Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard. Ezra 4:1-3 The proposal of the Samaritans to the Jews William Jones. I. THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE SAMARITANS 1. Plausible in its form. 2. But evil in itself.(1) They were not Israelites.(2) They did not worship Jehovah as the true God. To have received such a people into community and co-operation with the true people of God would have been an set of utter unfaithfulness and disloyalty to Him.(3) Their design in making this proposal was an unworthy one.(4) The acceptance of their proposal would have been perilous to the Jews. II. THE PROPOSAL REJECTED BY THE JEWS. 1. An exclusive obligation in relation to the work is asserted. 2. The alleged similarity of worship is indirectly denied. 3. The command of Cyrus is adduced in support of this rejection. This was prudent. "Be ye wise as serpents," etc. 4. The rejection of the proposal was unanimous. 5. The rejection of the proposal was prompt and decided. ( William Jones. ) The proposals of the wicked and how to treat them William Jones. I. THAT THE WICKED OFTEN PROPOSE TO ENTER INTO ALLIANCE WITH THE GOOD. These alliances are of different kinds. 1. Commercial. 2. Social 3. Matrimonial. 4. Religious. II. THAT THE PROPOSALS OF THE WICKED FOR ALLIANCE WITH THE GOOD ARE OFTEN SUPPORTED BY PLAUSIBLE REASONS. III. THAT THE ALLIANCES PROPOSED BY THE WICKED ARE ALWAYS PERILOUS TO THE GOOD. IV. THAT THE PROPOSALS OF THE WICKED FOR ALLIANCE WITH THE GOOD SHOULD ALWAYS BE FIRMLY REJECTED. ( William Jones. ) The uses of an enemy C. F. Deems, D. D. 1. The having one is proof that you are somebody. Wishy-washy, empty, worthless people, never have enemies. Men who never move, never run against anything; and when a man is thoroughly dead and utterly buried, nothing ever runs against him. To be run against, is proof of existence and position; to run against something, is proof of motion. 2. An enemy is, to say the least, not partial to you. He will not flatter. He will not exaggerate your virtues. It is very probable that he will slightly magnify your faults. The benefit of that is twofold. It permits you to know that you have faults; it makes them visible and so manageable. Your enemy does for you this valuable work. 3. In addition, your enemy keeps you wide awake. He does not let you sleep at your post. There are two that always keep wash — namely, the lover and the hater. Your lover watches, that you may sleep. He keeps off noises, excludes light, adjusts surroundings, that nothing may disturb you. Your hater watches that you may not sleep. He stirs you up when you are napping. He keeps your faculties on the alert. 4. He is a detective among your friends. You need to know who your friends are, and who are not, and who are your enemies. The last of these three will discriminate the other two. When your enemy goes to one who is neither friend nor enemy, and assails you, me indifferent one will have nothing to say or chime in, not because he is your enemy, but because it is so much easier to assent than to oppose, and especially than to refute. But your friend will take up cudgels for you on the instant. He will deny everything and insist on proof, and proving is very hard work. Follow your enemy and you will find your friends, for he will have developed them so that they cannot be mistaken. The next best thing to having a hundred real friends, is to have one open enemy. ( C. F. Deems, D. D. ) The adversary an abiding quantity in life J. Parker, D. D The adversary is a man who seeks to discover flaws, disadvantages, mistakes; a man who magnifies all that is unworthy until he makes a great sore and wound of it, so as to offend as many as possible; he knows how the work could have been better done; he sees where every mistake has been committed; and under his breath, or above it, as circumstances may suggest, he curses the builders and their building, and thinks that such an edifice built by such men is but an incubus which the earth is doomed to bear. Regard the criticism of adversaries as inevitable. If we think of it only as incidental, occasional, characteristic of a moment's experience, we shall treat it too lightly; the adversary is an abiding quantity in life. ( J. Parker, D. D ) Let us build with you. -- Beware of your associates J. Parker, D. D Beware of your associates. With some men we ought not to build even God's house. We may spoil the sacred edifice by taking money made by the ruin of men. The Samaritans who thus spoke to Zerubbabel and to the chief of the fathers were not telling an absolute lie. No absolute lie can ever do much in the world; its very nakedness would cause it to be driven out of society; it must wear some rag of truth. The Samaritans in the ancient time did worship God after their fashion, but they did not give up a single idolatrous practice; they wanted to have two religions — to serve in some sort all the gods there were, and then when one failed they could flee to another; so they would build any wall, any altar, any city, any sanctuary; they wanted to be at peace with all the gods, then they would know what to do in the day of adversity. We have spoken of the Samaritans of the ancient time: why not speak of the Samaritans of the present day who wish to do this very thing — men who can bow their heads in prayer, and drink toasts to the devil? "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." ( J. Parker, D. D ) Simulated unselfishness J. Parker, D. D How oftentimes are people overcome by manner, by persuasiveness of tone, by assumed gentleness of spirit! The young creature is often so overcome; she says she knows he who has spoken to her is not a bad man; whatever he be he has a guileless tongue; his words are well chosen; he speaks them as a man might speak them who knows the gentleness of pity, all the sympathy of love; it is impossible that he can be simulating such tenderness; it is impossible that he can for selfish reasons be putting himself to such inconvenience and sacrifice. It is to-morrow that she finds out that beneath the velvet there lay the claw of the tiger. Nothing stands but character — real, simple, transparent, solid character. That will bear a thousand blasts of opposition and hostility, and at the end will seem the richer, the chester, for the rude discipline through which it has passed. ( J. Parker, D. D ) The true builders of the spiritual temple of God William Jones. That Christian work should be done only by Christians may be supported by the following reasons. I. THEY ALONE WILL BUILD ON THE TRUE FOUNDATION. II. THEY ALONE WILL BUILD WITH THE TRUE MATERIALS. III. THEY ALONE WILL BUILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRUE PLAN. IV. THEY ALONE WILL BUILD WITH THE TRUE AIM. THIS IS THE GLORY OF GOD. V. THEY ALONE WILL BUILD IN THE TRUE SPIRIT. That of — 1. Obedience. 2. Humility. 3. Patience. 4. Trust in God. 5. Self-consecration. ( William Jones. ) Compromising help refused J. Menzies. How strangely history repeats itself. In this early struggle between the Jews and the Samaritans we have a foreshadow of many a struggle in the Christian Church. When Paul and the other apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, the Greeks and the Romans would willingly enough have tolerated Christianity if Christianity would but tolerate their idolatrous systems. They would even have patronised the new religion, and would have offered no opposition to the erection of an image of Jesus amongst the images of other gods. But, when they saw that Christianity demanded the renouncing of idolatry and the exclusive worship of the one living and true God, at once priests, rulers, and people rose in arms against the preachers. Every obstacle was placed in the way of the spread of Christianity. But in spite of all persecution the Church prospered. Idolatry fought for its life and gradually lost every battle, until, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the Gospel had conquered the Roman Empire, and Christianity became the nominal religion of all her people. This is the battle, too, that the Church has to fight to-day. We can and we ought to be liberal in many things, but the followers of Jesus dare not be so liberal as to allow men of the world and men of sin to engage hand in hand with them in the Master's work. The Church ought, and she does, invite into her fellowship all classes. However fallen and bad men may be they are welcome to enter the Church. But they must leave the world and their sins behind them. There cannot be two masters. Christ must have the whole heart, the whole strength, and the entire devotion. ( J. Menzies. ) Questionable money help should be refused J. Parker, D. D The Church will take money from anybody; the whole Christian Church in all her ramifications and communions cheats herself into the persuasion that she can take the money of bad men and turn it to good uses. Grander would be the Church, more virgin in her beauty and loveliness, more snow-like in her incorruptibleness, if she could say to every bad man who offers her assistance, Ye have nothing to do with us in building the house of our God: the windows shall remain unglazed, and the roof-beams unslated, before we will touch money made by the sale of poison or by practices that are marked by the utmost corruption and evil. ( J. Parker, D. D ) Doubtful men a source of weakness to a church J. Parker, D. D Thus we can learn from the Old Testament a good deal that would bear immediate modern application. This is the right answer to all doubtful Christians as well as to all unbelievers. We should say to them, So long as you are doubtful you are not helpful: your character is gone on one side, and therefore it is ineffective on the other. But would not this class of discipline and scope of criticism shear down the congregations? Certainly. Would God they were shorn down! Every doubtful man amongst us is a loss, a source of weakness, a point of perplexity and vexation. We are only unanimous when we axe one in moral faith and consent. The critic will do us no good; the clever man who sees our metaphysical error will keep us back: only the soul that has given itself to Christ, out-and-out, in an unbargaining surrender, can really stand fire in the great war, end build through all weathers, and hope even in the midst of darkness. We may have too many people round about us; we may be overburdened and obstructed by numbers. The Church owes not a little of its strength to the purity of its discipline. ( J. Parker, D. D ) Mental penetration in leaders J. Parker, D. D : — Leaders must be critical. The man who has little responsibility can soon achieve a reputation for energy. Leaders must halt, hesitate, balance, and compare things, and come to conclusions supported by the largest inferences., There are men who would take a short and ready method in accomplishing their purpose: there are men of rude strength, of undisciplined and unsanctified force. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua must look at all the offers of assistance, and ask what their real value is; they must go into the sanctuary of motive, into the arcana of purpose end under-meanings. Zerubbabel and Jeshua — men who could undertake to build a city — were men who had mental penetration; they could see into other men. They saw into the Samaritan adversaries, and said, "Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God." ( J. Parker, D. D ). Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah. Ezra 4:4-24 The hostility of the Samaritans to the Jews William Jones. I. THE TACTICS OF THE WICKED. If they cannot bend the good to their wishes and aims by plausible pretences, they alter their tactics and betake themselves to unscrupulous opposition in various forms. II. THE VENALITY OF THE WICKED. The Samaritans "hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purposes." It is reasonable to infer that these counsellors were men of some skill and resource and power of persuasion who deliberately exercised their abilities in an evil cause for gain. III. THE TEMPORARY TRIUMPH OF THE WICKED. IV. THE FREEDOM ALLOWED BY GOD TO THE WICKED. ( William Jones. ) The antagonism of the world to the Church J. Parker, D. D This antagonism as here illustrated is — I. PERSISTENT. II. AUTHORITATIVE. III. COMBINED. IV. UNSCRUPULOUS. V. PLAUSIBLE. 1. In their profession of loyalty to the king. 2. In their presentation of proof of their assertions. ( J. Parker, D. D ). Now because we have maintenance from the king's palace. Ezra 4:14 Good cause for great zeal I. WE ACKNOWLEDGE A VERY GRACIOUS FACT. 1. We have been maintained from the King's palace — (1) In things temporal. (2) In things spiritual. 2. Our maintenance from the King's palace has cost His Majesty dear. He spared not His own Son. 3. We have had a bountiful supply. 4. We have had an unfailing portion. 5. The supply has ennobled us. 6. How cheering it is to have such a soul-satisfying portion in God. II. HERE IS A DUTY RECOGNISED. By every sense of propriety we are bound not to see God dishonoured — 1. By ourselves. 2. By those who dwell under our roof. 3. By those with whom we have influence; particularly those who desire to unite with us in Church fellowship. We must not receive into our membership persons of unhallowed life — those who know not the truth as it is in Jesus. 4. By the mutilation and misrepresentation of His Word. 5. By a neglect of His ordinances. 6. By a general decline of His Church. 7. By so many rejecting His gospel. We cannot prevent their doing so, but we can weep for them, pray for them, etc. III. A COURSE OF ACTION PURSUED. "Certified the king." It is a holy exercise of the saints to report to the Lord the sins and the sorrows they observe among the people and to plead for their removal. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers. Ezra 4:15 Church registers F. W. P. Greenwood. in a general view, all human records are interesting, if they are scarcely more than registers of names. Those names are always appended to some act or event, however concisely stated, and thus these mere catalogues serve to show us how they who have gone before us have been occupied, and are the founts and rills which flow into the great stream of human history; or, rather perhaps, to change the metaphor, are among the foundation-stones on which the fabric of human history is reared; they are low and concealed from observation, but are nevertheless essential to the building. Nothing can be apparently more devoid of interest than the pages of a church register; and yet, let us look at it nearly and intently, and with a reference to the principle just intimated, and interest will be found in every column, in every name. Consider — I. The register of BAPTISMS. II. The register of MARRIAGES. III. The register of DEATHS. ( F. W. P. Greenwood. ) Them sent the king an answer. Ezra 4:17-24 The temporary triumph of the wicked William Jones. I. EXAMINE THE LETTER OF THE KING. This letter suggests — 1. That the subtlety of the wicked frequently obtains a temporary triumph over the good. 2. That one generation frequently suffers through the sins of another and earlier one. The Jews smarted for their sins of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. 3. That the cause of God is frequently reproached and hindered by the evil conduct of some of its adherents. The rebellions of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were now made use of to asperse the Jews and to stop the work of God. All who love the gospel should therefore walk circumspectly. II. THE ACTION OF THE SAMARITANS. "Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read," etc. Their action was — 1. Prompt. 2. Personal. 3. Powerful.Learn : 1. That the temporary triumph of a cause or a party is not a proof of its righteousness. The death and burial of Christ. 2. That we are not competent to judge the relation of the present events to the purpose and providence of the great God. ( William Jones. ) Unto the rest beyond the river, Peace Peace beyond the river The Literacy Churchman. I. THE ADVENT MESSAGE OF THE CHURCH TO SINNERS IS, "Beyond the river, Peace!", She tells of a promised land and arouses the slaves of sin. II. CHRIST IS COME AND WITH HIM PEACE, BUT WE MUST GO TO MEET HIM. III. THE ROAD THITHER IS HARD — We must cross the river of self-denial. A legend says that once a wanderer went to a city, and the first man he met said to him, "Of course you come to see our famous statue?" and each one he met in that town told him of the famous statue; and, moreover, each one prided himself in having something to do with it: this one to guard it; that one to keep it clean, and so forth. As the traveller stood before it he asked, "Who is this?" "Oh! we've forgotten his name," was the reply, "but that's no matter, it is a splendid statue, and the glory of our town." Sadly the wanderer turned away, and do you know, dear people, as he went out of the gate some little children cried, "Why, that is the man our famous statue was put up to!" Is it not still possible for men and women to be church-goers and church-workers, to be proud of their Church, and yet the Living Christ passes by unknown? ( The Literacy Churchman. ).

Benson Commentary Ezra 4:1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; Ezra 4:1 . Now when the adversaries of Judah, &c. — The Samaritans, the relics of the ten tribes, and foreigners that had joined themselves to them, and patched up that mongrel religion of which we had an account 2 Kings 17:33 , where it is said, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods. They are called the people of the land, Ezra 4:4 . Thus, the worst enemies that Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews, and were not. Ezra 4:2 Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do ; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither. Ezra 4:2 . They came to Zerubbabel, &c., and said, Let us build with you — Hearing that the temple was in building, they were presently aware that it would be a fatal blow to their superstition, and therefore set themselves to oppose it. But as they had not power to do it openly and by force, they endeavoured to do it secretly and by wiles. They offer their service to build with them, but only that by this conjunction with them they might pry into their counsels, find some matter of accusation against them, and thereby retard the work, while they pretended to further it. For we seek your God, as ye do — This was false; for though they sought the same God, they did not seek him only, nor seek him in the way he had appointed, as the true Jews did. And we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon — Son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, who brought or sent these persons thither, either, 1st, in the days of Shalmaneser, who reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esar-haddon, and so Esar-haddon might be one of his commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent; or, 2d, in the reign of Esar-haddon, who sent a second colony to strengthen the first. Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us. Ezra 4:3 . Ye have nothing to do with us — The chief of the fathers were soon aware that they meant them no kindness, whatever they might pretend, but really designed to do them an injury; and therefore, (though they had need enough of help, if it had been such as they could confide in,) they told them plainly they could not accept it, nor unite with them, as being of another nation and religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus’s grant, which was confined to the Israelites. But we ourselves will build — For you are none of those with whom we dare hold communion. Thus we ought to take heed with whom we go partners, and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with an absolute confidence, we must trust men with a prudent caution. They do not plead to them the law of their God, which forbade them to mingle themselves with strangers, though they especially had an eye to that, but they urge what they knew would have greater weight with them, the king’s commission, which was directed to themselves only. In doing good we have need of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as of the innocence of the dove. Ezra 4:4 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, Ezra 4:4 . But the people of the land — Hebrew of that land; namely, the Samaritans, the present inhabitants of that province. Weakened the hands of the people of Judah — As they could not divert them from the work, they endeavoured to discourage them in it, by persuading them it was in vain to attempt it, and that they would never be able to finish what they had begun. And troubled them in building — Laying all the impediments they could in their way; by false reports and slanders; by threatenings; and by preventing materials or provisions from coming to them; or by enticing away their workmen, and other means described afterward. Ezra 4:5 And hired counsellers against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. Ezra 4:5 . And hired counsellors against them — Bribed some of the king’s council, in order that by their artifices, and interests in his court, they might give some stop to the work, and frustrate the purpose of the Jews. All the days of Cyrus king of Persia — For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his viceroy, who was a wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews. Even until the reign of Darius — The son of Hystaspis, who, having killed the magi, (that, after Cambyses, had possessed themselves of the kingdom,) was made king; and marrying Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, and loving her very much, confirmed the decree of Cyrus, and followed his steps, that he might stand the safer himself. Ezra 4:6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. Ezra 4:6 . In the reign of Ahasuerus — A common name of divers kings of Persia. This Ahasuerus was probably Smerdis, one of the magi who seized the kingdom after Cambyses. Wrote they unto him an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem — Importing that they intended to set up for themselves, and not to depend upon the king of Persia. Ezra 4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. Ezra 4:7 . In the days of Artaxerxes, &c. — The sacred writer, having in the foregoing verse mentioned a stop being put to the building of the temple, till the reign of Darius, now proceeds to relate particularly how it was effected. By Artaxerxes here is probably meant the son of Cyrus, called Cambyses by heathen writers. Written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue — That is, it was written both in the Syrian character, and the Syrian language: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words were written in the Hebrew character. Ezra 4:8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: Ezra 4:8-9 . Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter, &c. — These two, as it was their office, put into writing, or drew up, a letter, agreeable to what had been resolved on in a council of the great men, or governors, mentioned in the foregoing verse. The Dinaites, &c. — These nine nations came out of Assyria, Persia, Media, Susiana, and other provinces of that vast empire; who, with one consent, joined in this letter or petition. Ezra 4:9 Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, Ezra 4:10 And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time. Ezra 4:10 . Whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over — Some take Asnapper to be another name for Shalmaneser, or for Esar-haddon, who sent these colonies hither. But it is more reasonable to think he was some great commander, or other person of eminence, who was appointed captain of this colony, and intrusted with the office of conducting them over the river Euphrates, and seeing them settled in these countries. Ezra 4:11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time. Ezra 4:12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof , and joined the foundations. Ezra 4:12 . Thy servants, and at such a time, &c. — The particular time when the letter was written was no doubt expressed therein; but in this narrative it was sufficient to mention it in general. Ezra 4:12 . And have set up the walls thereof — This was a mere calumny, for they had attempted no such thing as to build the walls of Jerusalem. They had indeed built some houses, without which the place could not be inhabited, and were now employed in erecting the walls of the temple: but they had not begun to encompass the city with walls, to defend it against the incursions of their enemies. This was not undertaken till long after. The assertion of the Samaritans, therefore, was without foundation. But being confidently affirmed, they thought it would be easily credited by the king, whose heart and ears they had contrived to possess by their counsellors. Ezra 4:13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. Ezra 4:13 . Then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom — “By the first of these, Grotius understands that which every head paid to the king, and which we call poll-money; by the second, the excise, as we now speak, which was upon commodities and merchandise; and by the last, the land- tax.” — Dodd. Ezra 4:14 Now because we have maintenance from the king's palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; Ezra 4:14 . Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace — In the Hebrew it is, we are salted with the salt of the palace. That is, are sustained by the king’s munificence, or have a salary from him, as Junius translates it. In ancient times, it appears, it was usual to allow those who had deserved well, and on that account were honourably provided for at the king’s charge, among other things, a daily quantity of salt; it being a thing very necessary in human life. Locke, however, who translates the clause, we have eaten of the king’s salt, understands the meaning to be, “We have engaged ourselves in a covenant of friendship with him.” It was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour — Thus they represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and mightily concerned for the honour and interest of it; and hence they urge the king to put a stop to the building of the city and temple of Jerusalem, as what would certainly be to his loss and dishonour. Ezra 4:15 That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed. Ezra 4:15 . In the book of the records of thy fathers — That is, thy predecessors, the former emperors of this empire; namely, in the Assyrian and Babylonish records; which, together with the empire, were now in the hands of the Persian kings. Ezra 4:16 We certify the king that, if this city be builded again , and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river. Ezra 4:17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time. Ezra 4:18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. Ezra 4:19 And I commanded, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. Ezra 4:19-20 . That rebellion and sedition have been found therein — One instance or two of it, in latter times, had served to fasten this odious character upon them, as if they had been always guilty of these crimes. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem — And therefore the king thought it not advisable to permit them to go on with rebuilding the city, lest they should become powerful again. Ezra 4:20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them. Ezra 4:21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. Ezra 4:21 . Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease — Thus he suffered himself to be imposed upon by their fraud and falsehood, and took no care to examine the allegations of their petition concerning what the Jews were now doing; but took all they had asserted for matter of fact, and therefore was very ready to gratify them with an order of council to stay proceedings. Until another commandment shall be given — So that, it appears, however, he kept his ears open to further information; which if he should receive, different from theirs, he might give other orders. Ezra 4:22 Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? Ezra 4:22 . Take heed now that ye fail not, &c. — Let not a thing, which may be of such ill consequence, grow to a head, whereby others may be excited to follow the example, and rebel against the king. Ezra 4:23 Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Ezra 4:23 . And made them to cease by force and power — As they abused the king by their misinformations, in the obtaining of this order, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the building of the city and its walls. But, having power in their hands, they on this pretence stopped the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them; because the quietness of our lives depends much on the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates as well as the supreme. Ezra 4:24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. Ezra 4:24 . Then ceased the work of the house of God — For they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their king’s prohibition, without a special command from the King of heaven, which, however, they afterward received. But even then they were cold and indifferent about it, and were accordingly reproved by the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah 5:1 , compared with Haggai 1:2 . So that the work, in a great measure, stood still until the second year of the reign of Darius — This, as was intimated on Ezra 4:6 , was Darius the son of Hystaspis, successor of Cambyses; not, as some would have it, Darius Nothus, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus: for he was not emperor till above one hundred years after Cyrus, and, if he had been the Darius here intended, there must consequently have been about one hundred and thirty years from the beginning of the building of the temple to the finishing of it; which is not credible to any one that considers, 1st, That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the foundation, and finish the work, Zechariah 4:9 . 2d, That some of the same persons who saw the finishing of this second house; had seen the glory of the first house, Haggai 2:3 . Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Ezra 4:1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; THE LIMITS OF COMPREHENSION Ezra 4:1-5 ; Ezra 4:24 THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra introduces the vexed question of the limits of comprehension in religion by affording a concrete illustration of it in a very acute form. Communities, like individual organisms, can only live by means of a certain adjustment to their environment, in the settlement of which there necessarily arises a serious struggle to determine what shall be absorbed and what rejected, how far it is desirable to admit alien bodies and to what extent it is necessary to exclude them. The difficulty thus occasioned appeared in the company of returned exiles soon after they had begun to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. It was the seed of many troubles. The anxieties and disappointments which overshadowed the subsequent history of nearly all of them sprang from this one source. Here we are brought to a very distinguishing characteristic of the Persian period. The idea of Jewish exclusiveness which has been so singular a feature in the whole course of Judaism right down to our own day was now in its birth-throes. Like a young Hercules, it had to fight for its life in its very cradle. It first appeared in the anxious compilation of genealogical registers and the careful sifting of the qualifications of the pilgrims before they left Babylon. In the events which followed the settlement at Jerusalem it came forward with determined insistence on its rights, in opposition to a very tempting offer which would have been fatal to its very existence. The chronicler introduces the neighbouring people under the title "The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin"; but in doing so he is describing them according to their later actions; when they first appear on his pages their attitude is friendly, and there is no reason to suspect any hypocrisy in it. We cannot take them to be the remainder of the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom who had been permitted to stay in their land when their brethren had been violently expelled by the Assyrians, and who were now either showing their old enmity to Judah and Benjamin by trying to pick a new quarrel, or, on the other hand, manifesting a better spirit and seeking reconciliation. No doubt such people existed, especially in the north, where they became, in part at least, the ancestors of the Galileans of New Testament times. But the men now referred to distinctly assert that they were brought up to Palestine by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. Neither can they be the descendants of the Israelite priests who were sent at the request of the colonists to teach them the religion of the land when they were alarmed at an incursion of lions; { 2 Kings 17:25-28 } for only one priest is directly mentioned in the history, and though he may have had companions and assistants, the small college of missionaries could not be called "the people of the land" ( Ezra 4:4 ). These people must be the foreign colonists. There were Chaldaeans from Babylon and the neighbouring cities of Cutha and Sepharvaim (the modern Mosaib), Elamites from Susa, Phoenicians from Sidon-if we may trust Josephus here ( Ant. , 12, v. 5) - and Arabs from Petra. These had been introduced on four successive occasions-first, as the Assyrian inscriptions show, by Sargon, who sent two sets of colonists; then by Esarhaddon; and, lastly, by Ashurbanipal. (The "Onsnappar" of Ezra 4:10 ) The various nationalities had had time to become well amalgamated together, for the first colonisation had happened a hundred and eighty years, and the latest colonisation a hundred and thirty Years, before the Jews returned from Babylon. As the successive exportations of Israelites went on side by side with the successive importations of foreigners, the two classes must have lived together for some time; and even after the last captivity of the Israelites had been effected, those who were still left in the land would have come into contact with the colonists. Thus, apart from the special mission of the priest whose business it was to introduce the rites of sacrificial worship, the popular religion of the Israelites would have become known to the mixed heathen people who were settled among them. These neighbours assert that they worship the God whom the Jews at Jerusalem worship, and that they have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon, the Assyrian king to whom, in particular, they attribute their being brought up to Palestine, possibly because the ancestors of the deputation to Jerusalem were among the colonists planted by that king. For a century and a half they have acknowledged the God of the Jews. They therefore request to be permitted to assist in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. At the first blush of it their petition looks reasonable and even generous. The Jews were poor; a great work lay before them; and the inadequacy of their means in view of what they aimed at had plunged the less enthusiastic among them into grief and despair. Here was an offer of assistance that might prove most efficacious. The idea of centralisation in worship of which Josiah had made so much would be furthered by this means, because instead of following the example of the Israelites before the exile who had their altar at Bethel, the colonists proposed to take part in the erection of the one Jewish temple at Jerusalem. If their previous habit of offering sacrifices in their own territory was offensive to rigorous Jews, although they might speak of it quite naively, because they were unconscious that there was anything objectionable in it and even regard it as meritorious, the very way to abolish this ancient custom was to give the colonists an interest in the central shrine. If their religion was defective, how could it be improved better than by bringing them into contact with the law-abiding Jews? While the offer of the colonists promised aid to the Jews in building the temple, it also afforded them a grand missionary opportunity for carrying out the broad programme of the Second Isaiah, who had promised the spread of the light of God’s grace among the Gentiles. In view of these considerations we cannot but read the account of the absolute rejection of the offer by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the twelve leaders with a sense of painful disappointment. The less pleasing side of religious intensity here presents itself. Zeal seems to be passing into fanaticism. A selfish element mars the picture of whole-hearted devotion which was so delightfully portrayed in the history of the returned exiles up to this time. The leaders are cautious enough to couch their answer in terms that seem to hint at their inability to comply with the friendly request of their neighbours, however much they may wish to do so, because of the limitation imposed upon them in the edict of Cyrus which confined the command to build the temple at Jerusalem to the Jews. But it is evident that the secret of the refusal is in the mind and will of the Jews themselves. They absolutely decline any co-operation with the colonists. There is a sting in the carefully chosen language with which they define their work; they call it building a house "unto our God." Thus they not only accept the polite phrase "Your God" employed by the colonists in addressing them; but by markedly accentuating its limitation they disallow any right of the colonists to claim the same divinity. Such a curt refusal of friendly overtures was naturally most offensive to the people who received it. But their subsequent conduct was so bitterly ill-natured that we are driven to think they must have had some selfish aims from the first. They at once set some paid agents to work at court to poison the mind of the government with calumnies about the Jews. It is scarcely likely that they were able to win Cyrus over to their side against his favourite proteges. The king may have been too absorbed with the great affairs of his vast dominions for any murmur of this business to reach him while it was being disposed of by some official. But perhaps the matter did not come up till after Cyrus had handed over the government to his son Cambyses, which he did in the year B.C. 532-three years before his death. At all events the calumnies were successful. The work of the temple building was arrested at its very commencement-for as yet little more had been done beyond collecting materials. The Jews were paying dearly for their exclusiveness. All this looks very miserable. But let us examine the situation. We should show a total lack of the historical spirit if we were to judge the conduct of Zerubbabel and his companions by the broad principles of Christian liberalism. We must take into account their religious training and the measure of light to which they had attained. We must also consider the singularly difficult position in which they were placed. They were not a nation; they were a Church. Their very existence, therefore, depended upon a certain ecclesiastical organisation. They must have shaped themselves according to some definite lines, or they would have melted away into the mass of mixed. nationalities and debased eclectic religions with which they were surrounded. Whether the course of personal exclusiveness which they chose was wisest and best may be fairly questioned. It has been the course followed by their children all through the centuries, and it has acquired this much of justification-it has succeeded. Judaism has been preserved by Jewish exclusiveness. We may think that the essential truths of Judaism might have been maintained by other means which would have allowed of a more gracious treatment of outsiders. Meanwhile, however, we must see that Zerubbabel and his companions were not simply indulging in churlish unsociability when they rejected the request of their neighbours. Rightly or wrongly, they took this disagreeable course with a great purpose in mind. Then we must understand what the request of the colonists really involved. It is true they only asked to be allowed to assist in building the temple. But it would have been impossible to stay here. If they had taken an active share in the labour and sacrifice of the construction of the temple, they could not have been excluded afterwards from taking part in the temple worship. This is the more clear since the very grounds of their request were that they worshipped and sacrificed to the God of the Jews. Now a great prophet had predicted that God’s house was to be a house of prayer for all nations. { Isaiah 56:7 } But the Jews at Jerusalem belonged to a very different school of thought. With them, as we have learnt from the genealogies, the racial idea was predominant. Judaism was for the Jews. But let us understand what that religion was which the colonists asserted to be identical with the religion of the returned exiles. They said they worshipped the God of the Jews, but it was after the manner of the people of the Northern Kingdom. In the days of the Israelites that worship had been associated with the steer at Bethel, and the people of Jerusalem had condemned the degenerate religion of their northern brethren as sinful in the sight of God. But the colonists had not confined themselves to this. They had combined their old idolatrous religion with that of the newly adopted indigenous divinity of Palestine. "They feared the Lord, and served their own gods." { Isaiah 56:7 } Between them, they adored a host of Pagan divinities, whose barbarous names are grimly noted by the Hebrew historian-Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, etc . { 2 Kings 17:30-31 } There is no evidence to show that this heathenism had become extinct by the time of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. At all events, the bastard product of such a worship as that of the Bethel steer and the Babylonian and Phoenician divinities, even when purged of its most gross corruption, was not likely to be after the mind of the puritan pilgrims. The colonists did not offer to adopt the traditional Torah, which the returned exiles were sedulously observing. Still it may be said, if the people were imperfect in knowledge and corrupt in practice, might not the Jews have enlightened and helped them? We are reminded of the reproach that Bede brings so sternly against the ancient British Christians when he blames them for not having taught the gospel to the Saxon heathen who had invaded their land. How far it would have been possible for a feeble people to evangelise their more powerful neighbours, in either case, it is impossible to say. It cannot be denied, however, that in their refusal the Jews gave prominence to racial and not to religious distinctions. Yet even in this matter it would be unreasonable for us to expect them to have surpassed the early Christian Church at Jerusalem and to have anticipated the daring liberalism of St. Paul. The followers of St. James were reluctant to receive any converts into their communion except on condition of circumcision. This meant that Gentiles must become Jews before they could be recognised as Christians. Now there was no sign that the mixed race of colonists ever contemplated becoming Jews by humbling themselves to a rite of initiation. Even if most of them were already circumcised, as far as we know none of them gave an indication of willingness to subject themselves wholly to Jewish ordinances. To receive them, therefore, would be contrary to the root principle of Judaism. It is not fair to mete out a harsh condemnation to Jews who declined to do what was only allowed among Christians after a desperate struggle, which separated the leader of the liberal party from many of his brethren and left him for a long while under a cloud of suspicion. Great confusion has been imported into the controversy on Church comprehension by not keeping it separate from the question of tolerance in religion. The two are distinct in many respects. Comprehension is an ecclesiastical matter; tolerance is primarily concerned with the policy of the state. Whilst it is admitted that nobody should be coerced in his religion by the state, it is not therefore to be assumed that everybody is to be received into the Church. Nevertheless we feel that there is, a real and vital connection between the ideas of tolerance and Church comprehensiveness. A Church may become culpably intolerant, although she may not use the power of the state for the execution of her mandates; she may contrive many painful forms of persecution, without resorting to the rack and the thumb-screw. The question therefore arises, What are the limits to tolerance within a Church? The attempt to fix these limits by creeds and canons has not been wholly successful, either in excluding the unworthy or in including the most desirable members. The drift of thought in the present day being towards wider comprehensiveness, it becomes increasingly desirable to determine on what principles this may be attained. Good men are weary of the little garden walled around, and they doubt whether it is altogether the Lord’s peculiar ground; they have discovered that many of the flowers of the field are fair and fragrant, and they have a keen suspicion that not a few weeds may lurk even in the trim parterre; so they look over the wall and long for breath and brotherhood, in a large recognition of all that is good in the world. Now the dull religious lethargy of the eighteenth century is a warning against the chief danger that threatens those who yield themselves to this fascinating impulse. Latitudinarianism sought to widen the fold that had been narrowed on one side by sacerdotal pretensions and on the other side by puritan rigour. The result was that the fold almost disappeared. Then religion was nearly swallowed up in the swamps of indifference. This deplorable issue of a well-meant attempt to serve the cause of charity suggests that there is little good in breaking down the barriers of exclusiveness unless we have first established a potent centre of unity. If we have put an end to division simply by destroying the interests which once divided men, we have only attained the communion of death. In the graveyard friend and foe lie peaceably side by side, but only because both are dead. Wherever there is life two opposite influences are invariably at work. There is a force of attraction drawing in all that is congenial, and there is a force of a contrary character repelling everything that is uncongenial. Any attempt to tamper with either of these forces must result in disaster. A social or an ecclesiastical division that arbitrarily crosses the lines of natural affinity creates a schism in the body, and leads to a painful mutilation of fellowship. On the other hand, a forced comprehension of alien elements produces internal friction, which often leads to an explosion, shattering the whole fabric. But the common mistake has been in attending to the circumference and neglecting the centre, in beating the bounds of the parish instead of fortifying the citadel. The liberalism of St. Paul was not latitudinarian, because it was inspired by a vital principle which served as the centre of all his teaching. He preached liberty and comprehensiveness, because he had first preached Christ. In Christ he found at once a bond of union and an escape from narrowness. The middle wall of partition was broken down, not by a Vandal armed with nothing better than the besom of destruction, but by the Founder of a new kingdom, who could dispense with artificial restrictions because He could draw all men unto Himself. Unfortunately the returned captives at Jerusalem did not feel conscious of any such spiritual centre of unity. They might have found it in their grandly simple creed, in their faith in God. But their absorption in sacrificial ritual and its adjuncts shows that they were too much under the influence of religious externalism. This being the case, they could only preserve the purity of their communion by carefully guarding its gates. It is pitiable to see that they could find no better means of doing this than the harsh test of racial integrity. Their action in this matter fostered a pride of birth which was as injurious to their own better lives as it was to the extension of their religion in the world. But so long as they were incapable of a larger method, if they had accepted counsels of liberalism they would have lost themselves and their mission. Looking at the positive side of their mission, we see how the Jews were called to bear witness to the great principle of separateness. This principle is as essential to Christianity as it was to Judaism. The only difference is that with the more spiritual faith it takes a more spiritual form. The people of God must ever be consecrated to God, and therefore separate from sin, separate from the world-separate unto God. NOTE.-For the section Ezra 4:6-23 see Chapter 14. This section is marked by a change of language; the writer adopts Aramaic at Ezra 4:8 , and he continues in that language down to Ezra 6:18 . The decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12-26 is also in Aramaic. Ezra 4:6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. THE COST OF AN IDEALIST’S SUCCESS Ezra 4:6-23 THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra contains an account of a correspondence between the Samaritan colonists and two kings of Persia, which follows sharply on the first mention of the intrigues of the enemies of Judah and Benjamin at the Persian court in the later days of Cyrus, and which precedes the description of the fortunes of the Jews in the reign of Darius. If this has its right chronological position in the narrative, it must relate to the interval during which the temple-building was in abeyance. In that case the two kings of Persia would be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus, and Pseudo-Bardes. But the names in the text are Ahasuerus ( Ahashverosh ) and Artaxerxes ( Artahshashta ). It has been suggested that these are second names for the predecessors of Darius. Undoubtedly it was customary for Persian monarchs to have more than one name. But elsewhere in the Biblical narratives these two names are invariably applied to the successors of Darius-the first standing for the welt-known Xerxes and the second for Artaxerxes Longimanus. The presumption therefore is that the same kings are designated by them here. Moreover, when we examine the account of the correspondence with the Persian court, we find that this agrees best with the later period. The opening verses of the fourth chapter of Ezra deal with the building of the temple; the last verse of that chapter and the succeeding narrative of the fifth chapter resume the same topic. But the correspondence relates to the building of the walls of the city. There is not a word about any such work in the context. Then in the letter addressed to Artaxerxes the writers describe the builders of the walls as "the Jews which came up from thee." { Ezra 4:12 } This description would not fit Zerubbabel and his followers, who migrated under Cyrus. But it would apply to those who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes. Lastly, the reign of Pseudo-Bardes is too brief for all that would have to be crowded into it. It only occupied seven months. Yet a letter is sent up from the enemies of the Jews; inquiry is made into the history of Jerusalem by Persian officials at the court; a reply based on this inquiry is transmitted to Palestine; in consequence of this reply an expedition is organised which effectually stops the works at Jerusalem, but only after the exercise of force on the spot. It is nearly impossible for all this to have happened in so short a time as seven months. All the indications therefore concur to assign the correspondence to the later period. The chronicler must have inserted this section out of its order for some reason of his own. Probably he desired to accentuate the impression of the malignant and persistent enmity of the colonists, and with this end in view described the later acts of antagonism directly after mentioning the first outbreak of opposition. It is just possible that he perceived the unfavourable character of his picture of the Jews in their curt refusal of assistance from their neighbours, and that he desired to balance this by an accumulation of weighty indictments against the people whom the Jews had treated so ungraciously. In his account of the correspondence with the Persian court the chronicler seems to have taken note of three separate letters from the unfriendly colonists. First, he tells us that in the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus they wrote an accusation against the Jews. { Ezra 4:6 } This was before the mission of Ezra, therefore it was a continuance of the old opposition that had been seen in the intrigues that preceded the reign of Darius; it shows that after the death of that friendly monarch the slumbering fires broke out afresh. Next, he names certain men who wrote to Artaxerxes, and he adds that their letter was translated and written in the Aramaic language-the language which was the common medium of intercourse in trade and official affairs among the mixed races inhabiting Syria and all the regions west of the Euphrates. { Ezra 4:7 } The reference to this language probably arises from the fact that the chronicler had seen a copy of the translation. He does not tell us anything either of the nationality of the writers or of the subject of their letter. It has been suggested that they were Jews in Jerusalem who wrote to plead their cause with the Persian king. The fact that two of them bore Persian names- viz. , Bishlam and Mithredath-does not present a serious difficulty to this view, as we know that some Jews received such names, Zerubbabel, for example, being named Sheshbazzar. But as the previous passage refers to an accusation against the Jews, and as the following sentences give an account of a letter also written by the inimical colonists, it is scarcely likely that the intermediate colourless verse which mentions the letter of Bishlam and his companions is of a different character. We should expect some more explicit statement if that were the case. Moreover, it is most improbable that the passage which follows would begin abruptly without an adversative conjunction as is the case if it proceeded to describe a letter provoked by opposition to another letter just mentioned. Therefore we must regard Bishlam and his companions as enemies of the Jews. Now some who have accepted this view have maintained that the letter of Bishlam and his friends is no other than the letter ascribed to Rehum and Shimshai in the following verses. It is stated that the former letter was in the Aramaic language, and the letter which is ascribed to the two great officials is in that language. But the distinct statement that each group of men wrote a letter seems to imply that there were two letters written in the reign of Artaxerxes, or three in all. The third letter is the only one that the chronicler has preserved. He gives it in the Aramaic language, and from Ezra 4:8 , where this is introduced, to Ezra 6:18 , his narrative proceeds in that language, probably because he found his materials in some Aramaic document. Some have assigned this letter to the period of the reign of Artaxerxes prior to the mission of Ezra. But there are two reasons for thinking it must have been written after that mission. The first has been already referred to- viz. , that the complaint about "the Jews which came up from thee" points to some large migration during the reign of Artaxerxes, which must be Ezra’s expedition. The second reason arises from a comparison of the results of the correspondence with the description of Jerusalem in the opening of the Book of Nehemiah. The violence of the Samaritans recorded in Ezra 4:23 will account for the deplorable state of Jerusalem mentioned in Nehemiah 1:3 , the effects of the invasion referred to in the former passage agreeing well with the condition of the dismantled city reported to Nehemiah. But in the history of Ezra’s expedition no reference is made to any such miserable state of affairs. Thus the correspondence must be assigned to the time between the close of Ezra and the beginning of Nehemiah. It is to Ezra’s company, then, that the correspondence with Artaxerxes refers. There were two parties in Jerusalem, and the opposition was against the active reforming party, which now had the upper hand in the city. Immediately we consider this, the cause of the continuance and increase of the antagonism of the colonists becomes apparent. Ezra’s harsh reformation in the expulsion of foreign wives must have struck the divorced women as a cruel and insulting outrage. Driven back to their paternal homes with their burning wrongs, these poor women must have roused the utmost indignation among their people. Thus the reformer had stirred up a hornet’s nest. The legislator who ventures to interfere with the sacred privacy of domestic life excites the deepest passions, and a wise man will think twice before he meddles in so dangerous a business. Only the most imperative requirements of religion and righteousness can justify such a course, and even when it is justified nobody can foresee how far the trouble it brings may spread. The letter which the chronicler transcribes seems to have been the most important of the three. It was written by two great Persian officials. In our English versions the first of these is called "the chancellor," and the second "the scribe." "The chancellor" was probably the governor of a large district, of which Palestine was but a provincial section, and "the scribe" his secretary. Accordingly it is apparent that the persistent enmity of the colonists, their misrepresentations, and perhaps their bribes, had resulted in instigating opposition to the Jews in very high places. The action of the Jews themselves may have excited suspicion in the mind of the Persian Satrap, for it would seem from his letter that they had just commenced to fortify their city. The names of the various peoples who are associated with these two great men in the title of the letter also show how far the opposition to the Jews had spread. They are given as the peoples whom Osnappar ( Esar-bani-pal ) had brought over and set in the city of Samaria, "and in the rest of the country beyond the river." { Ezra 4:10 } That is to say, the settlers in the vast district west of the Euphrates are included. Here were Apharsathchites - who cannot be the Persians, as some have thought, because no Assyrian king ever seems to have penetrated to Persia, but may be the Paraetaceni of Herodotus, (1, 101), a Median people: Tarpelites - probably the people named among the Hebrews after Tubal: { Genesis 10:2 } Apharsites - also wrongly identified by some with the Persians, but probably another Median people: Archeviles , from the ancient Erech ( Uruk ): { Genesis 10:10 } Babylonians, not only from the city of Babylon, but also from its neighbourhood, Shushanchites , from Shusan ( Susa ), the capital of Susiana, Dehaites - possibly the Dai of Herodotus, (1, 125) because, though these were Persians, they were nomads who may have wandered far, Elamites , from the country of which Susa was capital. A terrific array! The very names would be imposing. All these people were now united in a common bond of enmity to the Jews of Jerusalem. Anticipating the fate of the Christians in the Roman Empire, though on very different grounds, the Jews seem to have been regarded by the peoples of Western Asia with positive antipathy as enemies of the human race. Their anti-social conduct had alienated all who knew them. But the letter of indictment brought a false charge against them. The opponents of the Jews could not formulate any charge out of their real grievances sufficiently grave to secure an adverse verdict from the supreme authority. They therefore trumped up an accusation of treason. It was untrue, for the Jews at Jerusalem had always been the most peaceable and loyal subjects of the Great King. The search which was made into the previous history of the city could only have brought to light any evidence of a spirit of independence as far back as the time of the Babylonian invasions. Still this was enough to supplement the calumnies of the irritated opponents which the Satrap and his secretary had been persuaded to echo with all the authority of their high position. Moreover, Egypt was now in revolt, and the king may have been persuaded to suspect the Jews of sympathy with the rebels. So Jerusalem was condemned as a "bad city"; the Persian officials went up and forcibly stopped the building of the walls, and the Jews were reduced to a condition of helpless misery. This was the issue of Ezra’s reformation. Can we call it a success? The answer to such a question will depend on what kind of success we may be looking for. Politically, socially, regarded from the standpoint of material profit and loss, there was nothing but the most dismal failure. But Ezra was not a statesman; he did not aim at national greatness, nor did he aim even at social amelioration. In our own day, when social improvements are regarded by many as the chief ends of government and philanthropy, it is difficult to sympathise with conduct which ran counter to the home comforts and commercial prosperity of the people. A policy which deliberately wrecked these obviously attractive objects of life in pursuit of entirely different aims is so completely remote from modern habits of thought and conduct that we have to make a considerable effort of imagination if we would understand the man who promoted it. How are we to picture him? Ezra was an idealist. Now the success of an idealist is not to be sought for in material prosperity. He lives for his idea. If this idea triumphs he is satisfied, because he has attained the one kind of success he aimed at. He is not rich, but he never sowed the seed of wealth. He may never be honoured; he has determined to set himself against the current of popular fashion; how then can he expect popular favour? Possibly he may meet with misapprehension, contempt, hatred, death. The greatest Idealist the world ever saw was excommunicated as a heretic, insulted by His opponents, and deserted by most of His friends, tortured and crucified. The best of His disciples, those who had caught the enthusiasm of His idea, were treated as the offscouring of the earth. Y