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.
Rehum the chancellor, and 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,
Ezra 4:9 is the signature block of a letter. Officials and resettled peoples put their names to a complaint against the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the list raises two questions: who were these groups, and why did so many of them unite against one small band of returned exiles?
The verse names not one enemy but a bloc. What could pull peoples this different into one letter?
There are several lessons to note in the record of what they did. The first is the union of all the various races of the land "against Jerusalem"... all these were banded together to frustrate the work of the Lord in the building of His house. The carnal mind is enmity against God. So when God and His testimony are in question, there is no difficulty in securing unity of aim and purpose among His enemies. However much they differ among themselves, and even hate one another, they have but one mind when God appears on the scene.
The same writer gives a well-known example:
Even Herod and Pilate, who had been enemies before, became friends through their shared contempt of Christ.
Two officials head the list: Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe. Behind them stands a crowd of peoples, and the size of the list was the point.
Time and their earlier failure had not reduced the opposition. It had increased instead, as verses 7-9 make clear. The letter went up in the names of certain men who were prominent among the people of the land. Behind them stood no fewer than nine tribes or citizens or peoples who were living then in the country around Palestine. It was clearly a very imposing document.
Whether they truly spoke for all those groups is another matter.
They speak of themselves as representatives of many peoples whom Osnapper had taken captive and settled in the cities of Samaria. Whether they really represented those nations, as their letter claimed, may be very questionable. But they wanted their letter to look convincing.
The names are not native to the land. So where did these peoples come from?
They belonged to the nations that the kings of Assyria, as was their custom, moved to other countries after conquering them. Esar-haddon, the son of Sennacherib, followed the policy of Shalmaneser. The tribes of Israel that were never subdued went into captivity, and in their place he settled people from many different lands. He made them live in the cities of Samaria and in the land west of the Euphrates. The second book of Kings tells us about the religious condition of these nations. They kept their gods, and at the same time acknowledged the God of Israel: "So these nations feared the LORD and also served their carved images."
The returning exiles had refused to let these people build with them. That refusal was not pride:
In speaking this way, they show no spiritual pride. They admit that they are under the king of the Gentiles because of their own unfaithfulness. But they have understood that they alone are called to this work, since they cannot in any way associate with the religious character of the people around them.
The list names no one as the real author of the campaign. Commentators point past the signatures.
So in our chapter, Satan, though concealed, is the active agent in stirring up these various peoples in their action against the work of the remnant.
The coalition looked strong. But the real weakness lay on the other side.
It must still be stressed that these adversaries could have had no power against the people of God, if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work... It would have been the same with the remnant, but for their own laziness and unbelief. As already pointed out, it seems they stopped their work before the ban ever came.
The outcome was settled from the start:
The enemy could only delay their purpose, not frustrate it, for it was of God.
- United — peoples who differ and even hate each other agree at once when God's work is the target.
- Impressive — two officials and nine peoples made the letter look weighty. Their claim to speak for all those nations is questionable.
- Imported — Assyrian kings had resettled these peoples in Samaria. They feared the LORD and served their own idols at the same time.
- Concealed — the letter names no real author. Behind the signatures Satan stirs up the peoples against the work.
- Limited — the enemy could delay the work but not defeat it. What really stopped it was the exiles' own loss of faith.
and the rest of the peoples whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over and settled in the cities of Samaria, and the rest [of the country] on this side the river, and so forth.
These names sign a hostile letter to the king of Persia, sent by peoples settled in Samaria and the province west of the Euphrates. Who were they, and what real force did their protest have against the small group rebuilding Jerusalem?
They were not natives of the land. The verse names Osnappar as the king who settled them there. One writer traces that practice back through earlier Assyrian kings.
They belonged to the nations that the kings of Assyria conquered and then moved to other countries, as their custom was. Esar-haddon, the son of Sennacherib, followed the policy of Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:3). He removed the tribes of Israel that still held out, and they went into captivity. In their place he put people from many different lands, settling them in the cities of Samaria and in the land west of the Euphrates (v. 10).
Their religion matched their mixed origin. Second Kings records what they became:
The second book of Kings (2 Kings 17:33) tells us about the religious state of these nations. They kept their own gods and at the same time acknowledged the God of Israel. In the words of the Bible, "these nations feared the LORD and also served their carved images" (2 Kings 17:41).
That blend did not stay in ancient Samaria. One writer sees the same mixture in later religion that carries God's name.
This mixture was not plain idolatry, and it makes us think of the blend we call Christendom, in whatever form it appears... where worship of the true God sits alongside the moral darkness of the world, and where what people profess has no relation to what ought to mark the people of God.
So many names matter for one reason: they all pulled the same way.
The first is the union of all the different races of the land "against Jerusalem"... all of them joined forces to block the Lord's work of building His house. The mind of the flesh is hostile to God. So when God and His testimony are at stake, His enemies agree on one aim and purpose without difficulty. They may differ among themselves, and even hate one another, yet they are of one mind when God comes on the scene. We see this clearly in the case of our blessed Lord, when the kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers took counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed (Psalm 2). Even Herod and Pilate, who had been enemies before, became friends through their shared contempt of Christ.
Behind that alliance Dennett sees a hidden hand:
So in our chapter Satan stays hidden, but he is the one stirring up these different peoples to act against the work of the remnant.
The list of names was also meant to impress.
The letter went up in the names of leading men among the people of the land. It was backed by no fewer than nine of the tribes or citizens or peoples then living in the country around them. It was clearly a very impressive document.
Whether the writers had any right to speak for all those groups is another matter.
They present themselves as representatives of many peoples whom Osnappar had taken captive and settled in the cities of Samaria (vv. 9-10). Whether they really spoke for those nations when they wrote may be very doubtful, but they wanted their letter to look convincing.
Their numbers and titles were not the real problem. The trouble had already started inside the camp.
We must still stress that these enemies could have had no power against the people of God, if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work. Paul wrote, "A wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries" (1 Cor. 16:9). Yet not one of his opponents could have hindered his work, because he was counting on Him who "opens, and no one will shut."
- Origin — Assyrian kings moved these peoples into the cities of Samaria and the land west of the Euphrates. They took Israel away and put foreigners in their place.
- Mixture — They feared the God of Israel and served their carved images too. One writer sees the same blend wherever true worship sits beside the world's moral darkness.
- Coalition — Peoples who hated each other agreed at once when God's house went up. The same union of enemies met again at the cross.
- Presentation — Nine peoples and leading names made the letter look impressive. Whether the writers really spoke for them all is doubtful.
- Weakness — No alliance could stop the work while the builders trusted God. Opposition wins only where faith and heart are already lost.
This is the copy of the letter that they sent to him To Artaxerxes the king Thy servants the men on this side the river, and so forth.
This verse opens a letter that enemies of God's people sent to King Artaxerxes, signed as if by loyal servants. So why does Scripture keep an enemy's letter on record, and what does the polite greeting hide?
Verses 11 to 16 give the document itself. One writer explains why it stands in the Bible at all.
Verses 11-16 give us a copy of this letter. We are meant to see how skilful the adversary is at mixing lies with facts. That is how he twists a case and misrepresents it.
The letter goes to Artaxerxes. One writer explains who this king was, and why the enemies thought he would listen.
Then came the Artaxerxes of verse 7. Writers outside Scripture identify him as Smerdis, a man who seized the throne and held power for only a very short time. Because he had seized power, he was of course ready to overturn and cancel the decrees of the kings before him. In that way he hoped to secure his own position, if he could. The opponents saw that this man gave them an excellent chance with their petition, so once more they sent up a letter.
They sign themselves the king's servants. One writer asks how real that loyalty was.
They write confidently to the effect that if the city were rebuilt, its people would not pay tax, tribute or customs duty to Persia. Were they really concerned about Persia? Only so far 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." They had no love for Caesar, but used his name to frighten Pilate.
The charge that follows is about a city and its walls. The temple is never mentioned, though that was the one building Cyrus had authorised.
This statement gives away the voice of the "accuser of the brothers." It was false, and so it came from Satan, for "when he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." They had not set up the walls of the city or joined its foundations at all. They had barely laid the foundation of the temple... 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 believable. The king's answer shows they had judged it right.
The charge of rebellion was not invented out of nothing. Judah's last king had once broken a sworn promise to Babylon.
The sin of Israel in the past bears bitter fruit for these children of the captivity. Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar, but he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. So there was truth in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city... Under God's government in this world they now suffered the consequence of their fathers' sins.
Behind the talk of lost revenue lay a simpler aim. Scattered people are easy prey.
Notice that they never 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. Such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God... Scattered, they would easily become the prey of their enemies. In the same way Satan opposes the gathering of the children of God today. If he cannot corrupt the sheep, he sets them quarrelling, seizes them, and scatters them.
The letter succeeded, and the building stopped. But one writer is careful about where he places the blame.
All this took place, and their showy opposition did take effect. It troubled the Israelites, and they stopped the work. But note this, and it is very important. God does not blame the stopping of the work on the king's command. The king did give in at last, and yielded to their constant pressure to stop the Israelites. Yet the Israelites began to stop before the king's order came. It was lack of faith, not the king's authority, that stopped the work; and, dear friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The failure of blessing among God's people is never the work of the enemy outside. It comes from the lack of faith, and so of faithfulness, within.
- Copy. God kept the enemy's own letter on record. His people can study how an adversary mixes lies with facts.
- Pose. It opens in the language of loyal servants, but the loyalty is a pose. These men used the king's name as a lever; they never loved him.
- Omission. The one subject missing is the temple. Call the place a rebellious city instead, and the charge sounds believable to a king — the more so because Jerusalem had rebelled before.
- Aim. Stopping the walls was a way to stop a people from gathering. Scattered sheep become easy prey.
- Cause. The letter stopped the work only because unbelief had already stopped it. The loss came from lack of faith inside, not from power outside.
Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from thee unto us have come to Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and they complete the walls and join up the foundations.
This verse opens a letter from the neighbours of the returned exiles to the Persian king. It reports building work in Jerusalem that was not happening, and it says nothing about the temple the exiles had come back to build.
The report of finished walls describes work the exiles had never done. One writer traces the lie back to its source:
This statement betrays the speech of the "accuser of the brethren." It was false, and so it came from Satan, for "when he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." They had not set up the walls of the city or joined its foundations at all. They had barely laid the foundation of the temple.
The letter is not pure invention. Another writer says the copy was recorded so we could see how it was done:
Verses 11-16 give us a copy of this letter. In it we see how skilfully the adversary can mix lies with facts, and so twist and misrepresent the case in question.
What the verse leaves out matters as much as what it says. These men had once offered to help build the house of God. Now they write about the city and never mention the temple:
These "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" had claimed they wanted to help build the temple, since they also sacrificed to the God of Israel. Yet their accusation leaves out the temple and speaks only of the city. Their reason was obvious. The proclamation of Cyrus was about the temple. So by accusing the Jews of building the city, they made the charges of rebellion and treason they were hinting at look plausible.
There was a deeper motive. A finished city would gather a scattered people into one place:
They wished to stop the remnant from gathering together. Such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God: "If this city is built and its walls are completed, by this means you will have no portion on this side of the river." 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 doesn't succeed in corrupting the sheep, he makes them fall out, seizes them, and scatters them.
The words "rebellious and wicked city" had history behind them. That is what gave the letter its force, and writers point to Jerusalem's last kings:
It was true that the last few kings, and Zedekiah above all, had been bad men who could not be trusted. They broke their word in a rebellious spirit, and this gave some support to their accusation. But God had chosen this city from the first, and for a brief time it held dominion from Him. The bad behaviour of the last kings who reigned there gave them their chance to blacken the whole history of Jerusalem. It is a striking example of how unfaithful servants can dishonour the whole of God's work, and give the adversary the opportunity he wants.
Another writer names the broken oath behind the charge:
Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar, but he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. So he brought about the destruction of Jerusalem and God's judgment on himself. There was truth, then, in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant were under the favour and protection of God, yet they now suffered, under His government in this world, the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
The letter also plays on the king's own interests. One writer finds the same tactic used later against Jesus:
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. But these adversaries of Judah only wanted Artaxerxes to suppose that the Jews would not pay tribute to Persia.
The letter worked and the work stopped. But one writer puts the real weakness somewhere else:
We must still stress one thing. These adversaries could have had no power against the people of God, if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work.
Yet the enemy's success was not the end of the story:
No one discovered the falsehood that they were building the city and the wall. The enemy was successful. Yet a faithful God watched over it all.
- Lie — The report of finished walls and repaired foundations was false. The exiles had barely laid the temple's foundation.
- Mix — The letter blended lies with real history, so the true parts carried the false ones.
- Silence — The letter never names the temple. That way it stepped around Cyrus's decree and turned a building project into a case of treason.
- Scatter — Walls meant a people gathered, which is what the enemy most wanted to prevent, then and now.
- Watched — Past sin made part of the charge true, and the work stopped. Yet the real hindrance was the people's loss of heart, not the enemy's skill. God watched over it all.
Be it known therefore unto the king, that, if this city be built and the walls be completed, they will not pay tribute, tax, and toll, and in the end it will bring damage to the kings.
The enemies of the returned exiles wanted the building stopped, so they wrote to the Persian king. Their strongest argument was money: rebuild this city, and your tax income disappears.
The writers say nothing about God or the temple. One commentator asks how real their concern for Persia was:
They state firmly that if the city was rebuilt, its people would not pay tax, tribute or custom to Persia (v. 13). Were they really concerned about Persia? Only so far as they could gain through Persia. It was like the Pharisees telling Pilate about the Lord Jesus, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" (Jn. 19:12). They had no love for Caesar, but used his name to frighten Pilate.
The letter is not pure invention. Jerusalem really had been a rebellious city. What makes it dangerous is the mix: fact joined to lie, and both aimed at the king's fears:
The letter is a cleverly made document. It is full of false claims and lies, inspired by the one who is "the liar, and the father of it." They accused the Jews of building Jerusalem and setting up the wall. That was a lie. The Jews were building only the house of God, not the wall or the city. What they said about the city was true: it had rebelled in the past. The accuser used the nation's old sins. But God had shown grace to His people again and brought them back from captivity. They reminded the king of the danger if the city was rebuilt and fortified with a wall, and of the loss of revenue. So they put fear in his heart.
These same men had earlier offered to help build the temple. Yet in their letter the temple never appears, only the city. Commentators give two reasons for the switch. One sees a legal calculation:
Cyrus's proclamation was about the temple. So by accusing the Jews of building the city, they made their hinted charges of rebellion and treason look believable. The king's answer shows they had judged it right.
Another sees a deeper aim: keeping the returned people, the remnant, from coming together:
They wanted to stop the remnant from gathering together. Such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God. Scattered, they would easily become the prey of their enemies.
Why could such a charge be made to stick at all? Because it had a history behind it. Zedekiah, Judah's last king, had sworn loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and then broken his word. Yet the same writer insists the letter was never the real problem:
So there was truth in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant themselves were under God's favour and protection. No one could harm them as long as they went forward trusting Him. Yet under His government in this world they were now suffering the consequence of the sins of their fathers. And it must still be stressed that these enemies could have had no power against the people of God, if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work.
The king searched his records, found what he was told he would find, and issued the order. The two arguments that carried the day are exactly the two this verse contains — future trouble, and lost income:
Two motives were pressed on the king: guarding against future danger, and the possible loss of revenue. The royal records confirmed what the letter said about the city's past. So the king wrote, "Therefore make a decree that these men be made to cease, and that this city be not rebuilt, until a decree is made by me. And take care not to be slack in this matter. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the king?" The adversaries succeeded. When they received the letter, they went up in haste, armed with royal authority, and made sure that no attempt to continue building the house of the Lord could succeed. They stopped them by force and power.
- Silence: The letter never mentions the temple. Cyrus's decree covered the temple, so the writers spoke only of the city.
- Accusation: The charge mixes a real fact — Jerusalem's past rebellion — with a lie: that the walls were going up. Commentators trace this method to the accuser, "the liar, and the father of it."
- Money: Verse 13 moves the argument onto ground the king cares about — tribute, custom and toll. The writers had no love for Persia; they used Persia's interests to get their own way.
- Result: The king searched his records, found the city's old rebellion confirmed, and ordered the work stopped.
- Cause: The real weakness was inside. Commentators agree the enemy "could have had no power… if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work."
Now, since we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not right for us to see the king's injury, therefore have we sent and informed the king;
The writers of this letter to King Artaxerxes pause to explain why they are writing at all. They eat the king's salt, so they say his honour is their business — but is that loyalty real, and why did the claim work so well?
Eating someone's salt was a set expression. A dictionary of Bible terms explains where it comes from:
The Persians and Hindus use the phrase to "eat the salt" of their masters to mean that their employers feed them. We find this idea in Ezra 4:14, where the opponents of the Jews say, "We eat the salt of the palace," as the passage is more literally translated.
So the claim is about dependence. They live on the king's pay, so they claim they must speak.
Did they care about the king at all? One commentator asks that, and points to the same move elsewhere in Scripture:
Were they really concerned about Persia? Only insofar as they could benefit through Persia. This was like the Pharisees telling Pilate concerning 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... They suggest a mere pleasing platitude to the king when they wrote that it was not proper for them to see the king's dishonour (v. 14).
They wrote as if they had nothing to gain. One writer sees skill in that:
A third thing that strikes us is the way they presented the matter. They wrote as if their whole concern was for the king's advantage and reputation, and they themselves had little interest in it. Artaxerxes, we understand, was a usurper, so he would be quick to fear anything that might challenge his authority. The great spiritual adversary, who lay behind these human adversaries, is not lacking in skill!
The letter is not a pack of lies from start to finish. Its power lies in the blend:
The letter is a very cunning document, full of misrepresentation and falsehood. It was inspired by him who is "the liar, and the father of lies." They accused the Jews of building Jerusalem and setting up the wall. This was a falsehood. They were only building the house, 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. They reminded the king of the danger if the city were built again and fortified with a wall, and of the loss of revenue, and so they put fear into the king's heart.
The true part of the charge reached back to Judah's last kings:
It was true that the last few kings, and Zedekiah above all, had been bad men and unreliable. They broke their word in a rebellious spirit, and this gave some support to the accusation. Yet God Himself had chosen the city, and for a brief time it held dominion from Him. The bad behaviour of the last kings who reigned there gave them their chance to smear the whole history of Jerusalem. It is a striking example of how unfaithful servants can dishonour the whole of God's work, and give the adversary the opening he wants.
Notice what the letter never mentions. The temple never appears, and the silence has a purpose:
Notice that they do not accuse the people of rebuilding the temple. They do not say one word about it. They speak of the city instead. Their aim is easy to see. 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... but scattered, they would easily fall prey to their adversaries. In the same way, Satan opposes the gathering of the children of God today. If he cannot corrupt the sheep, he makes them fall out, seizes them, and scatters them.
The work did stop. But one writer puts the real cause inside the people, not in the enemy's letter:
We must still stress this. These adversaries could have had no power against the people of God, if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work. The apostle wrote, "A wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries" (1 Corinthians 16:9). Yet not one of his opponents could have hindered his work, because he was counting on Him who "opens, and no one will shut."
- Salt — "We eat the salt of the palace" means they were on the king's payroll. They dressed up dependence as duty.
- Mask — Their concern for the king's honour is a pleasing platitude. They used his name as the Pharisees used Caesar's before Pilate, with no love for him.
- Mixture — The letter's strength is half-truth. The charge about the wall was false; the record of past rebellion was true.
- Handle — Judah's last kings handed the adversary his opening. Unfaithful servants can dishonour the whole of God's work.
- Target — The temple is never named. The aim was to keep God's people scattered — and it only worked because their own faith had already failed.
that search may be made in the book of the annals of thy fathers so shalt thou find in the book of the annals and know that this city is a rebellious city, which has done damage to kings and provinces, and that they have raised sedition within the same of old time, for which cause this city was destroyed.
The accusers do not ask the king to take their word for it. They ask him to search the empire's records, because what he will find there about Jerusalem is not a lie but a fact.
The "book" they wanted searched was not a bound volume. It was an empire's filing system, and archaeologists have dug it up.
Ancient nations made records on cylinders or slabs of stone, or on clay, which was then baked or dried in the sun. Many such tablets have been found in the excavations at Nineveh, Babylon and other places. The 'book of the records' was very likely a collection of stone or clay tablets. In some cases these have been found in such numbers as to form quite a library.
The accusers were not inventing the city's reputation. They were quoting it — and the last generation of kings had handed them the material.
Then, assuming that the city was being rebuilt, they denounced it as a bad and rebellious place. It was true that the last few kings, and especially Zedekiah, had been bad men and unreliable. They broke their word in a rebellious spirit, and this gave some support to their accusation. God, however, had chosen the city at the first, and for a brief time it held dominion from Him. They got their chance to blacken the whole history of Jerusalem through the bad behaviour of the last kings who reigned there. It is a striking example of how unfaithful servants can dishonour the whole of God's work, and give the adversary the opening he wants.
Old sin, then, still had consequences in the world — though not the last word over a people God was protecting.
Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar. But he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. This brought about the destruction of Jerusalem, and brought God's judgment on himself as well. So there was truth in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant themselves were under the favour and protection of God, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward in confidence in Him. Yet under His government in this world they now suffered the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
The request looks like a call for open inquiry. It is nothing of the kind. There was a second document in those same archives, and they were careful not to mention it.
They asked the king for a search of the records to find out that Jerusalem was a rebellious city, causing harm to kings (of course such Gentile kings as Nebuchadnezzar). But they did not ask for the records of Cyrus having sent the Jews back to rebuild the temple.
The letter mixed real history with plain invention.
The letter is a very cunning piece of work, full of misrepresentation and falsehood. The one who is "a liar and the father of lies" inspired 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… The same accuser of our brothers, liar and falsifier, stood behind these letter writers, and he is still at work.
The letter aimed straight at this king's own fears.
The adversaries of those days present the king with political reasons for preventing the reuniting of the people. Such motives carried great weight with this crafty, usurping king. In fact they were the only motives likely to catch his attention. The king notes that in former days Jerusalem once had powerful kings. If their throne were set up again, they would overshadow him. He also notes that the city had always shown itself rebellious towards any foreign rule. This is enough to stir him to put a stop to the work.
- Records. The "book of the records" was an empire's archive of clay and stone tablets. The accusers were sure a search of it would prove Jerusalem's long history of rebellion.
- Truth. The charge was not invented. Zedekiah's broken oath had made the city a rebel, and the enemy just read the file aloud.
- Selection. The same archive held Cyrus's decree sending the Jews back to rebuild. That was the one record they never asked the king to check.
- Accuser. Behind the letter stands the one who mixes real past sins with outright lies. He is still at work the same way.
- Consequence. Unfaithful servants can blacken the whole record of God's work. Yet the remnant stood under God's favour, and no enemy could stop them while they went forward trusting Him.
We inform the king that if this city be built and its walls be completed, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.
This verse is the closing line of a letter sent to the Persian king about the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem. It sounds like loyal advice to the throne, but the writers are playing on the king's fear of losing land and income.
One writer notes what the letter asked the king to check, and what it left out:
They asked the king to search the records for proof that Jerusalem was a rebellious city that had harmed kings. The kings they meant were Gentile rulers like Nebuchadnezzar. It was true that Zedekiah had sworn allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar and then rebelled against him. That is why Jerusalem was destroyed. But they did not ask for records of Cyrus having sent the Jews back to rebuild the temple. Instead they declare that if Jerusalem was rebuilt, the king would lose his rule over the land west of the River Euphrates.
A reader might expect the complaint to be about the temple. One writer explains the target the enemies chose instead:
Notice that they do not accuse the people of rebuilding the temple. They do not say one word about it. They speak of the city instead. Their aim is easy to see. They wished to prevent the remnant from gathering together, because such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God. Scattered, they would easily become the prey of their enemies. In the same way, Satan opposes the gathering of the children of God today. If he does not manage to corrupt the sheep, he makes them quarrel, tears at them, and scatters them.
The letter is not pure invention. One writer separates the false charge in it from the true one:
The letter is a very cunning document, full of false statements and lies, 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 a lie, for they were building only the house, 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. The same accuser of the brothers, liar and falsifier, who stood behind these letter writers, is still at work and will go on until he is thrown out (Rev. 12).
Another writer asks where the slander found its material:
But God had originally chosen the city, and for a short time it held rule given by Him. The bad behaviour of the last kings who reigned there gave them their chance to blacken the whole history of Jerusalem. It is a striking example of how unfaithful servants can dishonour the whole of God's work, and hand the adversary the opportunity he wants.
The letter sounds like concern for Persia. One writer tests that concern against a scene from the Gospels:
Were they really concerned about Persia? Only as far as they could gain from Persia. This was like the Pharisees telling Pilate concerning the Lord Jesus, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" (Jn. 19:12). They had no love for Caesar, but used his name to frighten Pilate. But these enemies of Judah only wanted Artaxerxes to suppose that the Jews would not pay tribute to Persia.
So did these enemies hold real power over God's people? One writer answers no:
The accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city was therefore true. The remnant themselves were under the favour and protection of God, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward in confidence in Him. Yet under His government in this world they now suffered the consequence of the sins of their fathers. It must still be stressed that these adversaries could have had no power against the people of God, if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work. The apostle Paul wrote, "a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries" (1 Cor. 16:9). But not one of his opponents could have hindered his work, because he was counting on Him who "opens and no one will shut."
- Aim — The letter attacks the city, not the temple. A gathered people is a people the enemy cannot pick off one by one.
- Method — It mixes a true charge with a false one. Jerusalem had once rebelled; the walls were not in fact rising.
- Mask — The writers pose as guardians of the king's honour and income. They use his name as the Pharisees used Caesar's name against Pilate.
- Opening — The slander had material because earlier kings had been unfaithful. Unfaithful servants hand the adversary his opportunity.
- Answer — No accusation can stop a people who go forward in confidence in God. Lost faith and lost heart are what stop them.
The king sent an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and the other places beyond the river Peace, and so forth.
The accusers' letter has reached the Persian court, and here the king answers it. His polite reply stopped the rebuilding of God's house for years. How did the enemy manage that?
The reply matches the letter that caused it. One writer points to what the accusers left out:
These "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" had claimed they wanted to help build the temple, since they too sacrificed to the God of Israel. Yet in their accusation they say nothing about the temple. They speak only of the city. Their reason is obvious. The proclamation of Cyrus concerned the temple. So by accusing the Jews of building the city, they made their hinted charges of rebellion and treason look believable. The king's answer shows they had judged it right.
Two arguments moved the king, and the palace records backed them up:
The two motives urged on the king were protection against future danger and the possible loss of revenue. The appeal worked. The royal records also confirmed what the letter said about the city's past. So the king wrote, "Give the command now to make these men stop, and that this city not be built, until I give another command. Be careful not to fail in this; why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?" (vv. 17-22). The adversaries had succeeded. They received the letter and went up at full speed, armed with royal authority. They made sure no one could go on building Jehovah's house. "They made them cease," it says, "by force and power."
The king who sent this reply was not the rightful heir to the throne:
Verses 7-23 describe the more successful scheme in the days of the Pseudo-Smerdis. He was a Magian usurper who impersonated the true Smerdis, Cyrus' younger son, whom Cambyses had put to death... After little more than seven months the false Smerdis, the Artaxerxes of our chapter, was killed, and Darius, one of the highest Persian nobles, gained the kingdom. This may explain why the impostor knew nothing of Cyrus' policy and so listened readily to arguments against it. It also explains why, under God, the king who shared the mind of Cyrus looked seriously into the truth and stood by the measures that honoured the God and people of Israel.
Another writer finds the enemy's real aim in their own words:
They wanted to stop the remnant from gathering together. Such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God: "If this city is built and its walls are finished, you will have no portion on this side of the river." Scattered, they would easily become the prey of their enemies. In the same way Satan opposes the gathering of the children of God today. If he cannot corrupt the sheep, he makes them quarrel, seizes them, and scatters them.
The Bible does not blame the king's letter for the work stopping. One writer presses the point:
Note this — it is a very important thing. God does not blame the stopping of the work on the king's command. The king did give in at last, and did yield to their constant pleading to stop the Israelites. The Israelites began to stop before the king's authority came. It was lack of faith, not the king's authority, that stopped the work; and, dear friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The ending of blessing among God's people is never the work of the enemy outside. It is lack of faith, and so of faithfulness, inside.
God is not named anywhere in this chapter, and the enemy appears to win. One commentator weighs that silence:
Altogether it is a sad chapter — the record of Satan's activity... God does not appear in it. To human eyes it looks as if the enemy has completely won. Yet though God does not step in, He is no uninterested spectator of what is happening. Whatever His people are, He remains faithful. He will have His people fully tested. But He only waits for the right moment to raise up a power the enemy cannot withstand.
- Reply — The accusers' letter spoke of the city, not the temple. That made the charge of rebellion stick, and the king's answer followed.
- Reason — Two arguments won him: fear of revolt, and lost revenue. The palace records confirmed the city's past, so the stop order came.
- Ruler — This Artaxerxes was a usurper. He knew nothing of Cyrus' policy, so he reversed it. Darius, the next king, looked into the truth and upheld it.
- Root — The building had already stalled before the letter came. Lack of faith inside, not authority outside, is what ends blessing among God's people.
- Rest — God is not named in the chapter, and the enemy looks like the winner. He is testing His people, waiting to raise up a power the enemy cannot resist.
The letter that ye sent to us has been read before me distinctly.
Rehum and Shimshai had written to the Persian king, accusing the Jews of rebuilding a rebellious city. This verse opens his reply. What he did with that letter — and what he never checked — handed the enemy success.
The king's answer moves in steps. He heard the letter, then ordered a search of the royal records — and the records backed up the accusers.
Artaxerxes replied to this letter. He told Rehum, Shimshai and their companions that their letter had been clearly read to him, so he gave the command to search the records. The records confirmed that Jerusalem had sometimes revolted against Gentile kings. They also showed that Jerusalem had once had mighty kings who collected tax, tribute and custom from others (v. 20). Since this was true, the king did not want to see Jerusalem revive and collect tribute from others instead of paying tribute to Persia.
Commentators differ on which Persian king is meant here. One view places it under a usurper. He had seized the throne, and he knew nothing of Cyrus's earlier policy toward the Jews:
Verses 7-23 describe the more successful scheme in the days of the false Smerdis, the usurper who pretended to be the true Smerdis, Cyrus's younger son... This may help explain why the impostor so readily listened to the charge against Cyrus's policy: he knew nothing of it. It may also explain why, under God, the ruler who agreed with the great king looked carefully into the truth and stood by the measures that honoured the God and people of Israel.
Another writer names different kings, and says plainly that the question is not settled:
It is very hard now to identify Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes with the rulers of secular history. Probably the first was Xerxes, and the second Artaxerxes Longimanus.
The search reached back into the city's past. It never tested the claim about the present.
The king received the letter and ordered a search into Jerusalem's earlier history. The search confirmed what the letter claimed, and he commanded at once that the city should not be built. No one uncovered the falsehood that they were building the city and the wall. The enemy was successful. Yet a faithful God watched over it all.
The accusers chose their words with care.
These "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" had professed a desire to help in building the temple. Yet they leave out every reference to the temple in their accusation, and speak only of the city. Their reason was obvious. The proclamation of Cyrus was about the temple. So if they accused the Jews of building the city, they made the charges of rebellion and treason that they hinted at look believable. From the king's answer it is clear that they had not miscalculated.
The records told against Jerusalem because part of the charge was true.
Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar. But he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. So he brought about the destruction of Jerusalem, and brought the judgment of God on himself. (See 2 Chr. 36:13; Ezek. 17:12-16.) There was truth, therefore, in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant themselves were under the favour and protection of God, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward in confidence in Him. Yet they now suffered, under His government in this world, the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
From the king's desk the outcome looks like total defeat. The chapter never even mentions God.
Altogether it is a sad chapter — the account of the activity of Satan... God does not appear in it. Looked at with human eyes, it would seem as if the enemy had completely won. Yet though God does not step in, He is no uninterested spectator of what is taking place. Whatever His people are, He remains faithful.
- Read — the court read the letter aloud, then searched the records. They confirmed that Jerusalem had revolted before, and once had kings who collected tribute.
- Unread — no one checked the one false claim, that the walls were going up. The lie passed straight through.
- Reframed — the accusers named the city, never the temple, because Cyrus's decree covered the temple. The tactic worked.
- Remembered — Zedekiah's broken oath made the charge partly true. The remnant felt the cost of their fathers' sins.
- Unseen — God is never named in this chapter. Yet He is no uninterested spectator, and He stays faithful whatever His people are.
And I gave orders, and search has been made, and it has been found that this city of old time has made insurrection against the kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been raised therein.
Persia's king replies to the letter from Jerusalem's enemies. His officials search the royal records, and they find a history of revolt. The finding is true. Yet the enemy uses that true fact to stop a work that came from God.
The search was real, and the old records had plenty to show.
The closing verses of our chapter show that their letter had the desired effect. In those early days people kept careful records. When they searched, the records showed the unfaithful deeds of Zedekiah and others. They also showed the great power once held by men like David and Solomon. It seemed as if God's purpose in this matter had been completely defeated.
The records also explained why the king cared.
The search confirmed that Jerusalem had at times revolted against Gentile kings, and that Jerusalem had once had mighty kings who collected tax, tribute and custom from others. Since this was true, the king did not want to see Jerusalem revive in a way that would let it demand tribute from others instead of paying tribute to Persia.
The accusers asked for one kind of search and carefully avoided asking for another.
They asked the king to search the records for proof that Jerusalem was a rebellious city that harmed kings — Gentile kings, of course, such as Nebuchadnezzar. It was true that Zedekiah had rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar after swearing loyalty to him, and that is why Jerusalem was destroyed. But they did not ask for records of Cyrus having sent the Jews back to rebuild the temple.
One part of the letter went unchecked.
The king received the letter and ordered a search into Jerusalem's earlier history. It confirmed what the letter claimed, and he gave immediate orders that the city should not be built. No one uncovered the lie that they were building the city and the wall. The enemy was successful. Yet a faithful God watched over it all.
The people who came back had rebelled against no one. Their fathers had.
We should not pass over another point: Israel's sin in the past bears bitter fruit for these people who came back from captivity. Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar. But he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. So he brought about the destruction of Jerusalem, and he brought God's judgment on himself as well. There was truth, then, in the charge that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant themselves were under God's favour and protection, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward in confidence in Him. Yet now, under His government in this world, they suffered the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
The enemies had earlier offered to help build the temple. In their letter the temple disappears and only the city is mentioned — and that choice was deliberate.
Notice that they do not accuse the people of rebuilding the temple. They do not say even one word about it. They speak of the city instead. Their aim is easy to see. 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: "If this city is built and its walls are finished, you will have no portion on this side of the river." Scattered, the people would easily become the prey of their enemies.
The decree looks like the cause. But the work had already begun to stop before the king's letter came.
But notice this, and it is very important. God does not blame the ceasing of the work on the command of the king. The king did give in at last, and he did yield to their constant begging to stop the Israelites. But the Israelites began to stop before the king's order came. It was lack of faith, and not the king's authority, that stopped the work. And, dear friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The ending of blessing among God's people is never really the work of the enemy outside. It is a lack of faith, and so of faithfulness, within.
The decree bought the enemy time, and no more.
The weakness of the leaders showed itself even more in the people. They were troubled, or frightened away from building, for a long time. Yet the enemy could only delay, not frustrate, their purpose, which was of God.
- Search — The record was true. Zedekiah had broken his oath, and Jerusalem had fallen for it.
- Silence — The enemy asked for the record of rebellion, never for Cyrus's order to rebuild. Their own lie went unchecked.
- Harvest — The remnant stood under God's favour, yet still tasted the consequence of their fathers' sins.
- Target — The enemy named the city, not the temple. He aimed at the gathering of God's people, because scattered people are easy prey.
- Delay — The decree stopped the work for a time. But lack of faith inside was the real cause, and the enemy could only postpone a purpose that was God's.
And there have been mighty kings over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all beyond the river; and tribute, tax, and toll were paid to them.
A Persian king had his archives searched, and the search turned up something true: great kings had once ruled Jerusalem, and their power reached across the whole region. So the verse raises a hard question. What happens when enemies use the real history of God's people against them?
The king did not invent this. He had it looked up, and the records backed the accusers.
Artaxerxes replied to this letter. He told Rehum, Shimshai and their companions that their letter had been read out to him. So he gave command to search the records. The records confirmed that Jerusalem had at times revolted against Gentile kings. They also confirmed that Jerusalem had once had mighty kings who collected tax, tribute and custom from others (v. 20). Since this was true, the king did not want to see Jerusalem revive and take tribute from others instead of paying tribute to Persia.
One writer traces that reach back to Solomon, and sees in it a small picture of a far greater reign. (Older translations call the same region "on this side of the river.")
Solomon's dominion was only a weak type of Christ's, who will have "the ends of the earth" for His possession. The king of Israel ruled "over all the region on this side of the river," "to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt." These were the limits the Lord had assigned to Israel in Joshua 1:4. But Solomon's wisdom reached far beyond those limits.
The letter that provoked this reply mixed truth with lies. One writer names who inspired it.
The letter is a very clever document, full of misrepresentation and falsehood, inspired by the one who is "a liar and the father of lies." They accused the Jews of rebuilding Jerusalem and setting up the wall. This was false, since they were building only the house, not the wall or the city. What they said about the city, its old habit of rebellion, was true, and the accuser made use of the past sins of the nation. But God had been gracious to His people again and had brought them back from captivity. … The same accuser of God's people, the liar and falsifier who stood behind these letter writers, is still at work, and he will keep at it until he is thrown out (Rev. 12).
The dominion in this verse was not seized; God gave it. But the city's last kings gave the accusers their opening.
The city, however, had been chosen by God, and for a short time it held dominion from Him. The bad behaviour of the last kings who reigned there gave the accusers their chance to blacken the whole history of Jerusalem. This is a striking example of how unfaithful servants can dishonour the whole of God's work, and give the adversary the opening he wants.
The reasons that moved the king were political, not religious.
The adversaries of those days give the king political reasons for stopping the people from coming together again. Such motives carried great weight with this crafty king, who had seized his own throne, and in fact they were the only motives that could catch his interest. He notes that Jerusalem once had powerful kings, and that they would overshadow him if their throne were set up again. He also notes that the city had always shown itself ready to rebel against any foreign rule. That is enough to stir him to stop the work.
The building had already stalled before the king's order arrived. One writer puts the real cause in the people, not in the palace.
But they were timid then, through lack of faith. The Jews were terrified, and they lost heart long before their adversaries managed to get a ban from the king who had seized the throne. … The state soon took back the approval it had given them, and their adversaries had nothing but ill will until a king arose who did not know Isaiah's prophecy. Yet they were held back from the work while they themselves forgot or ignored the word of Jehovah. And it was not the world's smile or authority that renewed their courage and called them back to His work.
Later in the book a Persian king gives up these same three payments.
More than this, the king ordered that no one could impose tax, tribute or custom on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, Nethinim (temple servants) or servants of the house of God. Rehum and Shimshai had urged an earlier Artaxerxes to stop the Jews from building, claiming that the Jews would not pay tax, tribute or custom. But this king was now ready to give up these payments for the leaders of Israel, so that Judah would prosper.
- Record — The king ordered a search. The archives confirmed both the revolts and the mighty kings who once collected tribute.
- Glory — The city held that rule from God, and one writer sees Solomon's reach as a faint picture of Christ's far wider reign.
- Twist — The adversaries' letter mixed real facts with plain lies. The accuser behind it used the nation's past sins, and he still works that way.
- Fear — The appeal was political, not religious. The king heard that Jerusalem's old kings might overshadow him, and that was enough to stop the work.
- Reversal — Their own loss of faith stopped the work more than any decree did. Later a king waived the very tax, tribute and custom once used as a weapon, so Judah would prosper.
Now give order to make these men to cease, and that this city be not built, until the order shall be given from me;
This verse is the royal order that halted the rebuilding of God's house. The enemies of the returned exiles won it from the king, and it raises two questions: what moved him to sign it, and what really kept the work stopped.
The letter that reached the palace said nothing about worship. It made the case in political terms, and that is what the king weighed.
The enemies of that day give the king political reasons for stopping the people from coming together again. Such reasons carried great weight with this crafty king, who had seized his throne. In fact they were the only reasons that could catch his interest. He notes that Jerusalem once had powerful kings, and that they would overshadow him if their throne were set up again. He also notes that the city had always shown itself rebellious against any foreign rule. That is enough to stir him to stop the work. As soon as they had his authorization, the enemies of Israel "went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease."
Another writer adds what tipped the decision.
The two motives urged on the king were protection against future danger and the possible loss of revenue. The records in the royal archives confirmed what had been said about the city's past, and so he gave his order.
The order forbids rebuilding "this city." It says nothing about the temple, and the accusers had a reason for that.
One part of the accusation was true. Jerusalem had rebelled before, and the returned exiles now paid for it.
Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to stay loyal to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. But he broke his oath and rebelled against him. This brought about the destruction of Jerusalem, and it brought God's judgment on him as well. So there was truth in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant themselves were under God's favour and protection, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward trusting Him. Yet they now suffered, under His government in this world, the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
Read on its own, this verse looks like the cause of the long delay. The order of events says otherwise.
But notice this, and it is very important. God does not blame the stopping of the work on the king's command. The king did give in at last, and did yield to their constant begging to make the Israelites stop. But the Israelites began to stop before the king's order came. It was lack of faith, not the king's authority, that stopped the work. And, dear friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The ending of blessing among God's people is never the work of the enemy outside. It is lack of faith, and so of faithfulness, within.
The decree sets its own limit: the ban stands until the king speaks again. The fear it caused lasted far longer.
The weakness of the leaders showed itself even more in the people. They were troubled, frightened away from building for a long time. Yet the enemy could only delay their purpose, not defeat it, for that purpose was from God.
So what should a believer do when force stops the work?
Whether the world opposes or the world approves is a matter of the circumstances God arranges. The believer must obey God. If the world steps in or persecutes him, he has to suffer. But he is on the earth to do God's will, and if force stops him he can wait for God's time.
- Motive — Politics and revenue moved the king, not worship: a city with a record of revolt.
- Method — The accusers said "city," never "temple." Cyrus' permission covered the temple, so it could not shield the work.
- Memory — Zedekiah's broken oath made the charge of rebellion true. Past sin still carried a cost under God's government.
- Mistake — The builders stopped before the decree ever came. The failure was lack of faith within, not the enemy outside.
- Moment — The ban ran only "until" the king spoke again. The enemy could delay God's work, never cancel it.
and take heed that ye fail not to do this why should harm grow to the damage of the kings?
Artaxerxes closes his reply to Jerusalem's accusers with a warning and a question about damage to the crown. Two questions follow. What damage did a Persian king fear from a small band of returned exiles, and why did God let such a letter succeed?
Commentators name the two things that moved him:
Two motives were urged on the king: protection against future danger, and the possibility of lost revenue. They appealed to him in this way, and the records in the royal archives confirmed what they had said about the city's past. So he wrote that these men must be made to stop, and that the city must not be rebuilt, until he himself gave another command. The adversaries were successful. With the letter in hand they hurried up, armed with royal authority, and made sure no one could carry on building the Lord's house. "They made them cease," it says, "by force and power."
One commentator shows how empty that fear was:
Since this was true, the king did not want Jerusalem to rise again as a city that collected tribute from others instead of paying tribute to Persia… He should have seen that a revolt against Persia was very unlikely. The Jews were now so weak that their former state would never return.
Read the accusation again and something is missing. The temple is never mentioned. The wording was chosen on purpose:
Notice that they do not accuse the people of rebuilding the temple. They do not say one word about it. They speak of the city instead. Their aim is easy to see. They wanted to stop the remnant from gathering together. Such a gathering would take away the enemy's power over the people of God… but scattered, they would easily become the prey of their enemies. In the same way, Satan opposes the gathering of the children of God today. If he cannot corrupt the sheep, he makes them fall out with each other, seizes them, and scatters them.
The charge worked because it was not a lie:
Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar. But he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. So he brought about the destruction of Jerusalem, and he brought God's judgment on himself too… There was truth, therefore, in the charge that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The remnant themselves were under the favour and protection of God, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward in confidence in Him. Yet they now suffered, under His government in this world, the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
The decree looks like the cause. One commentator points elsewhere:
But notice this — it is very important. God does not blame the stopping of the work on the king's command, even though the king did give in at last… The Israelites began to stop before the king's order came. It was lack of faith, not the king's authority, that stopped the work. And, dear friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The ending of blessing among God's people is never really the work of the enemy outside. It is lack of faith, and so lack of faithfulness, within.
The order had a limit: it held only until the king gave another command. And the chapter's silence about God is not His absence:
Altogether it is a sad chapter — the record of Satan's activity. Its one bright gleam is the faithfulness of Israel's leaders in refusing an alliance with the world… God does not appear in it. To human eyes it would look as if the enemy had won completely. Yet while God does not step in, He is no uninterested onlooker. Whatever His people are, He stays faithful.
- Damage feared. Artaxerxes acted to guard his revenue and his throne. Commentators call the fear groundless: the returned people were far too weak to threaten Persia.
- Damage aimed. The accusers never named the temple. They attacked the city, because a gathered people is beyond the enemy's reach, while a scattered one is easy prey.
- Damage inherited. The charge of rebellion was true history. Under God's government the returned exiles bore the consequences of their fathers' broken oaths.
- Damage done. The work stopped from the inside, not from the royal order. Lost faith is where blessing among God's people dies.
- Damage limited. The ban held only until the king gave another command. God seemed absent, but He was watching, and He stays faithful.
As soon as the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and made them cease by force and power.
The king's reply has arrived. The men who wrote against Jerusalem now have what they wanted: royal permission to stop the building. Two questions follow. Why did a Persian king care about a small building project? And was the enemy's letter the true reason the work stopped?
The order of events here puzzles many readers.
Here there is a considerable gap. Several kings reigned between Cyrus and Darius, and they appear in the rest of the chapter. That part is an insert (verses 6-23), explaining what took place between those two points.
The verse turns on how quickly the opponents moved once the answer arrived. One writer traces the king's reasoning and then the result: the two arguments in the letter were fear of future trouble and fear of lost income, and the palace records appeared to back them up.
The adversaries were successful, and having received the letter, they went up as fast as they could, armed with royal authority, and effectively made sure no attempt could be made to continue the work of building the Lord's house. "They made them cease," it says, "by force and power."
Why would a Persian king bother with a city far away?
The adversaries of those days present the king with political reasons for preventing the reuniting of the people. Such motives had great weight with this crafty, usurping monarch and, in fact, were the only motives that might draw his concern. The king notes that Jerusalem once had powerful kings. They would overshadow him if their throne were re-established. He also notes that the city had always shown itself rebellious against any foreign rule. This is enough to stir him to put a stop to the work.
Was the accusation just a lie?
Their last king, Zedekiah, had "sworn by God" to be faithful to Nebuchadnezzar, but he broke his oath and rebelled against the king of Babylon. So there was truth in the accusation that Jerusalem had been a rebellious city. The returned exiles were under God's favour and protection, and no one could harm them as long as they went forward in confidence in Him. Yet they now suffered, in His government in this world, the consequence of the sins of their fathers.
The opposition changed shape as the chapter went on.
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.
Commentators press a point the verse does not say out loud. Compared with the prophecy of Haggai, it appears the work had already slowed badly before any order came from Persia.
But notice this — it is very important. God does not attribute the stopping of the work to the king's command. The king did give in at last, and did yield to their persistent begging to stop the Israelites. The Israelites began to stop before the king's authority arrived. It was lack of faith, not the king's authority, that stopped the work; and, beloved friends, as a rule, is it not always so? The ceasing of blessing among God's people is really never the work of the enemy outside, but lack of faith, and therefore of faithfulness, within.
The same writer quoted above tests this by a New Testament case, where opposition and open opportunity existed side by side.
These adversaries could have had no power against the people of God if the people themselves had not lost faith in God and heart for their work. The apostle wrote, "For a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries" (1 Cor. 16:9); but not one of his opponents could have hindered his work, because he was counting on Him who "opens and no one will shut."
Something is missing from the end of the chapter, and its absence is the point.
We can well imagine the scene when the letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai and their companions. They must have rushed up to Jerusalem in a fever of haste, and made them stop the work by force and power. "Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia." The returned exiles faced a hard test, and a decline set in at that time. Their 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.
Nothing in the closing verses records God speaking or acting.
Altogether it is a sad chapter — the account of Satan's activity. The only bright gleam in it is the faithfulness of the leaders of Israel in refusing an alliance with the world. The rest of the chapter is darkness. God does not appear in it; and, looked at with human eyes, it would seem as if the enemy had completely conquered. Yet while God does not step in, He is no uninterested spectator of what is taking place. Whatever His people are, He remains faithful. He will have His people thoroughly tested. But we shall see that He only waits for the right moment to raise up a power the enemy will not be able to withstand.
- Fear — The charge that moved the king was political, not religious: a rebuilt Jerusalem meant rival kings and a rebel city.
- Force — Armed with the king's letter, the opponents rushed to Jerusalem and stopped the building by force and power.
- Fault — Yet the work had already begun to stop before the king's order came. The real cause was unbelief inside, not the enemy outside.
- Faith — Trickery, intimidation, accusation and violence came in turn. Only faith could have stood against them, and the people had none.
- Faithfulness — God does not appear in the chapter, but He is not absent. He waits for the moment to raise up a power the enemy cannot resist.