And 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 Aramaic, and interpreted in Aramaic.
Work on God's house had already stalled. Now the opponents of the returned exiles change tactics. Instead of local pressure, they send a formal letter to the Persian king. This verse names the senders and the language they used. Who were these men? Which king did they write to? And why does the language matter?
This verse opens a longer record of a new method: letters aimed at the throne.
From verses 6–23 we have the details of how the adversaries of God's people secured a royal decree. It was in their favour, and against the building of the temple. Their effort in the reign of Ahasuerus seems to have failed (v. 6). But they were not discouraged. They kept at their object in the reign of his successor, Artaxerxes, and then their efforts were rewarded.
The verse names three senders. One writer fills in their background, and also explains the royal names used in this chapter.
Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes. They were Persians and officials of the government, probably closely connected with the Samaritans and living in Jerusalem. (Ahasuerus is a royal title meaning "the venerable king." Artaxerxes is also such a title, meaning "the great king.")
They did not write alone. The verse mentions "the rest of their associates," and the next verses list who they were.
The opposition had not weakened with the passing of time or because of the earlier failure. In fact it had increased, as is clear if we read verses 7–9. The letter went up in the names of certain men who were prominent among the people of the land. Behind it stood no less than nine of the tribes or peoples then living in the country around Palestine. It was clearly a very impressive document.
Aramaic was the working language of the Persian Empire. Parts of the book of Ezra are written in it rather than in Hebrew.
The verses of chapters 4:18–6:18 and 7:12–26 are not written in Hebrew but in Aramaic. Aramaic is a Semitic language, as is Hebrew. Aramaic was an official and an international trade language in the Persian Empire. The paragraphs mentioned above contain official documents written by or for the Persian court.
Commentators differ on the identity of the kings in this chapter. One is frank about the difficulty.
This is hardly the place to discuss the question of who Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes were. It is very hard now to identify them with the kings of secular history. Probably the first was Xerxes, and the second Artaxerxes Longimanus.
A reference work matches these names to different kings, and treats this section as a break in the flow of the story.
Ahasuerus (Cambyses) succeeded Cyrus. A letter went to him (Ezra 4:6), but no answer is recorded. Another went to Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis), and both that letter and the reply are recorded. … Ezra 4:6–23 are a parenthesis.
The building work under way was the temple. The letter that follows says nothing about it, and that silence had a reason.
These "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" had claimed a desire to help in building the temple, on the ground that they too sacrificed to the God of Israel. Yet in their accusation they leave out any reference to the temple, and speak only of the city. Their reason was obvious. The proclamation of Cyrus concerned the temple. So by accusing the Jews of building the city, they made their hints of rebellion and treason look plausible. The king's answer shows they had not miscalculated.
What they did claim was not true.
The letter is a very cleverly crafted document, full of misrepresentation and falsehood. They accused the Jews of building Jerusalem and setting up the wall. This was false, because only the house was being built, not the wall or the city. What they said about the city, its past record of rebellion, was true, and the accuser made use of the nation's past sins.
The letter is one stage in a longer campaign. One writer names the four weapons used, and what they cost.
And so, these four hostile forces unite here to ruin the work of God: trickery, intimidation, accusation, and violence. Only faith could have resisted them. But the people had no faith at all, and so the building of the house stopped for fifteen years.
- Persistence. The first letter, to Ahasuerus, achieved nothing. The writers tried again with the next king, and this time they succeeded.
- Prestige. Prominent men signed the letter, and nine surrounding peoples stood behind it. The document aimed to impress.
- Language. Aramaic was the official language of the Persian court, and Ezra records these court documents in it.
- Omission. The letter never mentions the temple, the one thing Cyrus had authorised. It speaks only of the city, which made a charge of rebellion sound plausible.
- Cost. Trickery, intimidation, accusation and force came one after another. The house stood unfinished for fifteen years.
Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king after this sort
Ezra 4:8 names two officials — a commander and a scribe — who put their opposition to Jerusalem in writing and sent it to the Persian king. At this verse the book also changes language, so we now read the enemy's own words.
The Old Testament is a Hebrew book, with a few exceptions. This verse marks the start of one of them:
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except for Ezra 4:8 to Ezra 6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; and Daniel 2:4 to Daniel 7:28. Those parts are in Chaldee, that is, Aramaic.
The document that follows is not a neutral report. One writer weighs its contents against the facts on the ground and names the mind behind it:
The letter is a carefully crafted document, full of misrepresentation and falsehood, inspired by the one who is "a liar and the father of lies." They accused the Jews of building Jerusalem and setting up the wall. This was false, because they were only building the house, not the wall or the city. What they said about the city — its old record of rebellion — was true, and the accuser made use of the past sins of the nation.
The letter sounds like concern for Persia. One writer tests that concern and finds a familiar pattern:
Were they really concerned about Persia? Only insofar as they could benefit through Persia. This was like the Pharisees telling Pilate about the Lord Jesus, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" (John 19:12). They had no love for Caesar, but used his name to frighten Pilate. These adversaries of Judah only wanted Artaxerxes to assume that the Jews would not pay tribute to Persia.
The accusation says nothing about the temple. One writer asks what that silence was for, and carries the answer into the present:
Notice that they do not accuse the people of rebuilding the temple. They do not say one word about it. Instead they speak of the city. Their aim is easy to discover. They wanted to stop the remnant from gathering together, because such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God... while scattered, they would easily become the prey of their adversaries. In the same way, Satan opposes the gathering of the children of God today. If he does not succeed in corrupting the sheep, he makes them quarrel, seizes them, and scatters them.
This letter was one weapon among several. One writer names them all, and counts the cost:
And so these four hostile forces come together again here to ruin the work of God: trickery, intimidation, accusation, and violence. Only faith could have resisted them. But the people had no faith at all, and so the building of the house stopped for fifteen years.
The letter of Rehum and Shimshai came years after the building had already slowed. That gap matters when we ask what stopped the work:
But many years passed before this ban came. The prophecies throw much light on the history of that time. From studying them and comparing their dates, it seems clear to me that the true hindrance was a lack of faith in the remnant... God was no more to be feared in the reign of Darius than in the reign of Cyrus or of Artaxerxes. The source of their weakness was that they had forgotten God. This shows the great grace of God in waking them up through the mouth of Haggai.
The letter succeeded. Even so, its success had a boundary it could not cross:
Yet the enemy could only delay, not frustrate, their purpose, which was of God.
- Accusation. After trickery and threats failed, the enemies wrote a formal charge. It was the third of four weapons: trickery, intimidation, accusation, violence.
- Mixture. The letter mixed lies with truth. The claim that the walls were going up was false. The city's old record of rebellion was real, and the accuser used it.
- Motive. The stated care for the king's revenue was a cover. The real aim was to keep God's people from gathering, since scattered they are easy prey.
- Cause. Commentators point past the letter to a deeper failure. The work had already stalled through lack of faith. Forgetting God, not the king's order, was the real weakness.
- Limit. The enemy could delay the work but never defeat it. After fifteen years God stirred His people again through the prophet Haggai.