The work maligned.
Besides "hiring counsellors," as mentioned in Ezra 4:5; or, it may be, in order to provide these counsellors with documents to present and act on; we are here told that the Samaritan "adversaries" sent various letters to the Persian kings against the temple builders at Jerusalem. One of these, sent to a king here styled Ahasuerus, is merely referred to as an "accusation." Another and more successful one, sent "in the days of Artaxerxes," is described at full length. With many commentators of note and of various schools (see Wordsworth, in loc.), we shall assume these two kings, notwithstanding the apparent diversity of their names, to be Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis, the son and pretended son, and two next successors, of Cyrus. In any case the latter-named letter (verse 33), if not an exact copy, may be regarded as a fair sample, of what was sent. Looked at thus from the Jewish side of the question, it was a most formidable production:—equally so whether we now consider, on the one hand, its writers; or, on the other hand, its contents.
I. THE WRITERS. Much of the importance of a letter turns, of course, on this point. Were they
II. THE CONTENTS of the letter. These also were very formidable, because both weighty and well put. They comprised—
1. A severe accusation. The returned Jews were described as rebuilding a city always notorious for its evil name—Jerusalem "the rebellious" (Matthew 10:12). Such a charge no chief governor could afford to pass by. Such a charge, also, in this instance, had a very plausible look. Situated as the temple was, at the eastern edge of the city heights, the building of its foundation and enclosures (the real work of the men of Jerusalem) might easily be misrepresented as a "making ready" of the "walls" of the "city" itself.
2. A plain warning. "In the judgment of us who live on the spot, this thing is even worse than it seems. The building of this city means, in reality, the building of a fortress against the king; and that means, in turn, serious loss of revenue; for no taxes of any sort will that city pay, whether in money, or kind, or for using the highways."
3. A skilful apology. Why do we refer at all to so unpleasant a contingency? Simply as a matter of duty, and because of our loyalty. Having eaten of the king's salt (margin), being his dependents and subjects (possibly also his covenanted servants, 2 Chronicles 13:5), we could not see even such possibility of hurt without speaking.
4. An appeal to history. Besides, the king can judge for himself on this subject. He has only to inquire for himself in the government records, and see what has always been said there about this city. Why, in fact, if not thus "rebellious," was it ever destroyed?
5. An appeal to reason. If things be thus, what must be the consequence—the inevitable consequence of such a city being again established? Has our warning gone far enough, in reality? There will not only be rebellion here, but a rival sovereignty; not only some revenue, but a whole province, lost. Such, at any rate (so we assure the king), is our fear.
This subject illustrates—
1. The perilous nature of Christian warfare. All the neighbours of the Jews were against them; all that could be urged was urged against them, and in the very best way. It would be difficult to improve the letter before us, considering the purpose in view. So many, so powerful, so subtle always are the enemies of the Church. (Comp. Matthew 24:9; Luke 21:16, Luke 21:17; Acts 28:22.) Consider also, in a different sphere, Job 1:9-11; Job 2:4-6; Revelation 12:10; and the very meaning of the name Diabolus.
2. The secret of Christian vitality. How has the Church survived all this except by help from above? Could Jerusalem have survived this present league and letter if left to itself? Comp. "I have reserved to myself," in Romans 11:4; 1 Kings 19:18.
3. The proper direction of Christian trust. With such enemies, with such accusers, to whom must we look for defence? Not to other men, not to ourselves, but only to the appointed "Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1). He is more than all that are against us (Numbers 14:9; Psalms 27:1-3; Psalms 118:6). Also, being our "propitiation" (1 John 2:2), he can say more for us than they against us. (Comp. "I have prayed for thee," in Luke 22:31, Luke 22:32; and see Romans 8:33, Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25.)