EXPOSITION
RENEWAL OF OPPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE NEIGHBOURING HEATHEN. LETTER WRITTEN BY THEM AND SENT TO DARIUS (Ezra 5:3-17). Once more opposition showed itself. Tatnai, a high officer, called "governor on this side the river" (Ezra 5:3), perhaps satrap of Syria, and Shethar-boznai, or Sitrabarzanes, a Persian noble probably, at this time took the lead, and learning that the building was making progress, came in person to Jerusalem, and demanded to know by what authority the temple and city were being restored. Zerubbabel seems to have answered, "By the authority of a decree of Cyrus, issued in the year that he became king of Babylon" (Ezra 5:13); whereupon a second question was asked, "What are the names of the men responsible for carrying on the work?" Zerubbabel answered that he was alone responsible, giving his name as Sheshbazzar, and declaring himself to be acting under a commission received from Cyrus (Ezra 5:15), and never revoked. Thereupon Tatnai and Shethar-boznai seem to have proposed a cessation of the building until reference could be made to Darius and his pleasure learnt (Ezra 5:5); but Zerubbabel declined to agree to this, and the work proceeded without intermission (ibid.). Meanwhile, a letter was written to Darius, not unfairly stating the case, and suggesting that the state archives should be searched for the decree ascribed to Cyrus, that it might be seen what exactly it was that the decree sanctioned, and further that the king should expressly declare what his own pleasure was in the matter (Ezra 5:17). This letter Tatnai, in his capacity of satrap, despatched to the court by special messenger, and so left the business to the decision of Darius and his counsellors, without further seeking to influence him. Remark the strong contrast between this despatch and that of the Samaritans. In the Samaritan letter private pique and enmity show themselves—Jerusalem is "the rebellious and the bad city" (Ezra 4:12), "hurtful unto kings and provinces'' (Ezra 4:15); its intention to revolt is assumed (Ezra 5:13); the king is warned that his dominion and revenue are in danger (Ezra 5:16); no hint is given of there having ever been any such document as the decree of Cyrus; no reference is made to Sheshbazzar or the royal commission that he had received; altogether, the case is stated as strongly as possible against the Jews, with great and manifest unfairness. Here, on the contrary, where the person who takes up the matter is the Persian governor, a dispassionate tone prevails; no charges are made; no abuse uttered; the letter is confined to a statement of facts and an inquiry; the Jews are allowed to give their own account of their proceedings, nearly half the letter being their statement of their own case (Ezra 5:11-15); the decree of Cyrus is brought into prominence, asserted on the one hand, not denied on the other; that it should be searched for is suggested; and finally there is a simple request that the king will declare his will in respect of the building.