TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on Ezra 4 verses 6–16
Cyrus stedfastly adhered to the Jews' interest, and supported his own grant. It was to no purpose to offer any thing to him in prejudice of it. What he did was from a good principle, and in the fear of God, and therefore he adhered to it. But, though his reign in all was thirty years, yet after the conquest of Babylon, and his decree for the release of the Jews, some think that he reigned but three years, others seven, and then either died or gave up that part of his government, in which his successor was Ahasuerus (Ezr 4:6), called also Artaxerxes (Ezr 4:7), supposed to be the same that in heathen authors is called Cambyses, who had never taken such cognizance of the despised Jews as to concern himself for them, nor had he that knowledge of the God of Israel which his predecessor had. To him these Samaritans applied by letter for an order to stop the building of the temple; and they did it in the beginning of his reign, being resolved to lose no time when they thought they had a king for their purpose. See how watchful the church's enemies are to take the first opportunity of doing it a mischief; let not its friends be less careful to do it a kindness. Here is,
I. The general purport of the letter which they sent to the king, to inform him of this matter. It is called (Ezr 4:6) an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The devil is the accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10), and he carries on his malicious designs against them, not only by accusing them himself before God, as he did Job, but by acting as a lying spirit in the mouths of his instruments, whom he employs to accuse them before magistrates and kings and to make them odious to the many and obnoxious to the mighty. Marvel not if the same arts be still used to depreciate serious godliness.
II. The persons concerned in writing this letter. The contrivers are named (Ezr 4:7) that plotted the thing, the writers (Ezr 4:8) that put it into form, and the subscribers (Ezr 4:9) that concurred in it and joined with them in this representation, this misrepresentation I should call it. Now see here, 1. How the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his temple, with their companions. The building of the temple would do them no harm, yet they appear against it with the utmost concern and virulence, perhaps because the prophets of the God of Israel had foretold the famishing and perishing of all the gods of the heathen, Zep 2:11; Jer 10:11. 2. How the people concurred with them in imagining this vain thing. They followed the cry, though ignorant of the merits of the cause. All the several colonies of that plantation (nine are here mentioned), who had their denomination from the cities or countries of Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, etc., whence they came, set their hands, by their representatives, to this letter. Perhaps they were incensed against these returned Jews because many of the ten tribes were among them, whose estates they had got into their possession, and of whom they were therefore jealous, lest they should attempt the recovery of them hereafter.
III. A copy of the letter itself, which Ezra inserts here out of the records of the kingdom of Persia, into which it had been entered; and it is well we have it, that we may see whence the like methods, still taken to expose good people and baffle good designs, are copied.
1.They represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and greatly concerned for the honour and interest of it, and would have it thought that the king had no such loving faithful subjects in all his dominions as they were, none so sensible of their obligations to him, Ezr 4:14. Because we are salted with the salt of the palace (so it is in the margin), "we have our salary from the court, and could no more live without it than flesh could be preserved without salt;" or, as some think, their pay or pension was sent them in salt; or "Because we had our education in the palace, and were brought up at the king's table," as we find, Dan 1:5. These were those whom he intended to prefer; they did eat their portion of the king's meat. "Now, in consideration of this, it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonour;" and therefore they urge him to stop the building of the temple, which would certainly be the king's dishonour more than any thing else. Note, A secret enmity to Christ and his gospel is often gilded over with a pretended affection to Caesar and his power. The Jews hated the Roman government, and yet, to serve a turn, could cry, We have no king but Caesar. But (to allude to this), if those that lived upon the crown thought themselves bound in gratitude thus to support the interest of it, much more reason have we thus to argue ourselves into a pious concern for God's honour; we have our maintenance from the God of heaven and are salted with his salt, live upon his bounty and are the care of his providence; and therefore it is not meet for us to see his dishonour without resenting it and doing what we can to prevent it.
2.They represent the Jews as disloyal, and dangerous to the government, that Jerusalem was the rebellious and bad city (Ezr 4:12), hurtful to kings and provinces, Ezr 4:15. See how Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth (Psa 48:2), is here reproached as the scandal of the whole earth. The enemies of the church could not do the bad things they design against it if they did not first give it a bad name. Jerusalem had been a loyal city to its rightful princes, and its present inhabitants were as well affected to the king and his government as any of his provinces whatsoever. Daniel, who was a Jew, had lately approved himself so faithful to his prince that his worst enemies could find no fault in his management, Dan 6:4. But thus was Elijah most unjustly charged with troubling Israel, the apostles with turning the world upside down, and Christ himself with perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; and we must not think it strange if the same game be still played. Now here,
(1.)Their history of what was past was invidious, that within this city sedition had been moved of old time, and, for that cause, it was destroyed, Ezr 4:15. It cannot be denied but that there was some colour given for this suggestion by the attempts of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah to shake off the yoke of the king of Babylon, which, if they had kept close to their religion and the temple they were now rebuilding, they would never have come under. But it must be considered, [1.] That they were themselves, and their ancestors, sovereign princes, and their efforts to recover their rights, if there had not been in them the violation of an oath, for aught I know, would have been justifiable, and successful too, had they taken the right method and made their peace with God first. [2.] Though these Jews, and their princes, had been guilty of rebellion, yet it was unjust therefore to fasten this as an indelible brand upon this city, as if that must for ever after go under the name of the rebellious and bad city. The Jews, in their captivity, had given such specimens of good behaviour as were sufficient, with any reasonable men, to roll away that one reproach; for they were instructed (and we have reason to hope that they observed their instructions) to seek the peace of the city where they were captives and pray to the Lord for it, Jer 29:7. It was therefore very unfair, though not uncommon, thus to impute the iniquity of the fathers to the children.
(2.)Their information concerning what was now doing was grossly false in matter of fact. Very careful they were to inform the king that the Jews had set up the walls of this city, nay, had finished them (so it is in the margin) and joined the foundations (Ezr 4:12), when this was far from being the case. They had only begun to build the temple, which Cyrus commanded them to do, but, as for the walls, there was nothing done nor designed towards the repair of them, as appears by the condition they were in many years after (Neh 1:3), all in ruins. What shall be given, and what done, to these false tongues, nay, which is worse, these false pens? sharp arrows, doubtless, of the mighty, and coals of juniper, Psa 120:3, Psa 120:4. If they had not been perfectly lost to all virtue and honour they would not, and if they had not been very secure of the king's countenance they durst not, have written that to the king which all their neighbours knew to be a notorious lie. See Pro 29:12.
(3.)Their prognostics of the consequences were altogether groundless and absurd. They were very confident, and would have the king believe it upon their word, that if this city should be built, not only the Jews would pay no toll, tribute, or custom (Ezr 4:13), but (since a great lie is as soon spoken as a little one) that the king would have no portion at all on this side the river (Ezr 4:16), that all the countries on this side Euphrates would instantly revolt, drawn in to do so by their example; and, if the prince in possession should connive at this, he would wrong, not only himself, but his successors: Thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. See how every line in this letter breathes both the subtlety and malice of the old serpent.
We, therefore, mindful of the salt which we have eaten in the palace, etc. The Samaritans eat salt in the palace, when heretics are educated with the flavor of worldly philosophy, with the sweetness of rhetoric, and with the cleverness of dialectical art. They also consider it impious to see the king's injuries completed, when they cannot endure if anyone tries to attack the kingdom of the devil with pious faith or action, and they fear wars stirred up in the Church, lest their heresies and deceptions, along with the doctrines of the Gentiles, are defeated by its defenders, led undoubtedly by Him who said: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10). And again: "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled" (Luke 12)? Namely, the sword of His word, with which He strikes down adversaries; and the fire of charity, with which, by kindling the hearts of His own, He burns away all the arms and shields of the opposing faction.
Continue studying Ezra 4:14 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Ezra 4:14 captures a critical moment in the adversaries' calculated campaign to obstruct the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In their letter to King Artaxerxes, these officials feign profound loyalty, asserting that because they receive sustenance from the royal treasury, they are honor-bound to prevent any perceived dishonor or financial detriment to the king. This verse masterfully encapsulates their manipulative strategy, cloaking their self-serving opposition to the Jewish restoration under the guise of protecting imperial interests and upholding their solemn duty.
CONTEXT
Literary Context: Ezra 4:14 is situated within a pivotal section of the book of Ezra (Ezra 4:6-23), which meticulously details the persistent and escalating opposition faced by the returned Jewish exiles in Jerusalem. Following King Cyrus's benevolent decree allowing the Jews to return and rebuild their temple (Ezra 1:1-4), the work commenced with great enthusiasm. However, local inhabitants, primarily Samaritans and other peoples settled in the region by previous Assyrian and Babylonian kings, quickly sought to obstruct these efforts. After their initial, syncretistic offer to assist in the rebuilding was firmly rejected by the Jewish leaders (Ezra 4:1-3), these adversaries resorted to a range of tactics: discouraging the people, hiring counselors to frustrate their purpose, and ultimately, sending formal accusations and slanderous letters to the Persian court. This particular verse is drawn from a letter penned by Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe to King Artaxerxes, which falsely accused the Jews of rebellion and presented them as a significant threat to the empire's revenue. This calculated maneuver temporarily succeeded in halting the construction work (Ezra 4:24).
Historical & Cultural Context: The events described in Ezra 4 unfold during the early post-exilic period, specifically under the vast and meticulously organized Persian Empire. Persian kings maintained their immense dominion through a sophisticated administrative system, relying heavily on regional governors and officials for accurate reports and consistent tribute. Within this imperial framework, the concept of "eating the king's salt" was a deeply ingrained cultural idiom throughout the ancient Near East. It signified a profound covenant of loyalty, sustenance, and reciprocal obligation. Those who received "maintenance from the king's palace" were understood to be bound by an unwavering allegiance, expected to actively safeguard the king's interests, including his financial stability, reputation, and authority. The adversaries, a diverse mix of Samaritans and other ethnic groups, harbored their own vested interests in the region. They likely feared that a re-established and robust Jewish presence in Jerusalem would challenge their existing local authority, disrupt established power structures, and potentially diminish their own influence or tribute payments. Their appeal to Artaxerxes was a shrewd political maneuver, designed to leverage the king's inherent concern for imperial stability, control, and financial prosperity.
Key Themes: Ezra 4:14 powerfully illustrates several enduring themes. Foremost is the theme of Feigned Loyalty and Deception. The adversaries meticulously craft their appeal to King Artaxerxes, presenting their interference as an act of profound loyalty and patriotic duty. By claiming that their receipt of royal "maintenance" obligates them to prevent any "dishonour" to the crown, they highlight their manipulative tactics, framing their self-serving opposition as a noble defense of imperial interests. This reveals a calculated use of rhetoric to mask their true intentions. Second, the verse underscores the theme of Opposition to God's Work. Fundamentally, this letter, and the broader actions of the adversaries, represent a spiritual opposition to God's sovereign plan for His people to return and rebuild. The efforts to obstruct the temple and wall construction were, at their core, attempts to thwart divine purposes, even if the human adversaries did not consciously perceive them as such. This persistent resistance to God's will is a recurring motif throughout biblical history, from the trials of the Exodus to the challenges faced by the early New Testament church. Third, the verse vividly portrays Self-Interest and Power Dynamics. While outwardly expressing commendable loyalty, the true motivation of the adversaries was undeniably rooted in their desire to maintain their regional influence and prevent the re-establishment of a strong Jewish presence. They perceived a resurgent Jerusalem as a direct threat to their own power, status, and economic stability, fearing it would challenge their authority and potentially lead to a cessation of tribute payments to the Persian empire, thereby impacting their own standing with the king.
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Ezra 4:14 masterfully employs several literary devices to expose the adversaries' deceptive nature and their cunning approach. Irony is profoundly evident, as the adversaries claim deep loyalty to the king while simultaneously working to thwart a prior imperial decree (Cyrus's, which Artaxerxes later implicitly upholds by allowing the work to resume). Their professed "loyalty" is a meticulously constructed façade for their true, self-serving, and malicious intentions to maintain their own power and obstruct the Jewish community. The passage also demonstrates sophisticated Rhetoric and Persuasion. The adversaries' language is meticulously crafted to appeal directly to the king's primary concerns: his revenue, his prestige, and his imperial control. They strategically employ culturally significant idioms like "eating the king's salt" and frame their accusations in terms of preventing "dishonour" and financial "loss," thereby expertly manipulating the king's perception and leveraging his self-interest. Finally, there is a clear Contrast between their stated noble intentions (protecting the king's interests) and their underlying, self-interested motives (maintaining regional power and obstructing God's redemptive work). This stark contrast underscores the profound hypocrisy inherent in their actions and highlights the deceptive nature of opposition to divine purposes.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Ezra 4:14 offers a timeless illustration of the nature of opposition to God's work. It reveals that those who seek to hinder divine purposes often cloak their malicious intentions in seemingly noble terms, such as loyalty, duty, concern for order, or economic stability. This passage serves as a potent reminder that spiritual battles frequently manifest in the secular realm, with human actors, driven by self-interest, fear, or a desire for control, wittingly or unwittingly opposing God's sovereign plan. Despite such cunning and powerful human opposition, the broader narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah ultimately testifies to God's unwavering faithfulness and His ability to ensure His purposes prevail, even through delays and setbacks.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Ezra 4:14 offers profound insights for believers today, reminding us that opposition to God's work is not a new phenomenon and frequently comes disguised. We are called to cultivate spiritual discernment, looking beyond superficial justifications to identify the true motives behind resistance, whether it manifests in personal endeavors, church ministries, or broader societal issues. This passage challenges us to introspectively consider if our own actions or words, even when seemingly noble or pragmatic, might subtly mask self-interest or inadvertently hinder righteous causes. It compels us to examine our ultimate loyalties: are we truly serving God's purposes with pure hearts, or are we allowing personal gain, fear of loss, or a desire for control to dictate our responses and shape our narratives? Ultimately, Ezra 4:14 encourages unwavering perseverance in the face of adversity, fostering a deep trust that God's sovereign plan will ultimately triumph, even when confronted by powerful and cunning human opposition. Our sacred task remains to discern truth from deception, to remain faithful to His divine call, and to continue building His kingdom despite the inevitable obstacles.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why would the king believe such a letter and halt the work?
Answer: Persian kings, while possessing immense power, relied heavily on reports from their regional governors and officials for accurate information about their vast and diverse empire. The adversaries' letter was strategically crafted to appeal directly to Artaxerxes' primary concerns: imperial stability, centralized control, and consistent revenue. They skillfully framed the rebuilding of Jerusalem not as a mere religious endeavor but as a potential political rebellion that would inevitably lead to significant financial "dishonour" (loss of tribute) for the king. Given the historical propensity for rebellions within the empire and the king's geographical distance from the immediate situation, the threat of unrest and financial detriment was a plausible concern from his perspective. Kings would typically prioritize the perceived security and economic well-being of the empire over the specific religious rights of a small, recently returned group, especially when presented with a convincing argument of potential unrest and financial loss.
Was this opposition successful in permanently stopping the rebuilding?
Answer: Temporarily, yes, the opposition proved successful. The work on the temple ceased for approximately 15 years, from the reign of Artaxerxes until the second year of King Darius's reign (Ezra 4:24). However, it was not permanently successful. God, in His sovereignty and faithfulness, raised up the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to powerfully encourage the people to resume the work (Haggai 1:1-8; Zechariah 1:1-6). Despite renewed opposition and accusations, the temple was eventually completed and dedicated in the sixth year of Darius's reign (Ezra 6:15). Furthermore, the walls of Jerusalem were later rebuilt under Nehemiah's leadership, despite similar, intense, and cunning opposition (Nehemiah 6:15-16). This demonstrates a profound biblical truth: while human opposition can cause delays, difficulties, and discouragement, it cannot ultimately thwart God's divine and sovereign purposes.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The manipulative opposition faced by the exiles in Ezra 4:14, cloaked in feigned loyalty and a fabricated concern for the king's honor, profoundly foreshadows the cunning and deceptive opposition Christ would encounter during His earthly ministry. Just as the adversaries sought to prevent the rebuilding of the physical temple in Jerusalem, the spiritual adversaries of Jesus—often the religious leaders of His day—sought to thwart the building of God's true spiritual temple, which is Christ Himself and His Church. They frequently accused Jesus of dishonoring God or Caesar, employing similar tactics of false witness and appeals to earthly authority to undermine His divine mission (Matthew 26:59-61; John 19:12). The "dishonour" the adversaries claimed to prevent for Artaxerxes pales in comparison to the true "dishonor" that Christ willingly endured on the cross, bearing the sin and shame of humanity. Yet, it was precisely through this act of ultimate humiliation that God's ultimate glory and redemptive plan were perfectly fulfilled (Philippians 2:8). Ultimately, just as God ensured the completion of the physical temple despite human schemes and delays, Christ declared that the very gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18), guaranteeing the triumph of His redemptive work over all opposition, culminating in His glorious resurrection and the establishment of His eternal, unshakable kingdom.