Ezra 4:14

KJV

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;

KJV (with Strong's)

Now {H3705} because {H6903}{H3606} we have {H1768} maintenance {H4415}{H4416} from the king's palace {H1965}, and it was not {H3809} meet {H749} for us to see {H2370} the king's {H4430} dishonour {H6173}, therefore {H5922}{H1836} have we sent {H7972} and certified {H3046} the king {H4430};

Complete Jewish Bible

Now, because we eat the king's salt, and it is not right for us to see the king dishonored, we therefore are sending to inform the king,

Berean Standard Bible

Now because we are in the service of the palace and it is not fitting for us to allow the king to be dishonored, we have sent to inform the king

American Standard Version

Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not meet for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore have we sent and certified the king;

Commentary

### SUMMARY
Ezra 4:14 captures a pivotal moment in the adversaries' campaign to halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem, revealing their manipulative strategy. In a letter to King Artaxerxes, they assert their purported loyalty, claiming that because they receive sustenance from the royal treasury, they are duty-bound to prevent any perceived dishonor or financial loss to the king. This verse encapsulates their feigned patriotism, cloaking their self-serving opposition to the Jewish restoration under the guise of protecting imperial interests.

### CONTEXT
* **Literary Context:** Ezra 4:14 is embedded within a significant section (Ezra 4:6-23) detailing the persistent and escalating opposition faced by the returned exiles in Jerusalem. Following King Cyrus's decree allowing the Jews to return and rebuild the temple ([Ezra 1:1-4](/ezra/1-1 "Ezra 1:1-4 - Cyrus's Decree")), the work commenced. However, local inhabitants, primarily Samaritans and other peoples settled in the region by previous Assyrian and Babylonian kings, sought to obstruct these efforts. After their initial offer to help rebuild was rejected due to their syncretistic practices ([Ezra 4:1-3](/ezra/4-1 "Ezra 4:1-3 - Adversaries' Offer Rejected")), they resorted to various tactics: discouraging the people, hiring counselors to frustrate their purpose, and eventually, sending formal accusations to the Persian court. This particular verse is part of a letter written by Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe to King Artaxerxes, falsely accusing the Jews of rebellion and a threat to the empire's revenue, thereby temporarily halting the work ([Ezra 4:24](/ezra/4-24 "Ezra 4:24 - Work Halted")).
* **Historical & Cultural Context:** The events of Ezra 4 unfold during the early post-exilic period under Persian rule. The Persian Empire was vast, and its kings maintained control through a sophisticated administrative system, relying on regional governors and officials for reports and tribute. The concept of "eating the king's salt" was a deeply ingrained cultural idiom in the ancient Near East, signifying a covenant of loyalty, sustenance, and obligation. Those who received "maintenance from the king's palace" were expected to be unwavering in their allegiance and to actively safeguard the king's interests, including his revenue and reputation. The adversaries, likely a mix of Samaritans and other ethnic groups, had their own vested interests in the region, fearing that a re-established and strong Jewish presence in Jerusalem would challenge their local authority, disrupt existing power structures, and potentially lead to a reduction in their own influence or tribute payments. Their appeal to Artaxerxes was a calculated move, leveraging the king's concern for imperial stability and financial gain.
* **Key Themes:** This verse powerfully illustrates several key themes. First is the theme of **Feigned Loyalty and Deception**. The adversaries present their interference as an act of profound loyalty and patriotic duty to King Artaxerxes, claiming that their receipt of royal "maintenance" obligates them to prevent any "dishonour" to the crown. This highlights their manipulative tactics, framing their self-serving opposition as a noble defense of imperial interests. Second is **Opposition to God's Work**. Fundamentally, this letter represents a spiritual opposition to God's plan for His people to return and rebuild. The efforts to obstruct the temple and wall construction were ultimately attempts to thwart divine purposes, even if the adversaries did not perceive it as such. This resistance to God's will is a recurring motif throughout biblical history, from the Exodus to the building of the New Testament church. Third, the verse underscores **Self-Interest and Power Dynamics**. While outwardly expressing loyalty, the true motivation of the adversaries was likely a desire to maintain their regional influence and prevent the re-establishment of a strong Jewish presence, which they perceived as a threat to their own power, status, and economic stability. They feared a resurgent Jerusalem would challenge their authority and might cease paying tribute to the Persian empire, thereby impacting their own standing with the king.

### EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

#### Key Word Analysis
* **Maintenance (Aramaic, _melach'_):** The Aramaic word _melach_ (מְלַח) literally means "salt." In ancient Near Eastern culture, sharing salt was a profound symbol of a covenant of loyalty, friendship, and sustenance. To "eat the king's salt" implied being supported by the king and, in turn, owing him unwavering allegiance and protection of his interests. This phrase carried significant weight, signifying a binding obligation. By claiming they "have maintenance from the king's palace," the adversaries were declaring themselves bound by such a covenant, presenting their actions as a fulfillment of their solemn duty to the crown. This was a powerful rhetorical device intended to impress upon the king their deep commitment and to legitimize their accusations against the Jews.
* **Dishonour (Aramaic, _nezek'_):** The Aramaic word _nezek_ (נֶזֶק) refers to damage, harm, or loss, especially financial or material injury. In this context, it specifically implies a detriment to the king's revenue, prestige, or authority. The adversaries strategically frame their concern around the king's "dishonour," suggesting that a rebuilt Jerusalem would become rebellious, refuse to pay tribute, and thereby cause significant financial loss to the Persian treasury. This appeal directly targeted a primary concern of any ancient ruler: the stability and profitability of their empire. By presenting the Jews as a potential source of _nezek_, they aimed to trigger the king's protective instincts and secure his intervention.

#### Verse Breakdown
* **"Now because we have maintenance from [the king's] palace":** This opening clause establishes the adversaries' purported grounds for intervention. By emphasizing their receipt of royal sustenance, they invoke the cultural understanding of the "salt covenant," positioning themselves as loyal subjects bound by honor and obligation to the king. This serves as the premise for their subsequent actions, framing their interference not as malicious obstruction but as a dutiful response to their privileged position.
* **"and it was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour":** This phrase articulates the adversaries' alleged motivation. "Not meet" implies it would be improper, unacceptable, or disloyal for them to stand by idly while the king's interests were potentially harmed. The "king's dishonour" refers specifically to financial loss or damage to his authority that they claimed the rebuilding of Jerusalem would cause. This clause highlights their strategic use of language, appealing to the king's self-interest and portraying themselves as vigilant protectors of his wealth and reputation.
* **"therefore have we sent and certified the king;":** This concluding clause states their action, presenting their letter as a necessary and responsible report. They claim to be merely fulfilling their duty by informing the king of a perceived threat, rather than acting as malicious saboteurs. This carefully constructed narrative was designed to lend credibility to their accusations and to secure a royal decree that would halt the Jewish rebuilding efforts.

#### Literary Devices
Ezra 4:14 masterfully employs several literary devices to convey the adversaries' deceptive nature. **Irony** is prominent, as the adversaries claim profound loyalty to the king while actively working to thwart a decree (Cyrus's, which Artaxerxes later implicitly upholds by allowing the work to resume) that was part of the Persian imperial policy. Their "loyalty" is a carefully constructed façade for their true, self-serving, and malicious intentions. The passage also demonstrates sophisticated **Rhetoric** and **Persuasion**. The adversaries' language is meticulously crafted to appeal to the king's primary concerns: his revenue, prestige, and control. They use culturally significant idioms like "eating the king's salt" and frame their accusations in terms of preventing "dishonour" and financial "loss," thereby manipulating the king's perception. Finally, there is a clear **Contrast** between their stated noble intentions (protecting the king) and their underlying, self-interested motives (maintaining regional power and obstructing God's work). This contrast underscores the hypocrisy inherent in their actions.

### THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Ezra 4:14 provides a timeless illustration of how opposition to God's work often operates. It reveals that those who seek to hinder divine purposes may cloak their malicious intentions in seemingly noble terms, such as loyalty, duty, or concern for order and economic stability. This passage reminds us that spiritual battles often manifest in the secular realm, with human actors driven by self-interest, fear, or a desire for control, unwittingly or wittingly opposing God's sovereign plan. Despite such cunning and powerful human opposition, the broader narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah ultimately testifies to God's faithfulness and His ability to ensure His purposes prevail.

* [Nehemiah 4:7-9](/nehemiah/4-7 "Nehemiah 4:7-9 - Opposition to Rebuilding")
* [Proverbs 26:24-26](/proverbs/26-24 "Proverbs 26:24-26 - Deceitful Lips")
* [Psalm 33:10-11](/psalms/33-10 "Psalm 33:10-11 - God's Counsel Stands")

### 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 often comes disguised. We must cultivate spiritual discernment to look beyond the surface justifications and identify the true motives behind resistance, whether it be in personal endeavors, church ministries, or broader societal issues. This passage challenges us to consider if our own actions or words, even when seemingly noble, might be subtly masking self-interest or hindering righteous causes. It calls us to examine our loyalties: are we truly serving God's purposes, or are we allowing personal gain, fear, or a desire for control to dictate our responses? Ultimately, Ezra 4:14 encourages perseverance in the face of adversity, trusting that God's sovereign plan will ultimately triumph, even when faced with powerful and cunning human opposition. Our task is to remain faithful to His call, discerning truth from deception, and continuing to build His kingdom despite the obstacles.

#### Questions for Reflection
* **How does this passage challenge me to discern the true motives behind opposition to God's work today, whether in my personal life, church, or community?**
* **In what ways might I be tempted to use seemingly noble reasons (e.g., "loyalty," "order," "efficiency") to mask self-interest or hinder righteous endeavors?**
* **How does the ultimate triumph of God's purposes in Ezra encourage me when facing resistance or discouragement in my own life or ministry?**

### FAQ

**Why would the king believe such a letter and halt the work?**

Answer: Persian kings, while powerful, relied heavily on reports from their regional governors and officials for information about their vast empire. The adversaries' letter was strategically crafted to appeal to Artaxerxes' primary concerns: imperial stability, control, and revenue. They framed the rebuilding of Jerusalem not as a religious endeavor but as a potential political rebellion that would lead to financial "dishonour" (loss of tribute) for the king. Given the historical propensity for rebellions in the empire and the king's distance from the immediate situation, it was a plausible threat 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 detriment.

**Was this opposition successful in permanently stopping the rebuilding?**

Answer: Temporarily, yes. The work on the temple ceased for about 15 years, from the reign of Artaxerxes until the second year of King Darius's reign ([Ezra 4:24](/ezra/4-24 "Ezra 4:24 - Work Halted")). However, it was not permanently successful. God, in His sovereignty, raised up the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to encourage the people to resume the work ([Haggai 1:1-8](/haggai/1-1 "Haggai 1:1-8 - Call to Rebuild the Temple"); [Zechariah 1:1-6](/zechariah/1-1 "Zechariah 1:1-6 - Call to Repentance")). Despite renewed opposition, the temple was eventually completed and dedicated in the sixth year of Darius's reign ([Ezra 6:15](/ezra/6-15 "Ezra 6:15 - Temple Completed")). Furthermore, the walls of Jerusalem were later rebuilt under Nehemiah, despite similar, intense opposition ([Nehemiah 6:15-16](/nehemiah/6-15 "Nehemiah 6:15-16 - Wall Completed")). This demonstrates that while human opposition can cause delays and difficulties, it cannot ultimately thwart God's divine purposes.

### CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The manipulative opposition faced by the exiles in Ezra 4:14, cloaked in feigned loyalty and concern for the king's honor, profoundly foreshadows the opposition Christ would encounter during His earthly ministry. Just as the adversaries sought to prevent the rebuilding of the physical temple, the spiritual adversaries of Jesus—often religious leaders—sought to thwart the building of God's true spiritual temple, which is Christ Himself and His Church. They often accused Jesus of dishonoring God or Caesar, using similar tactics of false witness and appeals to authority to undermine His mission ([Matthew 26:59-61](/matthew/26-59 "Matthew 26:59-61 - False Witnesses Against Jesus"); [John 19:12](/john/19-12 "John 19:12 - Pilate Seeks to Release Jesus")). 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 through which God's ultimate glory and redemptive plan were fulfilled ([Philippians 2:8](/philippians/2-8 "Philippians 2:8 - Christ's Humiliation")). Ultimately, just as God ensured the completion of the physical temple despite human schemes, Christ declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church ([Matthew 16:18](/matthew/16-18 "Matthew 16:18 - The Church Built on the Rock")), guaranteeing the triumph of His redemptive work over all opposition, culminating in His resurrection and the establishment of His eternal kingdom.

Note: Commentary is generated by AI with a directive for Biblical fidelity. Always rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. The Scripture text and cross-references are from verified, non-AI sources.

Cross-References

John 19:12

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

John 19:15

But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

John 12:5

Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

John 12:6

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Ezekiel 33:31

And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee [as] my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, [but] their heart goeth after their covetousness.