Now be it known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be impaired.
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.
An appeal aimed at the king's purse
The writers say nothing about God or the temple. One commentator asks how real their concern for Persia was:
Leslie M. GrantThey 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.
Truth and falsehood woven together
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:
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe 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.
Why they spoke of the city and never the temple
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:
Edward DennettCyrus'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:
H. L. RossierThey 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.
Old sins give the accusation its teeth
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:
Edward DennettSo 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 letter works
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:
Edward DennettTwo 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.
Summary
- 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."