Now because we eat the salt of the palace and it is not fitting for us to witness the king's dishonor, therefore we send and inform 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 the Palace's Salt
Eating someone's salt was a set expression. A dictionary of Bible terms explains where it comes from:
Morrish Bible DictionaryThe 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.
Loyalty Worn as a Mask
Did they care about the king at all? One commentator asks that, and points to the same move elsewhere in Scripture:
Leslie M. GrantWere 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:
F. B. HoleA 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!
Truth and Falsehood Mixed
The letter is not a pack of lies from start to finish. Its power lies in the blend:
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe 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 Handle Old Failure Gave Them
The true part of the charge reached back to Judah's last kings:
F. B. HoleIt 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.
What They Wanted Stopped
Notice what the letter never mentions. The temple never appears, and the silence has a purpose:
H. L. RossierNotice 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.
Where the Real Weakness Lay
The work did stop. But one writer puts the real cause inside the people, not in the enemy's letter:
The Christian's FriendWe 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."
Summary
- 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.