In the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia. The letter was written in Aramaic and translated.
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?
From harassment to diplomacy
This verse opens a longer record of a new method: letters aimed at the throne.
Edward DennettFrom 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 men who signed it
The verse names three senders. One writer fills in their background, and also explains the royal names used in this chapter.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinBishlam, 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.
F. B. HoleThe 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.
Why the language is mentioned
Aramaic was the working language of the Persian Empire. Parts of the book of Ezra are written in it rather than in Hebrew.
Arend RemmersThe 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.
Which Artaxerxes?
Commentators differ on the identity of the kings in this chapter. One is frank about the difficulty.
Edward DennettThis 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.
Morrish Bible DictionaryAhasuerus (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.
What the letter said, and left out
The building work under way was the temple. The letter that follows says nothing about it, and that silence had a reason.
Edward DennettThese "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.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe 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 full sequence of pressure
The letter is one stage in a longer campaign. One writer names the four weapons used, and what they cost.
H. L. RossierAnd 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.
Summary
- 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.