Chapter 4

1 The adversaries, being not accepted in the building of the temple with the Jews, endeavour to hinder it. 7 Their letter to Artaxerxes. 17 The decree of Artaxerxes. 23 The building is hindered.

1. The adversaries. Concerning their identity, see v. 2. Although they apparently came in a friendly guise, the historian saw them for what they really were, “adversaries,” literally, “enemies,” like Haman (Esther 7:6) or Sanballat (Neh. 4:11).

2. We seek your God. It was true, in a sense, that they sought God, though not like the returned exiles. The Samaritans, inhabitants of the area formerly occupied by the kingdom of Israel, were mainly Aramaeans from Syria and Mesopotamia. They had a mixed religion of paganism and Jehovah worship (see 2 Kings 17:24–33).

Since the days of Esar-haddon. Of a transplantation of people into the region of Samaria by Esarhaddon, who reigned over Assyria from 681–699 b.c., no information is available aside from this statement. However, the prophecy of Isa. 7:8—a prediction made about a decade before Samaria’s fall—to the effect that Ephraim would be broken within 65 years so “that it be not a people,” may refer to this transplantation. The fulfillment should therefore have taken place before 665 b.c., during Esarhaddon’s reign. It seems that a new uprising against Assyrian power among the remnants of the former Israelite kingdom must have occurred at that time, with the result that the Assyrians moved them out of the country and replaced them by contingents of foreigners, as Sargon II had done after the destruction of Samaria in 723/2 b.c. (2 Kings 17:24). Another, and even later, transplantation of people under “Asnapper” (Ashurbanipal) is mentioned in Ezra 4:10.

3. Ye have nothing to do. From the sad experience of Babylonian exile, the Jews had learned one thing well—to resist the temptation to join idolaters in any kind of enterprise. Unfaithfulness to God had resulted from the unholy connections the pre—exilic Jews had made with other nations, and the end of this course of action had been disgrace and disaster. The Jews had therefore determined not to fall into that error again, a vow that, with few exceptions, postexilic Jewry rigorously kept. If anything, they went to the opposite extreme.

The break with the Samaritans at this time proved final. The result was hatred and mutual aversion and contempt, which continued through the centuries (see Luke 9:52–54; John 4:9).

4. Weakened the hands. Or, “discouraged” (RSV). Encouragement is spoken of as “strengthening the hands” (Ezra 6:22; Isa. 35:3; Jer. 23:14; etc.). The expression “weakening the hands” (see Jer. 38:4) occurs also in the so-called Lachish Letters, inscribed potsherds from Jeremiah’s time (see Vol. I, p. 125; Vol. II, p. 97).

Troubled them. Since the “trouble” resulted in a cessation of work, it must have been fully effective. The hindering seems not to have been limited to threats, but was probably of a more serious nature. All the returned exiles lived in unfortified settlements, presumably in temporary houses or tents. The threats made against them, and occasional attacks on their property, may have been of such a nature that workmen not resident in Jerusalem found it necessary to remain at home to protect their families and property. Whatever course was followed by the enemies of the Jews, the later records make it clear that their actions were highly successful and that the work on the Temple ceased for many years.

5. Hired counsellors. Although v. 5 leaves a number of questions unanswered, it is clear that certain royal advisers were bribed by the Samaritans to influence the king against the Jews. Daniel had presumably died—his last vision is dated in the 3d year of Cyrus (Dan. 10:1)—and his enemies (see Dan. 6:4) may have had more success influencing Cyrus against the Jews following his death. However, Cyrus seems to have neither revoked his decree nor issued one prohibiting the building of the Temple, because if such a counterdecree had been issued, the enemies of the Jews would have used it in the time of Darius. Moreover, Persian kings had a strong aversion to revoking a decree (see Dan. 6:8; 12; 15; Esther 8:8).

6. Ahasuerus. Some commentators have identified the Ahasuerus of this verse with Cambyses, since his name appears in this chapter following events that took place in the time of Cyrus. Others have pointed out that the name “Ahasuerus” appears in ancient records only as that of the king known by the Greek name “Xerxes,” and have therefore placed the incompletely recorded event of this verse in the beginning of Xerxes’ reign. See Additional Note at the close of this chapter.

An accusation. The enemies of the Jews, the Samaritans, made of the accession of a new king to the throne an opportunity to harm the Jews. Unfortunately, nothing is said as to the nature of these accusations or of their results (see above, on v. 5). That nothing is reported concerning an adverse decision of the king against the Jews may perhaps be interpreted to mean that the petition elicited an unfavorable reply, and that the Jews remained unmolested.

7. Artaxerxes. Commentators who have identified the Ahasuerus of v. 6 with Cambyses, have seen in this Artaxerxes the false Smerdis, who ruled for about half a year in 522 b.c. and was killed by Darius I, who then took the throne. Others have identified the Artaxerxes of vs. 7–23 as the king known in history as Artaxerxes I. See Additional Note at close of this chapter.

Bishlam. This name is not attested elsewhere; it is uncertain whether it is Persian or Semitic. Mithredath is a Persian name (see on ch. 1:8). Tabeel might be Semitic (cf. the Assyrian name TaЖbРilu; see also Isa. 7:6). The three men here named were probably Samaritan leaders. One at least, Mithredath, was a Persian, perhaps the governor, or possibly a Persian commissioner assisting a native governor by the name of Bishlam.

In the Syrian tongue. Literally, “in Aramaic.” The words translated “interpreted in the Syrian tongue” can be rendered either as “set forth [in] Aramaic,” or “translated [from] Aramaic.” The meaning would be that the letter was written in the Aramaic square script, used for official correspondence throughout the Persian Empire, and either composed in the Aramaic language, or translated from Aramaic into another language, perhaps Persian.

8. Rehum the chancellor. With v. 8 the first Aramaic section of Ezra begins. The document which the compiler of the book—perhaps Ezra himself—used, was apparently written in Aramaic from this point on and taken over without change. Rehum is a Semitic name borne also by several Jews in the days of Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2) and Nehemiah (Neh. 3:17; 10:25; etc.). This name occurs also in the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine. It is not strange to find this name borne by a Samaritan, since many Samaritans were of Aramaean (Semitic) stock. The Aramaic word translated “chancellor” is also found in Jewish documents from Elephantine, and seems to mean “private secretary,” or “accountant,” being perhaps the title of the assistant governor.

Shimshai. This name appears also in the Aramaic texts from Elephantine, as well as in Babylonian texts, in the form Shamshai, meaning “my sun.” His title, “scribe,” shows that the letter was actually written by him and that the previously mentioned Rehum had composed or dictated it.

9. The Dinaites. The word thus translated, taken by the older translators as one representing a people, appears also in the Elephantine papyri, where its primary meaning is “judge” or “magistrate.” It is so translated in the RSV.

The Apharsathchites. This word, found again in ch. 6:6, is taken by most modern commentators as the Aramaic or Persian term designating a certain class of officers, although an exact equivalent aside from these two instances is unknown. The same is true of the “Tarpelites.”

The Apharsites. This word either designates an unknown class of officers or should be vocalized (see Vol. I, pp. 25, 26) in Hebrew so as to read “Persians” (RSV).

Archevites. People from the city of Erech (see on Gen. 10:10), now Warka, in southern Mesopotamia.

Dehavites. The word thus translated, formerly thought to designate a people, should be vocalized so as to mean “that is” (see Vol. I, pp. 25, 26). The latter part of v. 9 then reads, “the men of Susa, that is, the Elamites” (RSV).

10. Asnapper. A corrupt form of the name Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, 669–627? b.c. Of his deportation of inhabitants from Erech, Babylon, and Susa nothing is known from any other source. However, the bloody wars of Ashurbanipal against Babylon (652–648 b.c.) and Elam (date uncertain) are well attested from Assyrian records. As a result of these wars people from the cities mentioned were apparently deported to Samaria.

This side the river. This is the first occurrence in the book of Ezra of the official name of the Persian satrapy inclusive of Syria and Palestine. Its Aramaic name ХAbar naharaХ, “Beyond the River” (RSV), is found as EbirnaЖri in the cuneiform inscriptions of that time. The name indicates its geographical location as comprising lands lying beyond the Euphrates, as thought of from the capitals of the Persian Empire.

And at such a time. See on v. 17.

12. Came up from thee. That is, from the land of Babylonia.

Building the rebellious. The basis of this accusation lay in the various plots and revolts of the Jews against their Babylonian overlords, as described in 2 Kings 24 and 25. There had been other revolts against Assyria previously (2 Kings 18:7; 2 Chron. 33:11), but it is doubtful that the Samaritans knew of them. They would, however, be well informed concerning the repeated rebellions under the last three kings of Judah—Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah—which had ended in shame and disgrace, and resulted in the destruction of Judah and the slavery of its inhabitants. Thus they had a plausible reason for charging that Jerusalem was a rebellious and wicked city.

Set up the walls. From these words it appears that the accusation was directed against the building of the city wall, as again, later, in the time of Nehemiah. The Aramaic word translated “set up” literally means “completed.” This accusation was certainly exaggerated, as the next phrase refers to the foundations, and even more so the following verse. Hence, the work cannot have been nearly as complete as the Samaritans claimed.

13. Then will they not pay. The conclusions drawn from the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s fortifications were plausible. History knows of many examples of a city refusing to pay tribute to its overlords, if it felt safe in doing so. Many times the mere repair of city walls aroused suspicion and was interpreted as a preparation for rebellion. That the accusation was entirely unfounded, however, is quite clear. The Jews had been grateful to Cyrus for allowing them to return to their former homeland. They had received royal favors, and were certainly far from revolting against the benevolent rulers of Persia, who had favored them in many ways. The history of Jewry under Persian rule reveals no real, organized revolt.

Toll, tribute, and custom. The three expressions chosen by the translators of the KJV do not clearly convey the meaning of the three Aramaic words involved. The first, a loan word from the Akkadian, means revenues to be paid in money; the second, an old Persian word, means tribute to be paid in kind or produce; the third, also taken from Akkadian, represents feudal fees to be paid for certain grants.

14. We have maintenance from the king’s palace. Literally, “Now because we eat the salt of the palace,” an idiomatic expression. Their interests were thus linked with those of the king, and the continued well-being of the throne and the financial health of the royal treasury were matters of personal concern to them.

15. Book of the records. The great nations of antiquity, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, kept political, economic, and historical records. Many such archives have come to light in recent years. Since the city of Babylon was not destroyed when it fell to Cyrus, the archives of Nebuchadnezzar probably fell into the hands of the Persians intact, and could thus be consulted by later Persian kings. Such a search, now proposed, would prove the correctness of the accusation made.

For which cause. Here was an undeniable fact on which the Samaritans relied. It was a historical fact, easily proved, that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem only after repeated rebellions. This line of argument, however, was no proof that the Jews would revolt against their Persian overlords, who had shown themselves true friends of the Jews and treated them so generously.

16. Have no portion. The danger of a possible rebellion was so exaggerated that the accusation appears almost ridiculous. The Samaritans claimed that a revolt of the Jews would result in the loss to Persia of the entire satrapy “Beyond the River” (see on v. 10) which compromised all the lands lying between Babylonia and Egypt, and of which Judea was one of the smallest.

17. An answer. The fact that the king corresponded directly with provincial officials, by-passing the satrap, points to a most unusual political situation. Under ordinary circumstances the king would never have written directly to lower state officials in a distant province. Such a message would have been transmitted through regular diplomatic channels, in this instance the office of the satrap.

Rehum. On Rehum and Shimshai and their titles, see on v. 8.

Peace, and at such a time. The Aramaic word shelam, translated “peace,” is the universal greeting used in most parts of the Near East to the present day, whether it be pronounced “salam,” “shalam,” or some other way. The Aramaic word translated “and at such a time” has been found in short Aramaic letters written on potsherds (ostraca) from the 5th century b.c., and apparently was part of a common formula of greeting. It should be translated “And now” (RSV), and introduces the message of the letter.

18. Plainly. Some commentators have suggested translating the Aramaic word meparash as “in Persian,” which would make good sense here. Since the same word, however, occurs in another Aramaic document where only the meaning “plainly” fits the context, the translation of the KJV must be accepted as correct.

19. Search hath been made. The Samaritans’ suggestion of checking on the history of the Jews in the archives of the Babylonians was carried out. The records of Nebuchadnezzar were still available for official investigation.

20. Mighty kings. If the king’s words mean what they seem to say, they can refer only to David and Solomon, to whom alone such a description applies. Israel then ruled from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates (1 Kings. 4:21, 24), and expected tribute from various princes and rulers (2 Sam. 8:6–12; 1 Kings 10:14, 25). If indeed David and Solomon are meant, the records of Babylon must have been exceptionally complete and accurate. The only other ruler that might have been considered a “mighty king” of Jerusalem was Josiah, who felt himself strong enough to risk battle with the armies of Egypt (2 Kings 23:29).

Toll, tribute, and custom. See on v. 13.

21. Give ye now commandment. The commission is indeed a strange one. The emperor writes to a distant province and orders its officials to issue a decree. Why did not the king act in his own name and effect his will through agents who were responsible to him, and who customarily acted on his behalf? It seems that this royal letter fits only into the time when the king’s authority in the satrapy “Beyond the River” was tenuous at best, and was dependent on any officials who might choose to be loyal to him. It should be noted, furthermore, that the royal concession to the Samaritans was limited in scope and time. The letter permitted them to order the work of rebuilding Jerusalem to halt, but did not give them permission to destroy what had already been built. The king also reserved the right to countermand his present decision by another to be made later.

Until another commandment. Apparently the king intended to invite the Jews to present their case, to affirm their loyalty to him, as the Samaritans had apparently done, and thereupon to be in a position to receive new royal favors. The letter thus constituted a temporary royal injunction, or restraining order.

23. Rehum. On Rehum and Shimshai and their titles, see on v. 8.

By force and power. Upon receipt of the king’s letter the enemies of the Jews lost no time in acting on its authority. They proceeded immediately to Jerusalem, and, by a display of force, compelled the Jews to comply with its provisions.

24. Then ceased the work. That very little progress had been made at the time when work ceased can be seen from the fact that it was necessary to lay a new foundation stone in the second year of Darius, when the work of rebuilding the Temple was resumed (Haggai 2:18).

It was not God’s will that the work of reconstruction should cease. Active faith on the part of the people would have been met by divine power exercised to hold the enemies of His people in check.

Darius. Darius is the Greek form of the name, which in the Hebrew is written Dareyawesh. The Old Persian form is Darayavaush, while the name is spelled DarijaЖwush in Babylonian texts. In Egyptian hieroglyphs, where the vowels are not expressed, the king’s name is written Drjwsh, and in the Aramaic vowelless inscriptions Dryhwsh, Drywhsh or Drywsh. There can be no question that Darius I, who reigned from 522–486 b.c., is meant. According to Persian reckoning, the second regnal year of Darius began on Nisan 1 (April 3), 520 b.c., and ended on the last day of the month Adar (March 22), 519 b.c. (see pp. 98, 99).

additional note on chapter 4

Ezra 4:6–23 speaks of the opposition of the enemies of the Jews “in the reign of Ahasuerus,” and of a letter of complaint “in the days of Artaxerxes” that brought a royal order to force the Jews to stop building. Verse 24 closes the chapter with this statement: “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.”

On the face of it this reference to Darius in v. 24 seems to be a continuation of the preceding passage (vs. 5–23), and if so, “Ahasuerus” and “Artaxerxes” were kings reigning between Cyrus and Darius I. Accordingly, v. 24, which speaks of the “second year of the reign of Darius,” would mark the end of a consecutive narrative, with the reference to Darius in v. 5 merely stating in advance the duration of the hindrances to be narrated in vs. 6–23. Hence the sequence of kings in ch. 4 would be: Cyrus (v. 5), Ahasuerus (v. 6), Artaxerxes (v. 7), Darius (vs. 5, 24). Those who thus understand ch. 4 point to the fact that ancient history reveals that two kings bridge the gap between Cyrus and Darius I, namely, Cambyses and the false Smerdis (see pp. 56, 57). They also point out that Smerdis apparently was known under various names, the Babylonians calling him Bardiya, while Greek authors seem to have known him not only under the name Smerdis but also as Merdis, Mardois, and Tanuoxarkes or Tanaoxares. They therefore conclude that the Ahasuerus of v. 6 is Cambyses, and the Artaxerxes of v. 7 is the false Smerdis.

However, it is generally held today that the incidents described in ch. 4 are not given in their chronological order; specifically, that the events of vs. 6–23 took place at a later time than those of vs. 1–5, 24. Accordingly, v. 24 and the narrative in ch. 5 about the work of Haggai and Zechariah, who were active in the 2d year of Darius I, are held to be a continuation of the order of events that was interrupted at ch. 4:5. Those who take this position insist that it does not cast a shadow on inspiration; Biblical writers often depart from strict time order in their narratives.

Those who hold that the events of ch. 4 are not set forth in chronological order stress the fact that the actual sequence of names in vs. 5–7 is Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes. They also stress the corollary fact of history that the two kings that followed Darius I were Xerxes (authoritatively identified with the Ahasuerus of Esther) and Artaxerxes I. Therefore they affirm that the “accusation” of v. 6 was made in the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, probably when he passed through Palestine on his way to Egypt; and that the “letter” of v. 7 produced an unfavorable edict from Artaxerxes I, the same king who had sent Ezra to Jerusalem under a most generous decree.

It is the letter to Artaxerxes (v. 7) that creates a problem on both sides of this question of the identification of the kings named in vs. 6 and 7. Those who hold that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are, respectively, Cambyses and Smerdis find themselves confronted with the problem of accounting for the names of the kings, and for the fact that the complaining letter deals only with the building of the city and walls, and makes no reference to the rearing of the Temple. In the days of Smerdis the Temple was being built, but there is no Biblical evidence that the walls were being built, unless it is found in Ezra. 4:7–23. On the other hand, those who regard this incident of the complaining letter as occurring during the reign of Artaxerxes I are required to account for a complete reversal of the king’s attitude toward the Jews—from that of favor in his 7th year to disfavor in an unknown year, and back to favor in his 20th year.

Inasmuch as many Biblical scholars today hold that Ahasuerus (v. 6) is Xerxes, and Artaxerxes (v. 7) is Artaxerxes I, the reasons they offer for this view are here summarized for the benefit of those readers who may wish to examine this problem more exhaustively.

1.   The identification of Ahasuerus. The name Ahasuerus is found in three OT books—Daniel, Esther, and Ezra. Daniel’s reference to Ahasuerus as the father of Darius the Mede (ch. 9:1) can be left undiscussed here, since the identity of Daniel’s Darius has not yet been established by contemporary records. Hence, the identification of his father is also obscure. The Ahasuerus of Esther (ch. 1:1; etc.) is generally identified with the king whom the Greeks called Xerxes. The Hebrew Achashwerosh is a much closer transliteration of the Persian KhshayaЖrshaЖ or the Babylonian from Achshiyarshu than is the Greek Xerxes. It should not be forgotten that the vowels did not come into the Hebrew Bible manuscripts until about the 7th century a.d. Hence, the Hebrew author of Esther reproduced only the consonants of KhshayaЖrshaЖ and wrote ХChshwrwsh. The Jews of Elephantine in Egypt spelled the name ChshyХrsh or Chshyrsh in their vowelles Aramaic script.

The spelling of the name Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 is the same as in Esther, and linguistically fits, of all known Persian kings, only the name of Xerxes. there is no linguistic basis whatsoever for identifying the name Ahasuerus with Cambyses. Cambyses’ name appears as Kambujiya or Kabujiya in Old Persian, Kambusiya in Elamite Kambuziya in Akkadian, Kmbyt in hieroglyphic Egyptian, and Kambyses in Greek. The Jews of Elephantine spelled the name in their vowelless Aramaic script Knbwzy. It is therefore impossible to equate the Hebrew form ХChshwrwsh with any of the known transliterations of Cambyses. It is also unwarranted to assume that he was known under another name among the Palestinian Jews. His name appears on numerous Babylonian cuneiform tablets, on Persian stone inscriptions, Egyptian hieroglyphic monuments, in Aramaic papyri,and in the historical works of the Greeks, but always as Cambyses.

2.   The identification of Artaxerxes. The name “Artaxerxes” occurs in the Bible only in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. History knows three Persian kings of this name, called Artaxerxes I, II, and III. That the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 (vs. 1, 7, 11, 21), Ezra 8:1, and Nehemiah (chs. 2:1; 5:14; 13:6) must be identified with Artaxerxes I is shown in the Additional Notes on Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2. Thus this present discussion deals only with the identity of the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7, 8, 11, 23, and 6:14.

The Hebrew spells the name Artaxerxes as ХArtachshastХ, ХArtachshasЊtХ, and ХArtachshasЊtaХ; the Old Persian, Ardakhcashaca or ArtakhshatraЖ; the Babylonian, Artakshatsu and Artahshassu; the Elamite, Irtakshasha; the Egyptian hieroglyphs, ХRtchshssh; and frequently in the Jewish Aramaic papyri of Elephantine the spelling is ХRtchshssh. These transliterations in different languages refer only to the three kings known as Artaxerxes I, II, and III. The reader should note that the consonants in the various transliterations are basically the same, and that only the vowels change, a change of secondary importance in most languages.

It has been claimed by those who identify the false Smerdis with Artaxerxes that Smerdis was known under widely different names. But a close study of his known names in the light of linguistic rules shows that this is not the case. His original name, according to Darius I, was Gaumata, but he claimed to be Bardiya, the brother of Cambyses, and is called only by this name in known contemporary records. This name appears as Birtiya in Elamite, Barziya in Akkadian, and in the Jewish Elephantine papyri, Brzy (without vowels).

The Greeks called this false Bardiya “Smerdis.” Now “Bardiya” looks altogether different from “Smerdis,” but the difference is more apparent than real. The initial S of Smerdis remains unaccounted for. The B of Bardiya expressed by an m in Smerdis follows a common linguistic phenomenon,according to which b, v and m frequently interchange in different languages. The r and d of Bardiya are retained unchanged in the Greek form Smerdis, which contains the Greek ending is instead of the Persian iya. It is clear, then, that the name Smerdis, and its variants Merdis and Mardois, are only variant transliterations of Bardiya, not different names. It is furthermore pointed out that the Tanuoxarkes of Ctesias and the Tanaoxares of Xenophon are not to be identified with the false Smerdis, but with the real son of Cyrus whom Cambyses killed, and who according to Darius was the true Bardiya. The two apparently various names, Tanuoxarkes and Tanoxares, have the same meaning, “The one with the giant’s body,” and are Greek designations, which were given to Bardiya, since their legends ascribed to him the body of a giant. It is therefore maintained by those who oppose an identification of the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 with Smerdis that there is no evidence for the assumption that the false Bardiya, or Smerdis, was known as Artaxerxes during his short reign, or thereafter.

3.   Reason for apparently strange sequences in narrative. The author of Ezra would undoubtedly have had a good reason for presenting the narrative of ch. 4 in the sequence in which it is found. The chapter in this form deals with the work of opposition to the returned Jews that was carried on by their “adversaries.” The writer, living in the time of Artaxerxes I, did not limit his record of antagonistic actions to the time of Zerubbabel, but added similar experiences of much more recent dates to show to his readers that the Samaritans, the principal enemies of the Jews, had worked against them intermittently ever since the end of the Exile. First, they had “weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building” the Temple during the reign of Cyrus and his successors “until the reign of Darius” I (Ezra 4:1–5) Later, “in the reign of Ahasuerus,” Darius I’s son and successor, a further undisclosed attempt was made to harass the Jews (v. 6). Finally, a letter of accusation was sent to Artaxerxes, the king under whom Ezra lived, with the result that the work of restoring Jerusalem’s wall was halted temporarily by a royal decree (vs. 7–23).

Only after Ezra had related these different hostile acts carried out by the enemies of his people during a period of about 90 years, did he continue his narrative of the Temple building under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Hence, v. 24 resumes the story where it was left in v. 5 and repeats some of the thoughts already previously expressed, in order to lead the reader back to the story which had been interrupted by vs. 6–23.

It may be worth while to notice, in passing, that Ezra presents documentary evidence for only one of the three hostile incidents related in ch. 4. The nature of the hostile acts carried out from the time of Cyrus until Darius is indicated only in general terms, of which the hiring of “counsellors against them” is the only specific indictment mentioned. About the nature and result of the “accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” under Ahasuerus (v. 6) the reader is left entirely in the dark. These incidents had occurred before Ezra’s time, and documents concerning them were probably no longer available. However, the fact that detailed and documentary evidence is presented concerning the events which had taken place in Artaxerxes’ time lends weight to the view that Ezra had been involved in it.

4.Explanation of Artaxerxes’ changed policies toward the Jews. One of the reasons offered for identifying the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7–23 with Smerdis, is this: Artaxerxes I of history is known from Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2 as a king who twice showed favors to the Jews, which makes his conduct toward them compare favorably with that of previous Persian kings. Therefore it seems difficult to understand that he should have acted in an unfavorable way toward the Jews, which he must have done if he is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4. On the other hand, it is a fact of history that Smerdis destroyed temples that had been supported by his predecessors on the Persian throne. Although Darius’ statement that Smerdis, the former Magian, had destroyed temples, probably refers primarily to Zoroastrian sanctuaries, it may include others. Hence, it is held that it is not unreasonable to conclude that Smerdis issued a decree adversely affecting the building program of the Jews in the days of Zerubbabel, although no Biblical or contemporary secular proof exists for this plausible view.

However, the reasons just given for identifying the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 with Smerdis are not as weighty as might appear. The historical Artaxerxes I is known as a moody and unreliable character, from whom one could always expect a change in attitude. A study of his life history makes it easy to understand how he reversed his favors to disfavors. Of the various stories that reveal his unreliable and unpredictable character the following are typical:

The Egyptian rebel Inarus had been given a solemn assurance that his life would be spared if he would surrender. Receiving this pledge, Inarus gave himself up, but was nevertheless murdered by Artaxerxes I some time later on. This act of royal perfidy, unworthy of a Persian ruler, made Megabyzos, his brother-in-law, so angry that he rebelled against the crown, with the result that the empire was nearly wrecked.

On one occasion, when the king was unexpectedly attacked by a lion, Megabyzos came between them and saved the king’s life by killing the lion. Yet, Artaxerxes, who apparently did not like the idea that he had needed the help of another when in a precarious situation, lost his temper and demanded that Megabyzos should be killed. He finally reversed his order and banished him instead.

Although Artaxerxes was not a bad man by the standards of his day, he was untrustworthy, since he acted on moody impulses and momentary feelings and impressions. Hence, Artaxerxes would simply be running true to form, if after showing favors to the Jews, he reversed himself completely on another occasion.

The events related in Ezra 4:7–23 fit the political conditions that existed during the revolt of Megabyzos, governor of the province of “Beyond the River,” to which Samaria and Judea both belonged. This rebellion probably began about 488 b.c. and lasted some years. Those who hold that the narrative related in this Scripture passage took place in the time of Artaxerxes I point out that it seems likely that only during this time would the Persian king have dealt directly with local officials, accepted letters from them, and sent them his decisions without passing them through the regular channels of the satrap’s office, as appears to be the case in these letters. The Samaritans would have used the opportunity of Megabyzos’ rebellion to assure the king of their continued loyalty and at the same time accuse the Jews of treacherously rebuilding their fortifications with the definite purpose of revolting against the king. In that case Artaxerxes, who grasped at every means that offered itself to help him in his dilemma, especially if he could at the same time create unrest and difficulties in Megabyzos’ territory, would have granted the request of the Samaritans to stop the work of the Jews in rebuilding Jerusalem. Accordingly, these enemies of the Jews, not satisfied with this permission, would go to Jerusalem and use “force and power” against their hated neighbors. If the foregoing is an accurate reconstruction of history, then this was probably the time when portions of the partly rebuilt wall were broken down and some of the completed gates burned with fire (Neh. 1:3).

5.   Hostile acts of chapter 4 deal with different subjects. The nature of the “accusation” in Ahasuerus’ reign is unknown. In the days of Cyrus (vs. 1–5) the opposition to the building activity of the Jews evidently sprang from the fact that they were rebuilding the Temple (see vs. 1 and 3). The reason mentioned for the enmity of the Samaritans in Artaxerxes’ time was that the Jews were rebuilding the city and the wall (see vs. 12, 13, 16, 21).

Some commentators who have identified the Artaxerxes of ch. 4 with Smerdis hold that the “wall” of vs. 12, 13, and 16 refers simply to the protective outside walls of the Temple area. However, this is an interpretation based, not on facts, but on conjecture.

6.   The Artaxerxes of chapter 6:14. In ch. 6:14 an Artaxerxes is mentioned as one of three Persian kings whose “commandment” enabled the Jews to build and finish the Temple. To identify this Artaxerxes also with Smerdis seems out of the question, since Smerdis ruled less than seven months. If in reply to a letter of complaint, he issued a decree that halted the Temple building, he must also have issued another “commandment,” favorable to the Jews, all within his seven months’ reign—something highly improbable. For this reason many of the commentators who have declared that the Artaxerxes of ch. 4 is Smerdis, have nevertheless declared that the Artaxerxes of ch. 6:14 is Artaxerxes I. But if the Artaxerxes of ch. 6 is the same as the Artaxerxes ch. 7—and there is general agreement that he is—there is no valid Biblical or historical reason to identify the Artaxerxes of ch. 4 as any other than Artaxerxes I.

These six points summarize the reasons offered by those who hold that the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 is Xerxes and that the Artaxerxes of vs. 7–23 is Artaxerxes I.

The facts of history and the sacred record are always in harmony, each with the other. Any seeming discrepancy between the two is due to our limited knowledge and understanding of one or both.

Ellen G. White comments

1–24PK 567–573

1, 2 PK 567

3     PK 568

1–5IT 281

4     PK 594

4, 5 PK 571

7     PK 572

21–24PK 573

23   PK 594