understand how it could be that those who were as much the inhabitants of the land as the returned exiles, and therefore seemed entitled to the God of the land, should be excluded. If Cyrus had seen in Jehovah his own supreme God, it must have been all the more annoying to him that those who apparently had the best intentions of worshipping Him should be rejected. It would seem as if the reason why the Jews opposed the union could only be a national and political one, and the suspicion was quite natural, that they already designed to form not merely a religious community, but also had national and political designs, that they thus gave an entirely false interpretation to the decree of Cyrus.” But, however these counsellors proceeded in their work, it is reasonable to infer that they were men of some skill and resource and power of persuasion, and they deliberately exercised their abilities in an evil cause for gain. In them the voice of conscience was overwhelmed by the cravings of cupidity. In the twenty-fourth chapter of Acts we have two illustrations of this venality. The learning and eloquence of Tertullus, a Roman barrister, were employed to promote the cause of tyranny, injustice, and falsehood, and to persecute a true and holy man. And Felix the governor refrains, for the space of two years, from doing what he is convinced is his duty in releasing St. Paul from his imprisonment, in the hope of receiving bribes to do so. It is inexpressibly mournful to see men prostituting their genius, or learning, or wisdom, or eloquence, or power for money. Yet how numerous are the forms and instances of it in our own day, e.g., men write fictions and songs which minister to men’s lower nature at the expense of their higher nature, &c. (a).
III. The temporary triumph of the wicked. The Samaritans succeeded in discouraging the Jews, harassing them in their work, and finally putting a stop to their work. They frustrated “their purpose all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.… Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia.” For the space of fourteen years the building of the Temple was arrested, viz., for five years of the reign of Cyrus, seven and a half of Cambyses, seven months of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and one year of Darius. The wicked have often succeeded in hindering the progress of the cause of God. St. Paul was hindered by Satan, once and again, from the execution of his purposes (1Th_2:18). Persecution too has frequently obstructed sadly the work of God, and inflicted grievous trials and sufferings upon His people.
IV. The freedom allowed by God to the wicked. He allowed the Samaritans to resist His purposes, to persecute His people, to arrest the building of His Temple for fourteen years. And still He allows the atheist to deny His existence, the blasphemer to blaspheme His name, and the wicked to “do evil with both hands earnestly.” He will not invade the moral freedom with which He Himself has dowered us. And “sentence against an evil work is not speedily executed.” His forbearance, even with the most pernicious and provoking sinners, is very great. “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.” But let no one presume upon the Divine patience. “Thinkest thou, O man, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering?” &c. Rom_2:4-11). (b). And in the end the Temple of God shall be built, and His purposes fully and splendidly accomplished. The triumph of the wicked is only temporary. God will frustrate their deepest designs, and overrule them for the fulfilment of His own. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain.” Let us learn, before leaving this section of the narrative, that the most dangerous enemies of the Church of God are hypocritical adherents to it. Half-hearted, inconsistent, ungodly professors of religion are, in their influence, the worst obstructions to the progress of the kingdom of God.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Gold is the only power which receives universal homage. It is worshipped in all lands without a single temple, and by all classes without a single hypocrite; and often has it been able to boast of having armies for its priesthood, and hecatombs of human victims for its sacrifices. Where war has slain its thousands, gain has slaughtered its millions; for while the former operates only with the local and fitful terrors of an earthquake, the destructive influence of the latter is universal and unceasing. Indeed war itself—what has it often been but the art of gain practised on the largest scale? the covetousness of a nation resolved on gain, impatient of delay, and leading on its subjects to deeds of rapine and blood? Its history is the history of slavery and oppression in all ages. For centuries, Africa—one quarter of the globe—has been set apart to supply the monster with victims—thousands at a meal. And, at this moment, what a populous and gigantic empire can it boast! the mine, with its unnatural drudgery; the manufactory, with its swarms of squalid misery; the plantation, with its imbruted gangs; and the market and the exchange, with their furrowed and careworn countenances,—these are only specimens of its more menial offices and subjects. Titles and honours are among its rewards, and thrones are at its disposal. Among its counsellors are kings, and many of the great and mighty of the earth are enrolled among its subjects. Where are the waters not ploughed by its navies? What imperial element is not yoked to its car? Philosophy itself has become a mercenary in its pay; and science, a votary at its shrine, brings all its noblest discoveries, as offerings, to its feet. What part of the globe’s surface is not rapidly yielding up its last stores of hidden treasure to the spirit of gain? or retains more than a few miles of unexplored and unvanquished territory? Scorning the childish dream of the philosopher’s stone, it aspires to turn the globe itself into gold.—John Harris, D.D.
(b) The patience of God informs us of the reason why He lets the enemies of His Church oppress it, and defers His promise of the deliverance of it. If He did punish them presently, His holiness and justice would be glorified, but His power over Himself in His patience would be obscured. Well may the Church be content to have a perfection of God glorified, that is not like to receive any honour in another world by any exercise of itself. If it were not for His patience, He were incapable to be the Governor of a sinful world; He might, without it, be the Governor of an innocent world, but not of a criminal one; He would be the destroyer of the world, but not the orderer and disposer of the extravagancies and sinfulness of the world. The interest of His wisdom, in drawing good out of evil, would not be served if He were not clothed with this perfection as well as with others. If He did presently destroy the enemies of His Church upon the first oppression, His wisdom in contriving, and His power in accomplishing deliverance against the united powers of hell and earth, would not be visible, no, nor that power in preserving His people unconsumed in the furnace of affliction. He had not got so great a name in the rescue of His Israel from Pharaoh, had He thundered the tyrant into destruction upon His first edict against the innocent. If He were not patient to the most violent of men, He might seem to be cruel. But when He offers peace to them under their rebellions, waits that they may be members of His Church, rather than enemies to it, He frees Himself from any such imputation, even in the judgment of those that shall feel most of His wrath; it is this renders the equity of His justice unquestionable, and the deliverance of His people righteous in the judgment of those from whose fetters they are delivered. Christ reigns in the midst of His enemies, to show His power over Himself as well as over the heads of His enemies, to show His power over His rebels. And though He retards His promise, and suffers a great interval of time between the publication and performance, sometimes years, sometimes ages to pass away, and little appearance of any preparation to show Himself a God of truth; it is not that He hath forgotten His word, or repents that ever He passed it, or sleeps in a supine neglect of it: but that men might not perish, but bethink themselves, and come as friends into His bosom, rather than be crushed as enemies under His feet (2Pe_3:9): “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Hereby He shows that He would be rather pleased with the conversion than the destruction of men.—S. Charnocke, B.D.
THE ANTAGONISM OF THE WORLD TO THE CHURCH
(Ezr_4:6-16)
In these verses we have a further account of the hostility of the Samaritans to the Jews in their great work. Homiletically we may view it as an illustration of The antagonism of the world to the Church. This antagonism as it is here illustrated is—
I. Persistent. The opposition to the Jews was carried on during a considerable portion of the reign of Cyrus, the whole of the reigns of Cambyses and of the Pseudo-Smerdis; and it was continued by means of letters of accusation in the reigns of Ahasuerus (Ezr_4:6) and of Artaxerxes (Ezr_4:7). Terrible is the persistence of the world in its hostility to the Church of God. In different forms it is continued age after age; and at present we can discover no signs of its cessation. The spirit of worldliness is as hostile now to the spirit of decided piety as ever it was. “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” “If the world hate you,” said our Lord, “ye know that it hated Me before it hated you,” &c. (Joh_15:18-21). (a).
II. Authoritative. This letter was written and sent to Artaxerxes by two high officers of the Persian monarch. It seems to have been devised by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their associates, and to have been written by Rehum the Persian governor in Samaria, and Shimshai the royal scribe in the same province. The letter of accusation had all the weight which the authority of these distinguished officers could impart to it. The spirit of secular governments has often been inimical to the spirit of true godliness, and their action hostile to the principles of truth and righteousness. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His” Church.
III. Combined. All the colonies of the Samaritans concurred in the statements and in the sending of this letter. “Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions: the Dinaites,” &c. (Ezr_4:9-10). “They followed the cry, though ignorant of the merits of the cause.” The popularity of a movement is no proof of its truth or righteousness. Numbers are not a reliable guarantee of the wisdom and worthiness of a cause. Majorities have very frequently been on the side of falsehood, injustice, and folly. Mark what a combination there was against the Lord and Saviour. “Against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together.” There is combination in hell.
“Devil with devil damned firm concord holds.”
IV. Unscrupulous. This is very manifest in the gross exaggerations of this letter. Notice two or three of them. “Jerusalem … the rebellious and the bad city.” A most unjust description of its character. “If this city be builded and the walls set up, they will not pay toll,” &c. (Ezr_4:13). An unwarranted and slanderous assertion, for these Jews had never given any cause why their loyalty to the Persian monarchs should be suspected. “If this city be builded, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.” An extremely absurd exaggeration. One would suppose that the authors of it must have known it to be a gross misrepresentation. The chief assertions of the letter were unscrupulous and base calumnies. The enemies of the Church of God have never been particular as to the weapons they should use against it. Falsehood and cruelty, fines and imprisonment, bonds and banishment, fire and sword, have all been employed against it.
V. Plausible. This letter to Artaxerxes reveals the craft and plausibility of the Samaritans—
1. In their profession of loyalty to the king. “Thy servants” (Ezr_4:11) … “Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour,” &c. (Ezr_4:14).
2. In their presentation of proof of their assertions. They suggest “that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers,” &c. (Ezr_4:15). The remarks of M. Henry on this verse are admirable: “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 remembered—
(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, 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_29:7). It was, therefore, very unfair, though not uncommon, thus to impute the iniquity of the fathers to the children.” But it was craftily conceived and executed; and, for a time, it answered the purpose of its authors. The Church now has to contend against, not only the strength but also the subtlety of its foes; not only against the “roaring lion,” but also against the “old serpent.” “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” And the blandishments of the world are more perilous to the Church than its threats. Christians need to be “wise as serpents,” watchful as trusty sentinels, and prayerful as devoutest saints.
Yet greater is He that is in us and for us, than all our foes, with all their might, and malice, and cunning. “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?” (b).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) From the fiery days of the stakes of Smithfield even until now, the world’s black heart has hated the Church; and the world’s cruel hand and laughing lip have been for ever against us. The host of the mighty are pursuing us, and are thirsty for our blood, and anxious to cut us off from the earth. Such is our position unto this hour, and such must it be, until we are landed on the other side of Jordan, and until our Maker comes to reign on the earth.—C. H. Spurgeon.
(b) As for the trouble thou puttest thyself to concerning the cause and Church of Christ, which thou mayest see at any time distressed by the enemy, though God takes thy goodwill to them (from which those thy fears arise) very kindly, yet there is no need of tormenting thyself with that which is sure never to come to pass. The ark may shake, but it cannot fall. The ship of the Church may be tossed, but it cannot sink, for Christ is in it, and will awake time enough to prevent its wreck. There is, therefore, no cause for us, when the storm beateth hardest upon it, to disturb Him, as once the disciples did, with the shrieks and outcries of our unbelief, as if all were lost. Our faith is more in danger of sinking at such a time than the cause and Church of Christ are. They are both by the promise set out of the reach of men and devils. The Gospel is an “everlasting Gospel.” “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one iota of this shall perish.” “The Word of the Lord endureth for ever,” and shall be alive to walk over all its enemies’ graves, yea to see the funeral of the whole world.—W. Gurnall.
GOOD CAUSE FOR GREAT ZEAL
(Ezr_4:14)
The facts of the case were these.… Now let me take these words right out of those black mouths, and put them into my own and into yours. They will suit us well if we turn them to the great King of kings. We may truly say, “Now because we have maintenance from the King’s palace,” &c. The text will enable me to speak on three points.
I. We acknowledge a very gracious fact. “We have maintenance from the king’s palace.” Both the upper and the nether springs from which we drink are fed by the eternal bounty of the great King. Hitherto we have been supplied with food and raiment. Although we do not drink of the water from the rock, or find the manna lying at our tent door every morning, yet the providence of God produces for us quite the same results, and we have been fed and satisfied; and, at any rate, many of us, in looking back, can say, “My cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy have followed me all the days of my life.” Hence, we have thus, even in things temporal, been made to feel that we have been maintained from the King’s palace. But it has been in spiritual things that our continual experience of the King’s bounty has been most notable. We have a new life, and therefore we have new wants, and new hunger, and a new thirst; and God has maintained us out of His own palace as to this new life of ours. We have had great hunger at times after heavenly things, but He has “satisfied our mouth with good things,” and our youth has been “renewed like the eagle’s.” Sometimes we have been drawn aside from our steadfastness, and we have wanted mighty grace to set us on our feet again, and to make us once more “strong in the Lord and in the power of His might;” and we have had it, have we not? In looking back upon all the way wherein the Lord our God has led us, we can sing of the beginning of it, we can sing of the middle of it, and we believe we shall sing of the end of it; for all through we have been maintained out of the King’s palace. This is matter of fact both as to things temporal and things spiritual. Beloved, it is a great mercy that you and I have been maintained out of the King’s palace as believers; because, where else could we have been maintained? As to spiritual things, to whom could we go but unto Him who has been so good to us? What empty wells ministers are if we look to them! If we look to their Master, then “the rain also filleth the pools,” and we find that there is supply in the preached word for our consolation. And the books you once read with so much comfort appear to have lost their flavour, their aroma, and their sweet savour, and, I may add, even the Word of God itself, though it is unchanged, appears to be changed sometimes to you. But God, your God, oh, how graciously has He still supplied you! “All my springs are in Thee,” my God; and had they been elsewhere they long ago had failed.
We may remember that our maintenance from the King’s palace has cost His Majesty dear. He has not fed us for nothing. It cost Him His own dear Son at the very first. We should not have begun to live if He had spared His Son and kept Him back from us; but the choicest treasure in heaven He was pleased to spend for our sakes that we might live; and ever since then we have been fed upon Jesus Christ Himself. Let us bless and magnify our bounteous God, whose infinite favour has thus supplied our wants. Think over the kind of maintenance you have had from the King’s palace. We have had a bountiful supply. As the sun throws out his wealth of heat and light, and does not measure it by the consumption of men, but throws it broadcast over all worlds, even so does God flood the world with the sunlight of His goodness, and His saints are made to receive it in abundance. Our receptive faculty may be small, but His giving disposition is abundant. We have had an unfailing portion. As there has been much of it, so it has always come to us in due season. Times of need have come, but the needed supply has come too. The supply has ennobled us. For, consider how great a thing it is to be supported from a king’s palace; but it is the greatest of all privileges to be living upon the bounty of the King of kings. “Such honour have all the saints.” Even those that are weakest and meanest have this high honour—to be supplied by Royalty itself with all that they need. And there is reason for good cheer in this, that we have such a soul-satisfying portion in God. A soul that gets what God gives him has quite as much as he can hold and as much as he can want. He has got a portion that might well excite envy.… Let us rejoice, &c.
II. Here is a duty recognised. “It was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour.” The reasoning comes home to us. If we are so favoured—we, who are believers—with such a choice portion, it is not meet for us to sit down and see our God dishonoured. By every sense of propriety we are bound not to see God dishonoured by ourselves. It is well to begin at home. Art thou doing anything that dishonours thy God, professor—anything at home, anything in thy daily avocation, anything in the way of conducting thy business? Is there anything in thy conversation, anything in thy actions, anything in thy reading, anything in thy writing, anything in thy speaking, that dishonours God? Seeing that thou art fed from the King’s table, I beseech thee let it not be said that the King got damage from thee. Perhaps that dishonour may come from those who dwell under our roof, and live in our own house. I charge you that are parents and masters to see to this. Do not tolerate anything in those over whom you have control that would bring dishonour to God. We cannot impart to our children new hearts, but we can see to it that there shall be nothing within our gates that is derogatory to the religion of Jesus Christ.
Let the same holy jealousy animate us among those with whom we have influence—as, for instance, amongst those who wish to be united with us in Church fellowship. It is the duty of every Church to try, as far as it can, to guard the honour and dignity of King Jesus against unworthy persons, who would intrude themselves into the congregation of the saints, of those who are called, and chosen, and faithful. To receive into our membership persons of unhallowed life, unchaste, unrighteous—of licentious life and lax doctrine, such as know not the truth as it is in Jesus—would be to betray the trust with which Christ has invested us.
Under what sacred obligations do we stand to maintain the statutes and testimonies of the Lord! And, oh, how the King is dishonoured by the mutilation and misrepresentation of His Word! Therefore we are always bound to bear our protest against false doctrine. Those who have their maintenance from the King’s palace ought not to allow the Lord to be dishonoured by a neglect of His ordinances. The Lord Jesus has given you only two symbolic ordinances. Take care that you use them well. Again, let us take care that He be not dishonoured by a general decline of His Church. When churches go to sleep—when the work of God is done deceitfully—for to do it formally is to do it deceitfully; when there is no life in the prayer-meeting, when there are no holy enterprises afloat for the spread of the Redeemer’s kingdom, then the world says, “That is your Church! What a sleepy set these saints are!” Oh! let not the King be thus dishonoured. And, oh, how can we tolerate it that so many should dishonour Christ by rejecting His Gospel! We cannot prevent their doing so, but we can weep for them; we can pray for them, we can plead for them, we can make it uncomfortable for them to reflect that believers are loving them, and yet they are not loving the Saviour. Privileged as you are, you ought to love your Master, so that the slightest word against Him should provoke your spirit to holy jealousy.
III. A course of action pursued. “Therefore have we sent and certified the king.” How shall we do that? Doubtless we act as it well becomes us, when we go and tell the Lord all about it? “Certified the King!”—but does He not know? Are not all things open to Him from whom no secrets are hid? Ah, yes; but when Hezekiah received Rabshakeh’s blasphemous letter he took it and spread it before the Lord. It is a holy exercise of the saints to report to the Lord the sins and the sorrows they observe among the people—the griefs they feel, and the grievances they complain of—to spread before Him the blasphemies they have heard, and appeal to Him concerning the menaces with which they are threatened. After those people had certified the king, they took care to plead with him. Plead with God! That praying is poor shift that is not made up of pleading. And when you have done it, do not go away and make your prayers into a lie by contrary actions, or by refraining from any action at all. He that prays hard must work hard; for no man prays sincerely who is not prepared to use every effort to obtain that which he asks of God. We must put our shoulder to the wheel while we pray for strength to put it in motion. All success depends upon God; yet He uses instruments, and He will not use instruments that are useless and unfitted to the work. Therefore let us be up and be stirring, for if we are maintained from the King’s palace, it is not meet that we see the King’s dishonour, but it is due to Him that we should seek His glory. Alas! there are some here that have never eaten the King’s bread, and will be banished from the King’s presence if they die as they are. But, oh remember, the King is always ready to receive His rebel subjects, and He is a God ready to pardon. “Kiss the Son lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way when His wrath is kindled but a little.” “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.”—C. H. Spurgeon.
THE SUCCESS OF THE SUBTLE SCHEME OF THE SAMARITANS, OR THE TEMPORARY TRIUMPH OF THE WICKED
(Ezr_4:17-23)
I. Examine the letter of the king. “Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum,” &c. (Ezr_4:17-22). This letter suggests—
1. That the subtlety of the wicked frequently obtains a temporary triumph over the good. We have already noticed that the letter of the Samaritans to the king was very plausible. And that it completely succeeded is clear from the reply of the king to it.
(1.) The search in the archives of the nation which they recommended (Ezr_4:15) was made. “I commanded, and search hath been made” (Ezr_4:19).
(2.) The result which they predicted (Ezr_4:15) followed the search. “And it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein.” The Jews had formerly rebelled against foreign powers by whom they had been subjected. Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria” (2Ki_18:7). Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon (2Ki_24:1). Zedekiah also “rebelled against the king of Babylon” (2Ki_24:20).
(3.) The warnings which they gave (Ezr_4:13; Ezr_4:16) were heeded. As a result of the examination of the records of the kingdom, the king discovered that “there had been mighty kings over Jerusalem, which had ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom had been paid unto them;” and so the warnings of the Samaritans seemed to him reasonable and timely, and he acted upon them, inquiring, “Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?”
(4.) The end which they aimed at was attained. Their object was to obtain authority to put a stop to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. And the king writes, “Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment be given from me. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this.” The misrepresentations of the Samaritans had sufficient truth in them to completely mislead Artaxerxes the king and to accomplish their evil design. “Falsehood,” says Colton, “is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth; and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong, as no watches so effectually deceive the wearers as those that are sometimes right.”
“A lie which is half a truth
Is ever the worst of lies.”
2. That one generation frequently suffers through the sins of another and an earlier one. The Jews of this time were suspected of disloyalty, and were prevented from carrying on their great work because some of their ancestors had rebelled against the domination of foreign powers. They smarted for the sins of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. The children of the spendthrift, the drunkard, and the impure man generally have to bear the iniquities of their fathers. (Comp. Exo_20:5.) This stern fact should prove a restraint from sin. (a).
2. That the cause of God is frequently reproached and hindered by the evil conduct of some of its adherents. The rebellions of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were now made use of to asperse the Jews and to stop the work of God. “A few instances of this kind,” as Scott observes, “standing on record, whilst the blameless lives and patient sufferings of thousands are unnoticed and forgotten, serve through revolving ages as a pretext, by which malignant enmity misleads worldly policy. All who love the Gospel should therefore walk circumspectly, avoiding all appearance of evil, especially in this particular, lest the Church of God and posterity should suffer through their misconduct; for the whole body will be condemned without hearing, if a few individuals act improperly.” (b).
II. Notice the action of the Samaritans. “Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read,” &c. Their action was—
1. Prompt. They allowed no delay whatever, but eagerly carried out the royal mandate. “They went up in haste to Jerusalem,” &c.
2. Personal. They did not depute others to put a stop to the work of the Jews: their interest was too deep and zealous for that. They themselves “went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews.”
3. Powerful. They “made them to cease by force and power.” They compelled the Jews by a display of force, which they probably took with them, to desist from building the city. Thus the plotters prevailed; the enemies were triumphant, and the progress of the good work was arrested. The tact and energy and zeal of the Samaritans were worthy of a good cause, and they were rewarded with success.
LEARN:
1. That the temporary triumph of a cause or a party is not a proof of its righteousness. When Jesus Christ was crucified, dead and buried, the enemies of truth and light and God appeared to be completely victorious. (c).
2. That we are not competent to judge the relation of present events to the purposes and providence of the great God. These require time for their development, &c. “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) This is a truth evident by universal experience. It is seen every day, in every part of the world. If Mr. Paine indulge in intemperance, and leave children behind him, they may feel the consequences of his misconduct when he is in the grave. The sins of the fathers may thus be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation. It would, however, be their affliction only, and not their punishment. Yet such visitations are wisely ordered as a motive to sobriety.—Andrew Fuller.
The child generally inherits the natural constitution, the mental peculiarities, and sometimes even the moral character of his parent. His secular condition, too, rich or poor, is frequently determined by his parents. Some inherit a princely fortune, and some a crushing penury, from their ancestors. And their social status, too, is often ruled by the position and conduct of those of whom they were born. Children participate in the shame or the glory connected with the memory of their parents. The brilliant reflection of an illustrious sire seems to lead his offspring to social honour, and to shed a radiance on his name. On the other hand, the infamy which parents by theft, treason, or murder, have gained for themselves, transmits its odious influence down to their children, depreciating their own personal worth, and degrading them in the estimation of their contemporaries.—David Thomas, D.D.
(b) Was there ever a club in all the world without disreputable persons in it! Was there ever any association of men that might not be condemned, if the fool’s rule was followed of condemning the wheat because of the chaff? When with all our might and power we purge ourselves of deceivers as soon as we detect them, what more can we do? If our rule and practice is to separate them wholly as soon as we unmask them, what more can virtue itself desire? I ask any man, however much he may hate Christianity, what more can the Church do than watch her members with all diligence, and excommunicate the wicked when discovered? It is a foul piece of meanness on the part of the world that they should allege the faults of a few false professors against the whole Church: it is a piece of miserable meanness of which the world ought to be ashamed. Nevertheless, so it is. “Ha! ha!” they say, “So would we have it! so would we have it!” The daughter of Philistia rejoices, and the uncircumcised triumphs when Jesus is betrayed by His friend, and sold by His traitorous disciple. O deceitful professor, will not the Lodr be avenged upon you for this? Is it nothing to make Jesus’ name the drunkard’s song? Nothing to make the enemy blaspheme? O hardened man, tremble, for this shall not go unpunished.—C. H. Spurgeon.
(c) If ever failure seemed to rest on a noble life, it was when the Son of Man, deserted by His friends, heard the cry which proclaimed that the Pharisees had successfully drawn the net round their Divine Victim. Yet from that very hour of defeat and death there went forth the world’s life—from that very moment of apparent failure there proceeded forth into the ages the spirit of the conquering Cross. Surely if the Cross says anything, it says that apparent defeat is real victory, and that there is a heaven for those who have nobly and truly failed on earth.—F. W. Robertson, M.A.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v1 Ezr 4:1 - Ezr 4:5.
Ezra
BUILDING IN TROUBLOUS TIMES
Read full note →
Ezr 4:1 - Ezr 4:5.
Opposition began as soon as the foundations were laid, as is usually the case with all great attempts to build God’s house. It came from the Samaritans, the mingled people who were partly descendants of the ancient remnant of the northern kingdom, left behind after the removal by deportation of the bulk of its population, and partly the descendants of successive layers of immigrants, planted in the empty territory by successive Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Esar-haddon was the first who had sent colonists, about one hundred and thirty years before the return. The writer calls the Samaritans ‘the adversaries,’ though they began by offers of friendship and alliance. The name implies that these offers were perfidious, and a move in the struggle.
One can easily understand that the Samaritans looked with suspicion on the new arrivals, the ancient possessors of the land, coming under the auspices of the new dynasty, and likely to interfere with their position if not reduced to inferiority or neutralised somehow. The proposal to unite in building the Temple was a political move; for, in old-world ideas, co-operation in Temple-building was incorporation in national unity. The calculation, no doubt, was that if the returning exiles could be united with the much more numerous Samaritans, they would soon be absorbed in them. The only chance for the smaller body was to keep itself apart, and to run the risk of its isolation.
The insincere request was based on an untruth, for the Samaritans did not worship Jehovah as the Jews, but along with their own gods {2Ki 17:25 - 2Ki 17:41}. To divide His dominion with others was to dethrone Him altogether. It therefore became an act of faithfulness to Jehovah to reject the entangling alliance. To have accepted it would have been tantamount to frustrating the very purpose of the return, and consenting to be muzzled about the sin of idolatry. But the chief lesson which exile had burned in on the Jewish mind was a loathing of idolatry, which is in remarkable contrast to the inclination to it that had marked their previous history. So one answer only was possible, and it was given with unwelcome plainness of speech, which might have been more courteous, and not less firm. It flatly denied any common ground; it claimed exclusive relation to ‘our God,’ which meant, ‘not yours’; it underscored the claim by reiterating that Jehovah was the ‘God of Israel’; it put forward the decree of Cyrus, as leaving no option but to confine the builders to the people whom it had empowered to build.
Now, it is easy to represent this as a piece of impolitic narrowness, and to say that its surly bigotry was rightly punished by the evils that it brought down on the returning exiles. The temper of much flaccid Christianity at present delights to expand in a lazy and foolish ‘liberality,’ which will welcome anybody to come and take a hand at the building, and accepts any profession of unity in worship. But there is no surer way of taking the earnestness out of Christian work and workers than drafting into it a mass of non-Christians, whatever their motives may be. Cold water poured into a boiling pot will soon stop its bubbling, and bring down its temperature. The churches are clogged and impeded, and their whole tone lowered and chilled, by a mass of worldly men and women. Nothing is gained, and much is in danger of being lost, by obliterating the lines between the church and the world. The Jew who thought little of the difference between the Samaritan worship with its polytheism, and his own monotheism, was in peril of dropping to the Samaritan level. The Samaritan who was accepted as a true worshipper of Jehovah, though he had a bevy of other gods in addition, would have been confirmed in his belief that the differences were unimportant. So both would have been harmed by what called itself ‘liberality,’ and was in reality indifference.
No doubt, Zerubbabel had counted the cost of faithfulness, and he soon had to pay it. The would-be friends threw off the mask, and, as they could not hinder by pretending to help, took a plainer way to stop progress. All the weapons that Eastern subtlety and intrigue could use were persistently employed to ‘weaken the hands’ of the builders, and the most potent of all methods, bribery to Persian officials, was freely used. The opponents triumphed, and the little community began to taste the bitterness of high hopes disappointed and noble enterprises frustrated. How differently things had turned out from the expectations with which the company had set forth from Babylon! The rough awakening to realities disillusions us all when we come to turn dreams into facts. The beginning of laying the Temple foundations is put in 536 B.C.; the first year of Darius was 522. How soon after the commencement of the work the Samaritan tricks succeeded we do not know, but it must have been some time before the death of Cyrus in 529. For weary years then the sanguine band had to wait idly, and no doubt enthusiasm died out: they had enough to do in keeping themselves alive, and in holding their own amidst enemies. They needed, as we all do, patience, and a willingness to wait for God’s own time to fulfil His own promise.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Feud Between the Jews and Samaritans
Feud Between the Jews and Samaritans
This chapter describes the desire of the Samaritans to take part in the rebuilding of the Temple, and their successful opposition to the Jews on their request being refused.
Read full note →
1. The adversaries] The term is here anticipatory of the opposition subsequently displayed. The people thus designated were the Samaritans, who, in the main, were the descendants of the immigrants who, to replace the Israelite population that had been deported after the fall of Samaria, had been introduced, first of all by Sargon, from Babylon, Cuthah, and other places (2Ki_17:24), and also at a later date by Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal (Ezr_4:2, Ezr_4:10). But there must likewise have been mingled with them a certain number of native Israelites, who had been left behind in the country by their Assyrian conquerors.
2. We seek your God] A priest had been brought back from captivity to teach them how to fear the Lord (2Ki_17:28, 2Ki_17:32-33). We do sacrifice unto Him] so one reading of the Heb., followed by the LXX, the clause expanding the plea of common worship. Another reading is 'yet we do no sacrifice,' the argument implying that they had hitherto had no opportunity of offering acceptable sacrifices, but now desired to do so at Jerusalem, the only lawful sanctuary. Esar-haddon] the successor of Sennacherib (681-668 b.c.). Assur] i.e. Assyria.
3. As king Cyrus, etc.] The fact that they were not authorised to extend to others the privileges conferred upon them by Cyrus was probably not the only motive that actuated the Jews. They no doubt felt that to admit to closer association such a hybrid community as the Samaritans, with their mixture of Hebrew and heathen rites of worship, would neutralise the impulse in the direction of purity of religion which they had derived from their experiences as exiles.
4. The people of the land] i.e. the Samaritans and the other hostile neighbours of the Je ws; the annoyances they caused are referred to in Zec_8:10.
5. The reign of Darius] i.e. Darius Hystaspis, the third in succession to Cyrus, who was followed on the throne by Cambyses, Gomates (who personated Smerdis, and is consequently often styled Pseudo-Smerdis), and Darius, in the order named. Darius reigned from 521-485, so that the rebuilding of the Temple was interrupted for fifteen or sixteen years (536-520).
6. Ahasuerus] i.e. Xerxes (485-464), the successor of Darius Hystaspis.
7. Artaxerxes] i.e. Artaxerxes Longimanus (464-424), the successor of Xerxes. Since both Xerxes and Artaxerxes lived after Darius Hystaspis, to whom Ezr_4:24 probably refers, and to whose reign the contents of Ezra 5 belong, the section, Ezr_4:6-23, departs from the chronological succession of events either in consequence of some accidental misplacement, or because the writer has in view a comprehensive summary of the several occasions when opposition was offered to the Jews by their enemies. The charge made in this section against the Jews is not the building of the Temple (the subject of which is resumed in Ezr_4:24 and Ezra 5), but the fortification of Jerusalem (Ezr_4:12), either by Nehemiah (as related in the book of Neh) or by a body of Jews who came from Babylon before him, perhaps those who accompanied Ezra (see Ezra 7). Some, who consider the chronological sequence in this chapter to be unbroken, identify the 'Darius' of Ezr_4:24 with Darius Nothus (423-405); whilst others, who take Ezr_4:6-23 to be a detailed explanation of the opposition summarised in Ezr_4:5, identify Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes with Cambyses and Gomates, the two kings who came between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis.
7. In the Syrian tongue, etc.] RV 'written in the Syrian (Aramean) character, and set forth in the Syrian (Aramean) tongue.'Aramean was the chief medium of communication between the different peoples of the East: cp. 2Ki_18:26.
8. Rehum.. Shimshai] It is not clear whether Ezr_4:7-8 refer to more than one letter sent on different occasions by the enemies of the Jews, or to a single letter written by the persons named in Ezr_4:7 (who were presumably Samaritans) and communicated through the Persian officials named in Ezr_4:8.
9. Dinaites] The identification of most of the peoples mentioned in this v. is uncertain. The Susanchites were the natives of Shushan, the capital of Elam.
10. On this side] RV 'beyond' (and so in Ezr_4:11, Ezr_4:16, Ezr_5:3, Ezr_5:6; Ezr_8:36), regarded from the point of view of the Persian court.
11. At such a time] RV 'and so forth' (and so in Ezr_4:11 and Ezr_4:17).
12. Joined the foundations] RV 'repaired the foundations.'
13. So thou shalt endamage] RV 'in the end it will endamage.'
14. We have.. palace] Mt. 'we have salted the salt of the palace': cp. the term 'salary,' from salarium, 'money given to provide salt.'
15. The book of the records] For such see Ezr_6:2. A rebellious city] This, so far as it was true, applied to Jerusalem only under Babylonian rule (see 2Ki_24:1-20). But the circumstances of the time rendered the walling of the city suspicious, since Egypt, which lay so near, had recently been in revolt.
24. The second year.. Darius] 520 b.c., if, as is most probable, Darius Hystaspis is meant, as in Ezr_4:5 (the closing words of which are here repeated). But some suppose Darius Nothus (423-405) to be intended.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv2, 6, 7, 21 for we seek
for we seek
The people of the land sought to hinder the work in three ways:
Read full note →
(1) by seeking to draw the Jews into an unreal union, Ezr 4:3. (cf) 2Ki 17:32.
(2) by "weakening the hands of the people of Judah," Ezr 4:4 i.e, by withholding supplies, etc.; and
(3) by accusations lodged with Ahasuerus and Darius. The first was by far the most subtle and dangerous. The lives of Ezra and Nehemiah afford many illustrations of true separation. 2Co 6:14-18; 2Ti 2:19-21.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. The offer of the Samaritans refused (Ezr 4:1-6)
CHAPTER 4
1. The offer of the Samaritans refused (Ezr 4:1-6)
Read full note →
2. The letter to King Artaxerxes (Ezr 4:7-16)
3. The king’s reply (Ezr 4:17-22)
4. The work is stopped (Ezr 4:23-24)
Ezr 4:1-6. The adversaries were the Samaritans. (There is an interesting correspondence with the book of Acts. After the Spirit of God had begun His blessed work, the enemy from without and then within started his hindering work.) They had watched silently the work of restoration and then appeared before Zerubbabel and 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 Esar-haddon, King of Assur, who brought us up hither.” These words revealed their true origin. They were a mongrel race settled by heathen kings in the conquered territory of the house of Israel, the ten tribes. We find the history relating to them in 2Ki 17:24. The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, Cuthah, Ara, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and colonized them in Samaria. They were a wicked lot, and the LORD punished them by sending lions in their midst. Then they appealed to the Assyrian king and expressed a desire to get acquainted with the “manner of the God in the land.” Priests of Jeroboam, who were captives, were then sent to them. One of these priests taught them in Beth-el the corrupt worship which had been the downfall of the ten tribes. The result was “they feared the LORD, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places.” They served their own idols at the same time. The record saith, “Unto this day they do after the former manners, they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel.” These Assyrians married Israelitish women who had been left in the land. (In the British Museum is a cylinder containing the annals of Esar-haddon, giving the deportation of the Israelites and the settlement of colonists in their place.) These corrupt people with their well sounding words remind us of the Gibeonites in Joshua’s day. They illustrate the wiles of the devil. The leaders of the remnant refused them participation in the building of the house of the LORD. They realized that they were a separated people and to permit these Samaritans to come in would have been disobedience to the Word of God, bringing His displeasure upon them. If they had been permitted to link themselves with the people of God, corruption and disaster would have been the result. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua endowed with divine wisdom knew that they were adversaries and had no call and no right to engage in the work of the LORD. It was a decisive reply they received. “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an 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.” At once they were unmasked. They turned against them, molested them, and hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose. They also wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The Hebrew word (used only in this passage) is “sitnah,” cognate with the noun “Satan.” Satan was the power behind these Samaritans and their efforts to hinder the work. Their method was Satan’s method. These Samaritans may well be compared with the large masses in Christendom who have a form of godliness and deny the power thereof. Like the Samaritans the unsaved multitudes in professing Christendom pretend to serve the Lord, but they are the enemies of the Cross, and their belly is their god, they mind earthly things. The New Testament demands separation from such (2Co 6:14-18; 2Ti 3:5; 2Jn 1:11). Fellowship with them is disastrous, for they are only natural men, not having the Spirit and are therefore unfit for Christian fellowship, for they are serving the world and its god.
Ezr 4:7-16. Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel, Persians, and officials of the government, probably closely identified with the Samaritans and residents of Jerusalem, wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes. (Ahasuerus is a regal title, meaning “the venerable king”; Artaxerxes also is such a title, meaning “the great king.”) With the eighth verse begins an Aramaic section of the book, which extends to chapter 6:18. The Syrian tongue was Aramaic. The letter is a very cunningly devised document, full of misrepresentation and falsehood, inspired by him who is “the liar, and the father of it.” They accused the Jews of building Jerusalem and setting up the wall. This was a falsehood, for only the house was being built and not the wall or the city. What they said about the city, its former character of rebellion, was true, and the accuser made use of the past sins of the nation. But God had again been gracious to His people and turned their captivity. Reminding the king of the possible danger if the city were built again and fortified by a wall; and the loss of revenue, they inspired fear in the king’s heart. The same accuser of the brethren, liar and falsifier, who stood behind these letter writers, is still at work and will continue till he is cast out (Rev. 12).
Ezr 4:17-22. The king received the letter and instituted a search into the former history of Jerusalem, which verified what the letter claimed, and he commanded at once that the city should not be built. The falsehood that they were building the city and the wall was not discovered. The enemy was successful. Yet a faithful God watched over it all.
Ezr 4:23-24. We can well imagine that when the letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai and their companions, with what a feverish haste they must have rushed up to Jerusalem, and made them cease from the work by force and power. “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.” The remnant was severely tested, and at that time there set in a decline. The former energy seems to have left them, as we find when we consider Haggai’s message. Nor do we read anything at the close of this chapter about turning to the LORD in prayer.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 11 The Building of the Temple Hindered
The Building of the Temple Hindered
v. 1. Now, when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, the mixed population to the north of Judah, the Samaritans, who had mingled the Assyrian religion and customs with a remnant of the knowledge of Jehovah, besides continuing in their opposition to the members of the southern kingdom, heard that the children of the captivity, the returned exiles, builded the Temple unto the Lord God of Israel,
Read full note →
v. 2. then they came to Zerubbabel, the governor of the province, 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 Esar-haddon, king of Assur, which brought us up hither. Cf 2Ki 17:24. The territory of the northern kingdom had been colonized by people brought up from Babylon, Cutha, and other Eastern countries, and they had been given a priest of Israel. They knew of the true God, but many of them also worshiped idols and clung to various heathen superstitions, all of which neutralized any worship of Jehovah which they may have believed they were rendering Him.
v. 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, the strange mixture of religions which the Samaritans held was not a worship of the true God, nor did they accept a large part of divine Revelation the writings of the prophets; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, hath commanded us. This was a proper reproof of unionistic practises, which might well be taken as a model in our days, when the spirit of unionism is in the air and coalitions and federations are effected without true unity of spirit.
v. 4. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, they tried to put obstructions of every kind in their way, not only by molesting the workmen, but also by eventually obtaining an injunction against the continuation of the work, and troubled them in building,
v. 5. and hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, in order to set aside the edict which gave the Jews permission to build the Temple, all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius (Hystaspes), king of Persia. For some sixteen years, by the use of various legal tricks, they actually succeeded in delaying the construction of the Sanctuary. And even in later years, as the author here summarizes, after the Temple had been erected, they persisted in their efforts to prejudice the Persian rulers against the Jews.
v. 6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, known in secular history as Xerxes, the successor to Darius, who was favorably disposed to the Jews, as the next chapters show, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
v. 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes, commonly known as Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned from 465 to 424 B. C. wrote Bishlam, Xithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, evidently all of them Samaritans, unto Artaxerxes, king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue and Interpreted in the Syrian tongue, that is, both the writing and the language were Aramaic. Even at this late day they did not give up their hostility, but made another attempt to prevent the growth of Jerusalem and the building of its walls.
v. 8. Rehum, the chancellor, and Shimshai, the scribe, apparently Persian officials in Samaria, wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort.
v. 9. Then wrote Rehum, the chancellor, and Shimshai, the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the communities transplanted to Palestine from the Eastern countries, which are now named according to their original homes: the Dinaites, the Apharsathchltes, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites,
v. 10. and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper, the official in charge of the colonizing of the northern territory, brought over and set it in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, south and west of the river Euphrates, and at such a time, literally, "and so forth," an abbreviation including all other facts which were usually mentioned in the opening of a letter. That is the usual consequence when faithful Christians are opposed to unionism in every form—hostility on the part of the enemies and an attempt to hinder the spread of the Gospel.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23 General Information:
General Information:
The non-Jewish people offer to help build the temple.
Read full note →
who had been exiled
This can be translated in active form. AT: "whom the Babylonians had taken into exile" (See: Active or Passive)
Zerubbabel
man's name. See how you translated this in Esra 2:2. (See: How to Translate Names)
Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
He ruled in Assyria before Cyrus ruled in Persia. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
Judah
Benjamin
exile
temple
Yahweh
God
Israel
clan
sacrifice
Assyria
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 4:1 Judah and Benjamin: Most of the exiles who…
4:1 Judah and Benjamin: Most of the exiles who had returned were from these two tribes of Israel (1:5).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.