This section of the book is about God’s providential work of returning additional Jews to Jerusalem. The opposition to the temple and to the true worship of God recounted in the previous chapters has given way to strong Persian support for the temple and for the worship of God according to his Law. The combination of strong providential support from the Persian king and the emphasis on the law of God transitions the reader’s focus from the external threats to the internal threats to true worship.

God’s Providential Working

The letter from Artaxerxes to Ezra stands in contrast with the opposition recounted in chapter 4. T In that chapter the opponents of the Jews had told Artaxerxes that Jerusalem was a rebellious city and that the fortification of Jerusalem would lead to lost revenue (because Judah would no longer pay tribute) and to loss of control over the province Beyond the River (4:12-13, 16). Artaxerxes believed these claims and ordered that Jerusalem not be rebuilt, even telling the Jewish opponents to “take care not to be slack in this matter” (4:21-22).

The timing of this opposition within the reign of Artaxerxes is unknown since the correspondence between Artaxerxes and the opponents of the Jews, Rehum and Shimshai, is not dated. However, it is possible that it occurred subsequent to the return that Ezra is narrating in chapters 7-8.

The Egyptians rebelled against Artaxerxes in 461 BC and were not subdued for another decade. Ezra, returning in 458 BC would have come to Jerusalem toward the beginning of this period. This may provide the context for Artaxerxes generosity toward the beautification of the temple. He may have wanted the subjects of that region to be pleased with the Persians. He also wanted the Jewish God, whom he probably thought of as a regional god, to not be angry with him (7:23). However, the building of the city walls during the Egyptian rebellion, the war with the Greeks that followed (the Athenians had fought alongside the Egyptians in their rebellion), or later rebellion of Megabyzus would not have been viewed favorably by Artaxerxes. (On the historical background, see Yamauchi 1984:570-71; Steinmann, 2910: 27-29.)

Nehemiah 1:3-4 likely implies that Nehemiah heard fresh news about the breaking down of Jerusalem’s walls and the burning of its gates (Steinmann 2010: 388-39). It may be that Nehemiah 1 records his reaction to the forceful end of the wall-building described in Ezra 4:23. If that is the case, then the favorable letter Ezra received from Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:12-26) preceded the opposition recorded in chapter 4 by thirteen years.

The literary effect is to move the reader’s focus from opposition to favor. This should not be seen as in any way deceptive on Ezra’s part. It may be that the book was written under the shadow of opposition and that by condensing the description of opposition into a single thematic section of the book followed by accounts of God’s providential work in the Persian leaders, Ezra was directing his original readers to hope for God future providential working in their present situation.

In any event, the generosity of Artaxerxes in this letter is notable. Any Israelite who wished to return to the land with Ezekiel was permitted to do so (7:14). The king and court provided Ezra with silver and gold for the temple and its worship (7:15-17). The wealth provided is portrayed as being more abundant than actually needed (7:18). In addition, the province Beyond the River was to provide additional funds (7:22). Herodotus records that the tribute taken in by the provincial government was 350 talents, so to allow Ezra up to 100 talents along with wheat, wine, oil, and salt is exceedingly generous (Herodotus, The Histories, 3.91; Shepherd 2018: 33). In addition, Ezra is given several blank checks: “whatever else is required for the house of your God, which it falls to you to provide, you may provide it out of the kings treasury” (7:20); “whatever is decreed by the God of heaven, let it be done in full for the house of the God of heaven” (7:23).

Not only did Darius lavish gifts on Ezra and the temple, he also prohibited levying tribute on anyone who served in the temple worship—from priests to servants (7:24).

This was not a special exemption for the Jewish temple alone but a Persian policy. “Darius I made specific mention of a long-standing royal policy in these matters in the course of a rebuke to one of his officials in Asia Minor” (Kidner 1979: 22). In that case, Darius corrected officials who imposed tribute on those who officially served in the worship of Apollo (Kidner 1979: 72; Breneman 1993: 135). However, the fact that this policy was not uniquely aimed at Israel does not diminish in the least the idea that God was providentially showing special favor on Israel through Artaxerxes’s decree. God uses empire-wide policies to benefit his people.

Artaxerxes had both political and religious motives for his generosity. As Kidner observes, “religion and politics were inseparable” at this period (Kidner 1979: 71). A king under pressure may have truly desired all of the gods of his empire to favor him (cf. Breneman 1993: 135).

Ezra, however, saw the hand of God behind the actions of the king. He responded to the letter of Artaxerxes with praise to Yhwh for moving the king’s heart to beautify the temple.

A final example of God’s providence in these chapters is the safe transport of all of this wealth from Babylonia to Jerusalem without military protection (8:31). Ezra specifically did not request an escort because he was concerned that doing so would communicate to the king that God could not protect them—as they had clearly communicated to the king (8:22; Steinmann 2010: 312).

Ezra 8:22 does not imply that it would always be wrong for God’s people to accept a military escort when traveling. God uses means, and his people are right to avail themselves of those means, as Nehemiah did when he accepted military protection (2:9; Steinmann 2010: 313). However, God’s people often give up what they could rightfully claim to promote the name of God and his interests in the world (1 Cor. 9:1-12).

God’s providential work on behalf of his people is emphasized in Ezra 7-8 by the repeated use of the phrase “for the hand of Yhwh his God was on him” (with variants). The phrase is first used in the introductory verses of chapter 7 with the summary statement: “the king granted [Ezra] all that he asked, for the hand of Yhwh his God was on him” (7:6). This was something that Ezra had told Artaxerxes: “The hand of our God is for good on all who seek him and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him” (8:22). In his response to Artaxerxes’s letter, Ezra said, “I took courage, for the hand of Yhwh my God was on me” (7:28). In response to finding Levites to accompany them back to Jerusalem, Ezra wrote, “by the good hand of our God on us, they brought us a man of discretion” (8:18). In describing the journey, Ezra wrote, “The hand of our God was on us, and he delivered us from the and of the enemy and from ambushes on the way” (8:31). Ezra’s safe arrival in Jerusalem, which is recorded at the beginning of this section to emphasize God’s faithfulness, is noted with the observation “he came to Jerusalem, for the good hand of his God was on him” (7:9).

The repetition is meant to drive home that Yhwh was providentially at work in Ezra’s return.

For Continued Return from Exile (Second Exodus)

The return to the land from captivity continues to be portrayed as a second exodus. The great wealth that the king of Persia provides for Ezra recalls the spoiling of the Egyptians (Throntveit 1992: 45).

Artaxerxes also commissioned Ezra to “appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River” (7:25). This also puts Ezra in the role of a second Moses, for Moses did this task in the first exodus (Ex. 18:13-27) (Throntveit 1992: 45). This harmonizes with the emphasis in these chapters on Ezra teaching the law of Moses to the people.

The fact that Ezra was returning to the land to further the worship of God (an emphasis in Artaxerxes’s letter, 7:15-20) also points back to the original exodus (Throntveit 1992:45-46). God wanted Pharaoh to let the people go so that they could properly worship God. In this, and in the provision of wealth, Artaxerxes acted as a kind of anti-Pharaoh. God used a “strong hand” with Pharaoh (Ex. 6:1; 13:3, 9, 14) by hardening his heart so that God could display his power to the nations. With Artaxerxes the hand of God is still the decisive factor, but it is used to soften the heart of the king, not harden it.

The fact that Ezra took courage to lead the people to go up to the land (7:28) may be an allusion to Joshua 1, in which God told Joshua to “Be strong and courageous” (the word translated strong in Joshua 1:6, 7, 9 being the same word translated courage in Ezra 7:28). The three days camped beside the river of Ahava as well as a three-day pause after arriving is also thought by some to evoke Joshua’s camping three days by the Jordan before entering the land (7:15, 32; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 36-37, 39). This is possible, but less clear than some of the other parallels.

The returnees themselves are once again described in such a way as to represent the return of the whole nation. After noting representatives from two priestly families and a Davidic descendant, Ezra lists twelve families, which mirror the number of the tribes of Israel (Throntviet 1992: 45; Steinmann 2010: 281).

Ezra contains numerous allusions back to the book of Numbers. The word for camping occurs repeatedly in that book, and its mention in Ezra 8:15 may be a subtle allusion (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 36-37).

The need for Levites on the journey back may have also been necessitated by Ezra’s purposeful attempt to evoke the exodus journey since there were already Levites in Jerusalem serving in the temple (Williamson 1985: 116). In Numbers the Levites, along with the priests, had the responsibility of caring for the transport of temple things, as they do also in Ezra’s return journey (8:30) (Williamson 1985: 118).

The date on which Ezra led the people to depart, the twelfth day of the first month, also bears exodus symbolism. Passover was on the tenth day of the month. The Israelites left Egypt on the eleventh day. Ezra leaves for Israel on the twelfth day (Levering 2007: 95).

Also closely connected with the exodus was the giving of the Law. If Israel lived according to the Law, God promised that it would dwell in the land. Now as the people return to the land, adherence to the Law is again emphasized.

For Life under God’s Law

These chapters in Ezra stress that the point of return is not merely the physical return of the people to the land or the physical building and beautifying of the temple. The point of returning to the land is to live under God’s Law.

Ezra 7:1-10 emphasize Ezra’s role as a “scribe skilled in the Law of Moses” and committed to “study,” “do,” and “teach” the law. Verse 11 reinforces this characterization. Ezra is “the priest, the scribe, a man learned in matters of the commandments Yhwh and his statutes for Israel.” Whenever Artaxerxes refers to Ezra by name in the letter that he gave him, Ezra is identified as “the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven” (7:12, 21). (Recall that priests had the duty of teaching the Law of God.) When Artaxerxes directly addresses Ezra in the letter, he does so in relation to Ezra’s possession of the wisdom of God (found in the Law).

These descriptions are not mere formalities. They describe the traits necessary for Ezra to be able to carry out the mission that Artaxerxes has in mind for Ezra. The king wanted Ezra to “make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according the Law of your God, which is in your hand” (7:14). This could possibly be translated “to be superintended over Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God, which is in your hand (cf. Steinmann 2010: 293).

According to Steinmann, “Steiner makes a strong case that the Pael (D) of בָּקַר with the preposition עַל in the sense of “over” means “to exercise the office of overseer over” people (here, those in Yehud). The Aramaic expression is analogous to the Greek office of ἐπίσκοπος, ‘overseer, superintendent’” (Steinmann 2010: 293).

In either case, Artaxerxes wanted Ezra to align Judah and Jerusalem with the law of God. He closed the letter by telling Ezra to appoint magistrates and judges who knew the law of God, to teach the law of God to those magistrates and judges who did not know it (7:25). Ezra was then authorized to bring punishment on those Jews who did not obey God’s laws (or the king’s): death, banishment, confiscation of property, and imprisonment are all mentioned as possible punishments (7:27).

Note that there is a parallel between the wisdom of God and the law of God in 7:14, 24 (Kidner 1979: 72). Shepherd notes, “Such an equation is anticipated already in Deut 4:6, which also provides a precedent (1:16–17; 17:8–13) for the appointing of judges (שָׁפְטִין/šāpəṭîn; Ezra 7:25; cf. Deut 16:18)” (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 34

The emphasis on the law in these chapters is tied to Ezra’s interest in moral purity. It may be that the mention of Phinehas should evoke the actions of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron who averted God’s wrath by killing and Israelite man and Moabite woman in the act of intercourse. The context for Phineas’s actions were the efforts of Moabite women to lead the Israelite men into idolatry—a foreshadowing of the problem of intermarriage in chapters 9-10 (Levering 2007: 89-90).

Likewise the presence of the Levites traveling back with the temple vessels may have evoked the responsibility of the Levites to guard the purity of the tabernacle and its furniture (Levering 2007: 92). The holiness of the vessels, the silver and gold dedicated to the temple, and the priests who are transporting it is emphasized by Ezra (8:28). Indeed, Ezra’s confidence that the Lord’s hand was on them for good was tied to the fact they sought the Lord and did not forsake him (8:22). Though Ezra did not make the link with obedience to the law versus forsaking God’s law explicit, it is implicit.

Praise and Prayer

Ezra sought God in his Word, but the Word and prayer are closely linked in Scripture. After Artaxerxes’s letter, Ezra prayed a prayer of praise to God for his providential work on their behalf. Before setting out on the journey Ezra proclaimed a fast and prayed for a safe journey. When the people arrived, they offered sacrifices to God.

Chapter 7 marks the beginning of the second half of the book of Ezra. Chronologically the book moves forward to the reign of Artaxerxes. Topically, the book turns to focus on the internal needs of the Israelites rather than on external opposition.

The book of Esther took place in the time period between the end of Ezra 6 and the beginning of Ezra 7.

Return from Exile as a Second Exodus

Though Ezra 8:31 gives the actual departure date as the twelfth day of the first month, 7:9 highlights that preparations for departure began on the first day of the first month. Since that was the day Israel left Egypt in the first exodus (Ex. 12:2; Num. 33:3; cf. Isa. 11:11.16), Ezra may have been making a connection between his return and the exodus (Williamson 1985: 93; Breneman 1993: 129; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 31).

Some read this verse as stating that Ezra began his journey on this date but was delayed so that he actually left on the twelfth. Steinmann, however, argues for the translation “it was the foundation of the ascent from Babylon” (Steinmann 2010: 285). In other words, this date marks the beginning of a preparatory stage of the journey.

In the first exodus, God led the people out of Egypt, had them build the tabernacle, gave them the law, and led them into the land. This same combination of temple, land, and law is at work in Ezra as well. The first part of the book recounted the rebuilding of the temple in connection with the people’s return to the land. But true temple worship and true life in the land requires the law as well. Levering notes that “for the land to be what it truly is, it requires not merely the temple but the indwelling of God. This indwelling is impossible unless the people are holy” (Levering 2007: 81). This is the whole point of Exodus 33:3-4. The position of the land without the presence of God is of no value. This is also the point of Ezekiel 10. The existence of a temple structure is of no value if God is not present.

A purpose of the law was to instruct the people in how to be holy before a holy God. Just as Moses brought the law to the people in the first exodus, so Ezra in this second exodus instructs the people in the law of Moses (Kidner 1979: 70; Levering 20007: 88).

In both the first and the second exodus the hand of God was at work. God’s mighty hand compelled Pharaoh to let the Israelites go (Ex. 3:19; 6:1; 7:4-5; 13:9), and in Ezra’s day the hand of Yhwh led Artaxerxes to give to Ezra all that he asked for with regard to the journey to the land (Levering 2007: 88).

God’s Providential Work

The repetition of “the hand of Yhwh his God was on him” (7:6) and “the good hand of his God was on him (7:9) in Ezra 7:1-10 highlights also God’s providential working on behalf of his people. In verse 6 the hand of God being on Ezra explains why the “king granted him all that he asked.” Though what Ezra asked for has not yet been related, the reader already knows it will be granted.

In verse 9 the hand of God on Ezra explains why they arrived safely in Jerusalem. Brown (2005a: 47-48) notes that account could have been structured to build suspense by delaying the outcome of Ezra’s journey to chapter 8. This is especially the case since 8:21-23 indicates that there was some anxiety about their safety in the journey. However, 7:8 records the date that Ezra arrived at Jerusalem prior to providing the date when he prepared to leave.

Ezra … deliberately undermined his story’s potential for suspense in favor of a temporal strategy that supports his theological purpose. … At least nine times throughout this episode Ezra inserted narrative references to God’s personal activity. Whereas magnified narrative suspense would have provided an opportunity to focus on faith, Ezra’s minimal suspense maximizes the reader’s awareness of God’s prevenient grace at work on behalf of His people (Brown 2005a: 48).

Ezra the Priest

Chapter 7 opens with a lengthy recitation of Ezra’s genealogy. He stands in the line of priests that extends back to Aaron. As is common in biblical genealogies, the list is not comprehensive.

Ezra is said to be the “son of Seraiah,” who was the grandfather of Joshua the son of Jozadak. The generations between Ezra and Seriah have been omitted. (Son in the Old Testament does not always refer to a direct descendant of a father but can indicate more distant descent as well.) The generations after Seraiah may have been omitted because though Seraiah was a high priest, Ezra was not. He came from a different line of descent from Seraiah than Joshua (KD 4:59-60).

Comparison with 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 reveals that six names between Azariah and Meraioth have been omitted as well. Some think that this was due to a scribal error (Williamson 1985: 93; Steinmann 2010: 286-87). However, there is no textual evidence that these names were ever included. Since biblical genealogies often omit some generations, it is better to conclude that these names were not initially included (KD 4:60; Steveson 2011: 61).

The point of the lengthy genealogy is to highlight Ezra’s importance (Breneman 1993:126) and to link him to the time of Moses and the initial establishment of the priesthood (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 30-31). Ezra remains concerned to establish continuity between the returnees and their forebears.

Notably, Ezra is not described as carrying out the cultic duties of the priests, though this should not cause readers to think that he was uninvolved in the temple or sacrificial system. However, the priests were also to teach the law to the people (McConville 1985: 46; Steinmann 2010: 288). Thus Ezra’s role as a scribe and teacher of the law is tightly connected with his responsibilities as a priest.

Deuteronomy 31:9-13 links the priestly instruction in the law to the Feast of Booths. See Nehemiah 8 which links Ezra’s instruction of the people with the Feast of Booths.

This section of Ezra closes with a series of worship events: the dedication of the house of God, the Passover, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The dedication of the temple testified to the already/not yet nature of the return from exile. The dedication offering is made for “all Israel.” This is symbolized by having one goat sacrificed for each of the twelve tribes (6:17) (Steinmann 2010: 190; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 28). Nonetheless, it is only a remnant that has gathered to dedicate the rebuilt temple. The number of animals sacrificed was small compared to what Solomon offered at the dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 8:5, 63; cf. 2 Chon. 30:24; 35:7 )(Steinmann 2010: 271).

Ezra is careful to point out that the priests and their divisions are set up according to the Book of Moses. This may be a reference to Numbers 18 (cf. 1 Chron 23-26) (Steinmann 2010: 271).

The following portrayal of Passover may also draw on Numbers. Shepherd observes, “[T]he insistence on the purity of the Levites in Ezra’s account (טָהוֹר/ṭāhôr; 6:20) resonates specifically with the extensive instructions for the cleansing (טִהַר/ṭihar) of the Levites in Num 8:6–26.” Furthermore, Numbers 9:14 emphasizes that sojourners needed to be purified according to the law in order to participate. “Finally, the specific sequence of the (re)dedication by the tribal leaders (Ezra 6:17; Num 7), purification of the Levites (Ezra 6:20a; Num 8), and celebration of the Passover (Ezra 6:20b–21; Num 9) that appears in both Ezra and Numbers seems unlikely to be accidental” (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 29).

Passover is a fitting feast for Ezra to record since it celebrates the Exodus from Egypt, and it is here “eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile” (6:21). Notably, it was also eaten “by everyone who had joined them and separated himself from the uncleanness of the peoples of the land.” The people who came up in the Exodus were not all Israelites by descent; some were Egyptian. God’s intention has always been for Israel to bring the other nations to God. Similarly, the prophets predicted that in the second exodus, the nations would come to worship God in Jerusalem. There is an anticipation of the fulfillment of those prophecies here.

Notably, the problem with the peoples of the land is not their ethnicity but their religious uncleanness. People of all ethnicities are invited to worship Yhwh with the Israelites if they will purify themselves from uncleanness.

It is also fitting that this section of Ezra, focused on the rebuilding of the temple, closes with an emphasis on joyful worship. The purpose of the temple is for worship. The last verse of chapter 6 brings in this fulfillment of the chief end of man—worshipping God with joy—with the other themes of the section: God’s providential working through the Persian kings to bring about the construction of the House of the God of Israel.

Darius is here called “king of Assyria,” which is an odd title for a Persian king. But the exile began under Assyria. Assyria was conquered by Babylon, and Babylon by Persia. Thus through conquest, the Persian king could be seen as the Assyrian king. This title is probably used to signify the end of the exile from the Assyrians (cf. Brenneman 1993: 122-23).

Search of the Royal Archives

Tattenai’s recommendation to Darius was to search the royal archives in Babylon for the decree of Cyrus that the Jewish leaders mentioned (5:17). Darius does decree for the search of the archives to be made, and a memorandum describing the decree was found in Ecbatana, which was where the Persian kings resided in the summer” (6:1-2; Williamson 1985: 80).

These are the kinds of details that a writer who was fabricating an account at a much later date would not get right. They attest the genuineness of the account (Williamson 1985: 80; Steinmann 2010: 266).

Ezra 6:3-5 presents the memorandum of Cyrus’s decree which was found in Ecbatana. The Jewish leaders said that Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of the temple and that he sent back the temple vessels to be placed in the rebuilt temple. The memorandum confirms these points (Breneman 1993: 115; Steinmann 2010: 268). However, it adds some additional material, most notably that cost of the building project would be paid from the royal treasury (6:4). This is an example of potential opposition being providentially redirected to support.

Darius’s Decree

Darius fully supported Cyrus’s decree. He ordered that Tattenai not interfere with the project but instead pay for the cost of rebuilding—and for the cost of the sacrificial animals. He further requests for prayers to be made on behalf of himself and his sons. This seems to reflect the Persian policy of aligning with all of the gods of the conquered peoples.

The details regarding sacrifices are correct in Darius’s decree, which probably indicates that Darius made use of Jews to write the decree. Steinmann says that this reflects the “standard Persian practice of consulting religious authorities (in this case, Judeans) to ensure that worship practices of a particular religion were followed correctly” (Steinmann 2010: 269; cf. Kidner 1979: 64).

The decree is backed up with provisions for enforcement. Kidner notes that “[t]here was poetic justice intended in making a man’s own house his instrument of execution for tampering with the house of God (Kidner 1979: 64). Notably, Darius recognizes that God has caused his name to dwell in Jerusalem. God himself, Darius recognizes, will ensure that the decree to carry out the rebuilding of the temple will be carried out.

Conclusion: Tying up Narrative Threads

Verses 13-15 bring to an initial resolution the part of the narrative begun in 5:1 by tying together the various narrative threads. Tatttenai and his associates are diligent to carry out Darius’s decree. The elders of the Jews, with the support of the prophets. And the building is finished according to the decree of God and of the Persian kings. The decree of the kings comes from the decree of God (Steinmann 2010: 269-70; Brown 2005a: 43).

The mention of Artaxerxes in the list of kings is a bit odd since Artaxerxes reigned after the temple had been completed. Since Artaxerxes contributed to the beautifying of the temple (Ezra 7:29; cf. 7:15-24), Ezra includes him in the list (Williamson 1985: 84). Brown notes, “Ezra’s use of anachrony signals that thematic development is again overriding chronological presentation. The inclusion of Artaxerxes’ name in 6:14 brings into one compass all the Persian kings who contributed to the temple—from initial rebuilding to final beautification—and unites the entire preceding narrative around one of the narrative’s theological centerpoints: Yahweh’s sovereign control of history” (Brown 2005a: 42-43).

Ezra recorded that the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius’s reign. Though Ezra does not himself make the connection to the seventy years’ prophecy (just as he did not in Ezra 1 make explicit mention of that prophecy), the date enables the diligent reader to make the connection. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in 586 BC, and the Second Temple was dedicated in 516 BC.

Ezra 5-6 forms a cohesive unit that concludes the first part of the book of Ezra. Chapter 4, after the recitation of various kinds of opposition, ended with the observation “work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

The Prophets

In the second year of Darius, God raised up the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to stir up the people to begin work on the temple once more. The prophets exercised divine authority because they speak “in the name of the God of Israel who was over them” (5:1).

The pronoun in the phrase “over them” could refer to either the prophets or the people. Brenneman notes, “it would seem best to apply the phrase to the Jews because the whole community was subject to God’s will” (Breneman 1993: 107), but whatever the referent, the phrase communicates God’s authority is conveyed in the prophetic message (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 24-25; Kidner 1979: 60).

Ezra does not reveal in his narrative that part of the problem lay with the people themselves. But the book of Haggai reveals that the people had developed excuses for avoiding continued work on the temple. They had even come under the curses of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Hag. 1:5-11 and Deut. 28:16-18, 22-24). Both Joshua and Zerubbabel seemed to need prophetic encouragement that God was with them in the rebuilding endeavor (see Hag. 2 and Zech. 4:11-14; 6:11-15). Furthermore, they all needed to be encouraged to not despise the day of small things (Zech. 4:10; cf. Hag. 2:1-9).

Zerubbabel and Joshua were responsive to the prophets’ preaching, and they lead the people in beginning again to rebuild the temple.

Tattenai’s Inquiry

However, as soon as the building project was restarted, the people encountered another challenge. Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai (presumably Tattenai’s secretary or assistant), and others with them came to investigate. While Zerubbabel was governor over the region of Judah, Tattenai was governor over the larger province Beyond the River, and thus held a higher position than Zerubbabel.

Tattenai did not seem to be fundamentally opposed to the rebuilding of the temple, as the peoples of the land were (Williamson 1985: 76; Steinmann 2010: 263; Steveson 2011: 53). But he did believe that it was his responsibility to confirm that the Jews did have permission to rebuild the temple. The fact that Persian officials had put a stop to the rebuilding during the reign of Cyrus at least cast some uncertainty about whether the project would be permitted to go forward. The request for names may also have struck the Jews as ominous. If the Persian response was unfavorable, what would be done with the names (Kidner 1979: 61)?

While the Jews would have remained in suspense during the months in which Tattenai’s inquiry took place, Ezra records a fact that signals the outcome and which should have encouraged the Jews. Tattenai did not prevent the Jews from continuing to rebuild the temple while he waited for a response from Darius (KD, 49; Breneman 1993: 109).

Ezra’s explanation is that “the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews” (5:4). Notably, when Solomon dedicated the first temple, God told Solomon, “My eyes and my heart will be there for all time” (2 Chron. 7:16; cf. Shepherd and Wright 2018: 25). However, if the people turned away from God’s commandments, God said, “this house that I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples” (2 Chron. 7:20). That judgment had happened, but it could not be the final word because of the previous promise that God’s eyes would be on the temple for all time. So God’s eye on the Jewish leaders who were rebuilding the temple was a sign that they were moving out of judgment and being restored to blessing. This is precisely what Jeremiah prophesied: “Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah…. I will set my eyes on them for good, and I will bring them back to this land” (Jer. 24:5-6; cf. Shepherd and Wright 2018: 25).

Ezra 4:5 brings the reader up to the point at which the temple is rebuilt in the second year of the reign of Darius (cf. 4:24). However, verse 6 moves thirty-five years after the temple rebuilding to the reign of Xerxes (cf. Brown 2005a: 39-40). Thus verses 6-23 recount the opposition that the Jews continued to face after the temple. The text brings the reader into the reign of Artaxerxes. In verse 24, the narrative reverts to the time of Darius’s second year and the finishing of the temple’s construction.

Older commentators, like Matthew Henry, identified Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:6, 7 with Cambyses  (Henry 1991: 618; cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.2.1-2). But there is no evidence that אחשׁורושׁ or ארתחשׁשׂתא refer to Cambyses while these are the Aramaic names for Xerxes and Artaxerxes (Brown 2005b: 183-87; cf. Williamson 1985: 57).

Steinmann agrees with other modern commentators that chapter 4 does not present a chronological account, and he offers a proposal for why the chronology is disrupted. He holds that the entire Aramaic section from 4:8 to 6:18 is a document prepared by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and others, possibly at the behest of Nehemiah, to persuade Artaxerxes to allow for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. This document was written so that the most recent events were recorded first and then moves backward in time. Though not written by Jews (cf. 5:5, which refers to “their God” and note the fact that the name Yhwh does not appear in the Aramaic section), it was written to favor their cause (Steinmann 2010: 201-2). In this document the entire city of Jerusalem is understood to be the house of God; thus the whole city, not just the temple proper ought to be rebuilt (Steinmann 2010: 248).

In response, it is not clear that this section forms an argument for the rebuilding of the walls. The verses relating to wall building focus on opposition, and there is a significant difference between rebuilding a temple and rebuilding city walls (Williamson 1985: 59; cf. Fensham 1982: 71). Most significantly, verse 24 appears to be a “repetitive resumption.” That is, words from 4:5 are repeated in 4:24 to bracket the intervening verses (Williamson 1996: 45; cf. Kidner 1979: 59; McConville 1985: 25). Since the resumption connects to text that precedes the Aramaic section, Steinmann’s theory that 4:8-6:18 is self-contained is not possible.

Ezra looked ahead at this point to the opposition to rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls for multiple reasons. First, this digression highlights the depth of opposition that the Jews faced. Lest anyone wonder if the Jewish leaders simply brought opposition upon themselves for spurning an offer of help, this digression demonstrates the depth of opposition. It lasted long after the temple was rebuilt. It reveals that these adversaries are going to relentlessly oppose the Jews at every turn. The Jewish leadership was right to avoid the trap of their adversaries’ offer (cf. Williamson 1985: 57; McConville 1985: 26).

On a literary level, this digression delays the resolution of the problem of halted temple construction. This narrative delay combined with the greater insight the digression gives to the depth of opposition only heightens the reader’s sense of the significance of Israel’s triumph in rebuilding the temple (Kidner 1979: 53-54; Brown 2005b: 40-41).

Finally, Ezra lived through the period being recounted in this section of the book (he and those he led back to Jerusalem may be referred to in 4:12; Kidner 1979: 58; Levering 2007: 65, n. 4; cf. Williamson 1985: 63). If Ezra was written around the time of the conflict over the rebuilding of the walls (possibly writing before Nehemiah returned), then linking the current opposition to the wall-building with the failed opposition to the temple-building would encourage his original readers (cf. Brown 2005b: 41).

First Letter of Opposition

Ezra first recorded an unspecified accusation from the reign of Ahasuerus (also known as Xerxes; the king who added Esther to his harem). The letter was written “in the beginning of his reign,” which may indicate that it was written in 486 BC, the partial year prior to his first full year of reigning (Williamson 1985: 60). Williamson notes that “just prior to Xerxes’ accession Egypt rebelled against her Persian overlord, obliging Xerxes to pass through Palestine during 485 B.C.” (Williamson 1985: 60). This unrest lasted until 483 BC (Steinmann 2010: 224). The unrest in this region gave the adversaries of the Jews an opportunity to lodge an accusation against the Judeans and Jerusalemites.

Second Letter of Opposition

Verse 7 documents letter of opposition, written in the days of Artaxerxes by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and others. Since the following verse lists different authors, verse 7 is probably refers to a distinct letter (Kidner 1979: 57; Williamson 1985: 61; McConville 1985: 27). The content of the letter is not specified.

The statement, “The letter was written in Aramaic and translated,” is difficult. Williamson suggests that it was probably translated into Hebrew (the primary language of the author of Ezra). But it was written with an Aramaic script, which was notable at the time since it was not yet common (Williamson 1985: 61; cf. Breneman 1993: 102).

Third Letter of Opposition

This third letter was written in Aramaic, and Ezra switched to Aramaic at this point to give the letter in its original language. Ezra first provides the senders’ designation of themselves. They identify themselves as deportees who were settled by the Assyrians in Israel. They were settled in the land at a later date from those mentioned in 2 Kings 17 or Ezra 4:2. They also claim a Persian heritage. Ashurbanipal (Osnappar) did conquer Elam and Susa in 642-643 BC (Williamson 1985: 62). These deportees were from that event. The fact that they were from Persia could incline Artaxerxes to credit their report.

Steinmann notes that many translations in 4:9 translate “the judges, the governors, the officials.” He argues against combining titles and ethnic designations: “Instead all the entries in this list ought to be understood as ethnic designations, as in the KJV and 2 Esdras 4:9. The Dinaites may be people from the city Dîn-šarru, near Susa, who were captured and brought to Ashurbanipal in Ashur and then probably resettled in yet other places. The origin of the Apharsathcites is unknown. The Tarpelites may be inhabitants of Tripoli in Syria” (Steinmann 2010: 238).

They accused Jews who had come from Artaxerxes of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem because they planned to rebel against Persia. This could be an accusation directed at Ezra and the those he led back to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:1-26; Kidner 1979: 58; Levering 2007: 65, n. 4; cf. Williamson 1985: 63), though the statement is not specific enough to be certain of anything other than that this predates Nehemiah (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 22).

The accusers suggested that a search of records would demonstrate that Jerusalem was destroyed because it had stirred up revolts and refused to pay tribute. This is a reference to pre-exilic Jerusalem. Toward the end of the Southern Kingdom, Judean kings did at times try to shake off their vassalage. Notably, Jeremiah warned the Judeans against rebelling in this way (Jer. 27-28). Their disobedience now brought about further difficulties.

This argument, however, is weak. Jerusalem was no longer the capital of an independent nation that was seeking to maintain its independence. The fact that the rebuilt Jerusalem never did rebel against Persia demonstrates the emptiness of the claim (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 23).

However, in the first part of Artaxerxes reign, the Egyptians rebelled (461 BC). The Persian general who defeated the Egyptians then rebelled against Artaxerxes in 449 BC. During this same time, the Persians were fighting the Greeks (Levering 2007: 66; Steinmann 2010: 246-47). Since Jerusalem was in proximity to these rebellions, the accusations resonated with Artaxerxes. He did not wish to deal with another rebellion, and the Persian empire at this time could not afford a reduction in revenue that would come if a portion of the empire broke away (McConville 1985: 28).

Though the accusation was weak on the merits, it was skillfully crafted to target areas that concerned Artaxerxes. Finding in the historical record that pre-exilic Jerusalem did rebel against its overlords, and recognizing that these overlords (the “mighty kings”) received financial benefit from a subdued Jerusalem, Artaxerxes ordered the wall building in Jerusalem to cease (Williamson 1985: 64; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 23).

Artaxerxes commanded that Rehum, Shimshai, and the others who wrote him “not be slack” in putting an end to the wall-building. They certainly had no desire to “be slack.” Indeed, they used force to make the Jews stop their building. They may have even damaged what had already been built (cf. Neh. 1:3; Steinmann 2010: 248).

Resumption

The “then” that begins verse 24 does not indicate that the work on the temple ceased subsequent to Artaxerxes’ decree since Darius clearly ruled before Artaxerxes. Verse 24 resumes the narrative line left off in verse 5 (Fensham 1982: 77).

Yamauchi observes that in the first two years of Darius’s reign he had to deal with rebellion. But once the rebellion was put down, he was willing for the temple to be rebuilt (Yamauchi 1988: 634).

The great shout of the people at the laying of the temple’s foundations “was heard far away” (3:13). Indeed, in a manner of speaking it was heard by “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (4:1) (Steinmann 2010: 220). As a result of hearing about the rebuilding, these adversaries come to Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers’ houses to offer to help in rebuilding the temple (4:2). This offer is rebuffed by Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the other leaders (4:3).

Kidner notes the danger of “form[ing] an impression of the encounter as a rude rebuff to a sincere and friendly gesture” (Kidner 1979: 54). The chapter opens by identifying those who offer help as “adversaries,” tipping the reader off to the fact that this is “the opening of a battle of wits” (Kidner, 1979: 54).

The adversaries themselves tip their hand when they claim that they have been sacrificing to the Israelite God since Esarhaddon deported them to the land of Israel. Second Kings 17:24-41 describes the worship of those who had been brought to Israel by the Assyrians. It was syncretistic (2 Kings 17:28-41). The author of Kings indicates twice that this syncretism endured to his own day (17:34, 41), which could be no earlier than the death of Jehoiachin (somewhere in the range of 562-540 BC; Merrill 2011: 324).

Second Kings 17 records the resettlement of foreign peoples in Israel under the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BC). These foreigners claim to have been resettled by a subsequent Assyrian king, Esarhaddon (681-66 BC). In one of the letters to Artaxerxes, Rehum, Shimshai, and others claimed to have been resettled in Israel by Ashurbanipal (called Osnappar in Ezra 4:10) (Steinmann 2010: 226-27). Though arriving in Israel later than the people described in 2 Kings 17, the adversaries of Ezra 4:1-2 were clearly also syncretistic (Kidner 1979: 55; Levering 2007: 60-61; Steinmann 2010: 221-22). This is hinted at in enemies reference to “your God” and the reply of the Israelite leaders referring to their determination to build the temple of “our God” (4:2, 3; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 21).

Bilkes suggests that these people intermarried with the Israelites of the northern kingdom (Bilkes 2013: 34). This is nowhere stated in Scripture, but it is not unlikely. If so, and if the original readers made this connection, these opening verses of chapter 4 foreshadow the problem of intermarriage with unbelievers later in the book.

It may be significant that the adversaries are identified as “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (4:1, emphasis added). At points Ezra, to emphasize continuity with the entire nation, uses the label Israel to identify the returned exiles. But the label Judah and Benjamin in 4:1 and the mention of the heads of the fathers’ houses in verses 2 and 3 link these verses back to Ezra 1:5, which says that Yhwh stirred heads of the father’s households of Judah and Benjamin “to go up to rebuild the house of Yhwh that is in Jerusalem.” (The only other use of the phrase “heads of fathers’ houses” between 1:5 and 4:2 is in 3:12, in the narrative about laying the foundations of the temple.) Implied in the statement that the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin approached the heads of the fathers’ houses is that, despite words to the contrary, these people are enemies to the temple building project.

The explicit mention of Judah and Benjamin here might also serve to draw a contrast with the Northern Kingdom. Since Jeroboam, the official religion of that kingdom was a deformed Yhwh worship, centered on Bethel and Dan (cf. Levering 2007: 60-61). It was this deformed Yhwh worship that was mingled with pagan worship by those the Assyrian kings settled in the land (2 Kings 17:28).

If the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin had been permitted to participate in the rebuilding of the temple, they would have earned a say in how the temple worship was subsequently carried out (Blenkinsopp OTL: 107; as cited in Steinmann 2010: 221; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 21). This was a strategy to “destroy by assimilation” (McConville 1985: 26). The Jewish leaders recognized this and firmly reject the assertion that their adversaries have anything in common with them.

Note that the problem was not that the adversaries were of foreign extraction. A foreigner who “separated himself from the uncleanness of the peoples of the land” would be accepted in Jewish worship (Ezra 6:21; cf. Bilkes 2013: 35).

At this rebuke the offers to help are replaced with more active opposition (4:4). What was done to make the Jews discouraged and afraid is not specified, but it may have been similar to the what is recorded in Nehemiah 4:1-3, 7-9.

The Judean leaders had appealed to Cyrus’s edict to provide a clear legal basis on which to reject the participation of their enemies in the temple building project (4:3; Williamson 1985: 50; Steinmann 2010: 222; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 21). However, the enemies of the Jews turn the Persian powers against them by bribing government officials. This puts an end to temple building during the remainder of Cyrus’s reign, throughout the reign of Cambyses, and into the reign of Darius.