TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Ezra 4:6–16. His four-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
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.
Historical interpretation
Ten Centuries of Reception
2 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
In the year of the reign of Ahasuerus... they wrote an accusation, etc. Josephus (Antiquities XI, 2, 3) believes that this Artaxerxes, who received the letter of accusation from the Samaritans and forbade the construction of Jerusalem and the temple, was Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, who, after his father ruled for thirty years, reigned himself for eight years; and after him, the Magi ruled for one year, then Darius, the son of Hystaspes, succeeded to the throne. In his second year, the angel permitted the temple to be built, saying through Zechariah the prophet, interceding for the people: Lord of hosts, how long will you not have mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry? This is the seventieth year (Zech. I). As for Ahasuerus, to whom it is said the letter of accusation was equally sent, it is perhaps silent on whether he replied or responded because either he died in the same year he began to reign, leaving the rule and these matters to Artaxerxes; or he was indeed contemporary with Artaxerxes but, being of lesser power, allowed him to handle and decide these things more.
Assuerus: Otherwise called Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus. He is also in the following verse named Artaxerxes, a name common to almost all the kings of Persia.
Continue studying Ezra 4:6 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 4:6 serves as a crucial parenthetical insertion within the book of Ezra, detailing a specific instance of persistent opposition faced by the Jewish exiles returning from Babylon. It records a formal accusation lodged against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem during the early reign of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). This verse, though chronologically out of sequence with the immediate narrative of the Temple's rebuilding, masterfully underscores the multi-generational and relentless nature of the hostility faced by God's people in their efforts to restore their homeland and fulfill divine purposes, highlighting the adversaries' calculated strategy to thwart the work through official imperial channels.
Context
Literary Context
Ezra 4:6 marks a significant literary and chronological interjection within the book of Ezra. The preceding verses, Ezra 4:1-5, describe the initial opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple under King Cyrus and Darius I, which led to a temporary cessation of the work. However, Ezra 4:6-23 is a deliberate thematic digression, jumping forward in time to present later instances of opposition that occurred under Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) and Artaxerxes I. This literary device, often termed a "flashback" or "parenthetical insertion," serves a vital purpose: it demonstrates the continuous and enduring nature of the adversaries' hostility. The author emphasizes that the opposition was not limited to a single reign or project (Temple rebuilding), but extended to the broader restoration of Judah and Jerusalem, including the city walls. The narrative then seamlessly returns to Darius's reign in Ezra 5:1 to complete the account of the Temple's completion.
Historical & Cultural Context
King Ahasuerus, widely identified by scholars as Xerxes I, ruled the vast Persian Empire from 486-465 BC. His reign falls chronologically after the completion of the Temple under Darius I (recorded in Ezra 6:15) and before the significant missions of Ezra and Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I. The Persian Empire was renowned for its sophisticated bureaucracy, where official letters, petitions, and accusations were common and effective methods for local governors and rival factions to influence imperial policy. The "inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem" were a vulnerable, nascent community of returned exiles striving to re-establish their national and religious identity under Persian suzerainty. The "adversaries," often referred to as "the people of the land" (e.g., Ezra 4:4), were likely Samaritan or other regional groups who perceived the Jewish restoration as a threat to their own influence and sought to undermine it through legal and political means, exploiting the hierarchical structure of the Persian administration.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes within Ezra and the broader biblical narrative. A prominent theme is Persistent Opposition, illustrating that God's redemptive work and His people will inevitably encounter resistance from various sources—political, social, and spiritual. The verse also highlights the Potency of Accusation and Slander as a primary weapon employed by adversaries to sow distrust, undermine legitimacy, and provoke governmental intervention against divine purposes. This tactic aimed to halt the restoration by falsely portraying the Jewish community as rebellious or disloyal subjects of the Persian king. Furthermore, it subtly points to the underlying reality of Spiritual Warfare, where human opposition often serves as a manifestation of deeper spiritual forces resisting God's sovereign plan for His people and the re-establishment of His presence in Jerusalem. The unique narrative structure itself emphasizes the Continuity of God's Plan despite such protracted and multi-faceted opposition, demonstrating divine faithfulness even amidst human hostility.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This is the Hebrew transcription of the Old Persian name Xšayāršā, known in Greek as Xerxes I. He reigned from 486-465 BC. As the "title (rather than name) of a Persian king," his mention here is crucial for dating this specific accusation, placing it chronologically between the completion of the Temple (under Darius I, Ezra 6) and the later missions of Ezra and Nehemiah (under Artaxerxes I, Ezra 7-10, Nehemiah 1-13). The fact that opposition continued into his reign, even after the Temple was finished, underscores the relentless nature of the adversaries' campaign against the Jewish community's broader restoration, particularly the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Derived from the root meaning "to rule," malkûwth refers to a "rule," "dominion," "empire," or "kingdom." The phrase "in the beginning of his reign" indicates that the adversaries wasted no time in attempting to influence the new monarch. A new king's ascension often presented a window of opportunity for local factions to curry favor or to present grievances, as the new ruler sought to establish firm control and assess the loyalty of his subjects. This timing suggests a calculated move by the adversaries to exploit a period of political transition to their advantage.
From the root śāṭan (meaning "to oppose" or "to act as an adversary"), siṭnâh denotes "opposition (by letter)" or a formal "accusation." This word carries a strong connotation of slander, enmity, or hostile opposition, specifically a formal charge intended to cause harm or bring about a negative judgment. Its etymological link to "Satan" (the Accuser) is highly significant, implying that the charges brought against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem were not merely administrative complaints but were malevolent, adversarial, and designed to obstruct God's work by portraying His people as rebels against the Persian crown.
Verse Breakdown
"And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign"
This clause precisely dates the specific accusation being described. It emphasizes that the adversaries were swift to act, immediately attempting to influence the new monarch against the Jewish community. The "beginning of his reign" suggests a period when a new king might be more susceptible to counsel or seeking to establish firm control, making him a prime target for those seeking to undermine a perceived threat or rival power base.
"wrote they [unto him] an accusation"
This identifies the action taken by the adversaries—they composed and sent a formal written complaint to the king. The "they" refers to the long-standing "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" introduced in Ezra 4:1, who consistently sought to halt the rebuilding efforts. The act of writing indicates a calculated, official, and persistent strategy to leverage the imperial bureaucracy against the Jewish people. The accusation was not a casual complaint but a formal legal or political charge designed to incite royal intervention.
"against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem"
This specifies the target of the accusation: the Jewish community who had returned from exile and were attempting to re-establish themselves in their ancestral land. It emphasizes that the opposition was directed not just at the Temple rebuilding, but at the very presence and restoration of the Jewish people in their homeland, particularly their efforts to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. This broad targeting reflects the deep-seated animosity and fear of a resurgent Jewish presence and their potential to become a strong, independent entity.
Literary Devices
The primary literary device at play in Ezra 4:6, and indeed the entire section of Ezra 4:6-23, is Thematic Arrangement or Parenthetical Insertion. Although chronologically out of sequence (the events of Ezra 5-6, the completion of the Temple, occur before the reign of Ahasuerus/Xerxes), the author deliberately places this account here. This Anachronism serves a crucial theological and narrative purpose: it emphasizes the Continuity of Opposition against God's people and their work. By showing that hostility persisted across different Persian reigns and against various aspects of the restoration (Temple, city, people), the author underscores the relentless nature of the adversaries and the enduring challenges faced by the exiles. This structure also creates a sense of Suspense and highlights the Divine Sovereignty that ultimately triumphs over such protracted resistance, even when human efforts are repeatedly thwarted. The repeated use of "accusation" (related to śāṭan) also subtly employs Foreshadowing, hinting at the deeper spiritual battle underlying the human conflict.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Ezra 4:6, though a brief historical record, resonates with profound theological implications regarding the nature of spiritual warfare and the enduring conflict between God's purposes and the forces that oppose them. The "accusation" described here is not merely a political maneuver but an act rooted in a deeper spiritual enmity against the people of God and their divine mandate. This pattern of opposition, often manifesting as slander and false charges, is a recurring motif throughout biblical history, from the Garden of Eden to the New Testament, reminding believers that those who align with God's will should expect resistance. The very word for "accusation" (śiṭnâ) points to the spiritual adversary, Satan, whose primary role is to accuse the brethren, revealing the malevolent spiritual force behind such human machinations. The historical account thus becomes a spiritual parable.
Reflection and Application
Ezra 4:6 offers a timeless lesson for believers navigating their own journeys of faith and service. It reminds us that engagement in God's work often invites opposition, and that such resistance frequently manifests as false accusations, slander, or attempts to undermine our credibility and purpose. Just as the ancient adversaries sought to halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem through official complaints and malicious reports, so too can modern-day challenges arise from those who oppose the advance of God's kingdom, often using deceptive or manipulative tactics. This verse calls us to spiritual discernment, recognizing that not all criticism is constructive, and some is designed purely to discourage and derail divine purposes. It also fosters a spirit of perseverance, encouraging us to remain steadfast in our calling, trusting that God's sovereign plan will ultimately prevail over every accusation and obstacle. Our response to such opposition should be rooted in prayer, truth, integrity, and a quiet confidence in God's ultimate vindication, rather than succumbing to despair or retaliation.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why is Ezra 4:6 out of chronological order in the book of Ezra?
The placement of Ezra 4:6-23 is a deliberate literary and theological choice by the author, not a historical error. While the preceding verses (Ezra 4:1-5) describe opposition during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius I (when the Temple was being rebuilt), Ezra 4:6 jumps forward to the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) and then Ezra 4:7-23 to Artaxerxes I. This "thematic arrangement" or "parenthetical insertion" serves to illustrate the continuous and persistent nature of the opposition faced by the Jewish community throughout different Persian reigns and against various aspects of their restoration (Temple, city walls, general presence). It demonstrates that the adversaries' hostility was not a one-time event but an ongoing campaign, thereby emphasizing the resilience of God's people and the ultimate triumph of His plan despite prolonged human and spiritual resistance.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Ezra 4:6, with its depiction of relentless accusation against God's people, finds its ultimate and most profound fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is the quintessential target of false accusations, enduring slander and unjust charges throughout His earthly ministry, culminating in His crucifixion. From the Pharisees' accusations of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65) to the Roman authorities' charges of sedition (Luke 23:2), Jesus perfectly embodies the innocent one against whom the "accusation" (śiṭnâ) of the adversary is directed. Yet, unlike the exiles who faced delays and temporary halts, Christ's response to accusation was not merely perseverance but perfect obedience and sacrificial love, leading to His decisive triumph over the ultimate accuser, Satan, who is explicitly called "the accuser of our brethren" in Revelation 12:10. Through His death on the cross and His glorious resurrection, Jesus disarmed the powers of darkness (Colossians 2:15), silencing the accuser's claims against humanity once and for all. Believers, now in Christ, are no longer under condemnation (Romans 8:1), for Christ Himself is our advocate (1 John 2:1) and high priest, ensuring that every accusation against His people ultimately fails. His completed work guarantees the ultimate victory of God's people and the fulfillment of His eternal redemptive purposes.