Ezra Chapter 4
The Samaritan Attempts to Stop the Work
“From this point onwards right to the end of Nehemiah there is conflict. Nothing that is attempted for God will now go unchallenged, and scarcely a tactic be unexplored by the opposition.”
A. The offer of a dangerous alliance
1. Ezra 4:1–2, Adversaries try to join the work of building the temple
“Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.”
This passage marks a clear transition from internal rebuilding to external opposition. Scripture explicitly identifies these people as adversaries before recording their words. This is critical. Their proposal sounded friendly, cooperative, and even religious, but God’s Word exposes their true character from the outset. Judea was not an empty land during the exile. According to Jeremiah 39:10, “But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poor of the people, which had nothing, in the land of Judah, and gave them vineyards and fields at the same time.” Alongside these remnants were foreigners who had drifted into the depopulated territory over time.
These adversaries were closely connected to what later became known as the Samaritans. After the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in 733 B.C., foreign populations were transplanted into the land, as described in 2 Kings 17:24, “And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel.” These foreigners intermarried with the remaining Israelites and adopted a hybrid religion. During the seventy years of Judah’s exile, this mixed population expanded southward into Judean territory.
The Samaritans continued as a distinct group into New Testament times. Because they claimed connection to Israel yet rejected pure covenant worship, Jews often regarded them with more hostility than outright Gentiles. Their faith blended elements of the Law of Moses with superstition and idolatry. This background explains the shock value of Jesus’ parable in Luke 10:25–37, where a Samaritan is portrayed as morally superior to religious Jews.
Scripture summarizes Samaritan religion with devastating clarity in 2 Kings 17:33, “They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.” This verse perfectly explains their claim, “We seek your God as ye do.” They believed it. They were sincere. They were also wrong.
Their offer was triggered by hearing that the descendants of the captivity were building the temple of the LORD God of Israel. The noise of worship and foundation laying at the end of Ezra 3 announced something unmistakable, the Jews were not merely resettling, they were reestablishing covenant worship and national identity. This threatened the influence, control, and religious mixture of the surrounding peoples.
The proposal itself was subtle and dangerous. “Let us build with you” sounded cooperative, even spiritual. In the ancient world, shared participation in temple construction implied shared national and religious identity. This was not merely an offer of labor. It was a bid for inclusion, influence, and eventual control. If accepted, the returned exiles would soon be absorbed into the far larger Samaritan population.
Their claim, “we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur,” exposed the fatal flaw. They admitted that their worship began under Assyrian resettlement and had continued without temple, priesthood, or obedience to the Law. God had strictly commanded centralized worship at the place He chose, with sacrifices offered only by consecrated priests. Their worship directly violated God’s revealed will, proving that their religion, though sincere, was disobedient.
To the Samaritans, the LORD was one god among many. This was precisely the sin that had led Israel into exile. Any partnership with such worship would have undone the very purpose of restoration. This was not a harmless alliance, it was spiritual poison disguised as help.
2. Ezra 4:3, Zerubbabel rightly refuses their offer
“But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.”
The response of the leaders is one of the most spiritually mature moments in Ezra. Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and all the heads of the fathers’ houses spoke with one voice. There was no division, hesitation, or compromise. Unity among leadership was essential, because compromise at this point would have corrupted the entire project.
Their refusal was firm and unambiguous. “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God.” This was not arrogance or ethnic pride. It was covenant faithfulness. God had entrusted this work specifically to the returned exiles, and King Cyrus had formally authorized them to complete it. Accepting Samaritan help would have directly violated both divine command and royal decree.
This decision required real faith. The returned Jews were few in number, poor in resources, and surrounded by hostile peoples. Pragmatism would have argued for accepting any help available. Some surely reasoned that they could accept assistance while guarding against corruption. Scripture shows that this reasoning is repeatedly disastrous.
The leaders understood that partnership in sacred work implies shared authority and shared worship. 2 Kings 17:25–41 makes clear that Samaritan worship was syncretistic and idolatrous. To allow them into the construction of the temple would eventually require allowing them into the worship of the temple. That would have dethroned the LORD as the sole object of Israel’s worship.
This refusal also protected the Samaritans themselves. Including unbelieving or unyielded people in covenant work gives them a false sense of spiritual standing. It assures them of acceptance without repentance. True love does not blur the line between obedience and disobedience.
This moment establishes a principle that runs throughout Ezra and Nehemiah. God’s work must be done God’s way, by God’s people, according to God’s Word. Help that compromises truth is not help at all. From this refusal onward, open hostility replaced feigned friendship, but spiritual integrity was preserved.
B. The broad outline of Samaritan resistance to the work in Jerusalem
1. Ezra 4:4–5, The resistance under the reign of Cyrus, 539–530 B.C.
“Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building,
And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.”
Once the offer of partnership was refused, the true hostility of the surrounding peoples became unmistakable. What had appeared as friendly cooperation quickly transformed into open opposition. Scripture describes this opposition with deliberate clarity. Their goal was not correction or coexistence but discouragement, disruption, and eventual termination of the work God had commanded.
The phrase “weakened the hands of the people of Judah” is a vivid Hebrew idiom describing deliberate psychological and emotional pressure. It speaks of sapping courage, draining resolve, and exhausting morale. The same expression appears in Jeremiah 38:4, where officials accuse Jeremiah, saying, “This man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.” The tactic was not initially violent but corrosive, aimed at undermining confidence and persistence.
They troubled the builders, meaning they created constant interference, harassment, and agitation. This may have included intimidation, false rumors, bureaucratic obstacles, and social pressure. When discouragement alone was insufficient, they escalated their opposition by hiring counselors, professional legal and political agents, to work against Judah’s interests in the Persian court. This was calculated, sustained resistance, not a momentary reaction.
The opposition persisted throughout the entire reign of Cyrus and continued into the reign of Darius. This indicates that resistance was not short lived. It was patient, strategic, and relentless. The enemies of God’s work were willing to wait years if necessary to achieve their aim. Faithful obedience, on the other hand, was met with prolonged pressure, testing endurance as much as conviction.
This passage also serves as a reminder that even when God opens a door, adversaries may still have room to oppose. Cyrus had given clear authorization for the temple to be rebuilt, yet political maneuvering and intimidation were still effective tools in the hands of the opposition. Divine permission does not guarantee an absence of resistance, but it does guarantee eventual fulfillment.
Ezra 4:4–23 functions as a parenthetical section in the narrative. It provides a broad, thematic overview of Samaritan resistance across multiple reigns, rather than a strict chronological sequence. If one were to read Ezra 4:3 followed immediately by Ezra 4:24, the narrative would flow directly to the interruption of the temple work under Darius. This section pauses the storyline to show that opposition was not isolated to one moment but was persistent across decades.
This overview also prepares the reader for later conflicts recorded in Nehemiah. The enemies of the work in Jerusalem did not cease when the temple was completed. They merely shifted their focus from temple construction to city rebuilding. Opposition to God’s purposes adapted to circumstances but never disappeared.
2. Ezra 4:6, The resistance under the reign of Ahasuerus, 485–465 B.C.
“And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.”
This single verse compresses years of hostility into a brief statement. Ahasuerus, known from the book of Esther, ruled long after the initial return under Zerubbabel. Yet the animosity of Judah’s adversaries had not cooled. When a new king ascended the throne, they immediately seized the opportunity to act.
The opposition wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The content of the accusation is not recorded here, but the pattern is consistent throughout Ezra and Nehemiah. The Jews were portrayed as rebellious, disloyal, and politically dangerous. Their religious obedience was reframed as civil unrest. This tactic sought to alarm imperial authorities and provoke intervention.
The timing is telling. The accusation was written at the beginning of Ahasuerus’ reign. New administrations are often vulnerable, eager to assert control and sensitive to reports of instability. The adversaries were shrewd and persistent. Though wrong in motive and substance, they were diligent in execution.
This verse also underscores a sobering reality. Opposition to God’s work can span generations. The same hostility that confronted Zerubbabel remained active decades later. The enemies of Jerusalem may change leaders and strategies, but their resistance endures.
Yet the brevity of Ezra’s account here suggests that this particular attempt failed. No immediate result is recorded. God restrained the effect of the accusation, preserving His people until the appointed time for further restoration.
3. Ezra 4:7–16, The resistance under the reign of Artaxerxes I, 464–424 B.C.
“And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort:
Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites,
And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.
This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time.
Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.
Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.
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;
That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed.
We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.”
This section records the most organized and politically effective phase of Samaritan opposition. Unlike earlier resistance under Cyrus, this effort involved formal correspondence, legal framing, and imperial manipulation. The letter was written in Aramaic, the official administrative language of the Persian Empire. From Ezra 4:8 through Ezra 6:18, the text itself shifts into Aramaic, reflecting the nature of official imperial documents. Ezra 7:12–26 later resumes this same language for similar reasons. This underscores the seriousness of the charge and the formal setting in which it was received.
The authors of the letter represent a coalition of transplanted peoples, descendants of those forcibly resettled by Assyrian policy. Their diversity emphasizes that opposition to Jerusalem was not merely local irritation but a regional concern among peoples whose political stability depended upon keeping Judah weak and undefended.
The accusation centered on the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls and foundations. This is a crucial distinction. The temple had already been completed by this point, as confirmed by Zechariah 4:9, “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it.” Also Haggai 2:3 shows that some who had seen Solomon’s temple lived to see Zerubbabel’s temple completed. Therefore, the complaint did not concern temple worship but civil fortification. Walls symbolized autonomy, security, and the potential for rebellion in the eyes of imperial authorities.
The charge that the Jews would refuse to pay tax, tribute, and custom was a calculated falsehood. The returned exiles were a chastened people, obedient to Persian authority and grateful for royal favor. The accusation deliberately conflated Jerusalem’s sinful past with the present generation. The Samaritans relied upon historical memory rather than current reality.
Their claim of loyalty was carefully worded. They stated that they were “salted with the salt of the palace,” meaning they lived off royal provision and therefore owed allegiance to the king. This was an appeal to self interest and political loyalty, not truth. They presented themselves as defenders of imperial honor while falsely portraying Judah as a threat.
The argument was persuasive because it blended truth and falsehood. Jerusalem had indeed rebelled in former times. That history was undeniable. Yet the implication that the current builders shared that intent was entirely false. This method of accusation mirrors the spiritual pattern of the adversary, who accuses with partial truth while denying the power of repentance and grace. Revelation 12:10 declares, “For the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.”
4. Ezra 4:17–23, The king commands that the work stops until further notice
“Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time.
The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.
And I commanded, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein.
There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them.
Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.
Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.”
Artaxerxes’ response shows how effective the Samaritan strategy had been. The king focused on Jerusalem’s documented history of rebellion rather than the present character of the returned exiles. From a political standpoint, his concern was understandable. He acknowledged that mighty kings had once ruled from Jerusalem, citing the era of David and Solomon. 1 Kings 4:21 states, “And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt.” From an imperial perspective, a fortified Jerusalem represented a potential resurgence of regional dominance.
The command to stop the work was explicit and immediate. The king ordered that the building cease until further notice. The adversaries wasted no time in enforcing the decree. They acted with haste and used force, indicating intimidation and possibly violence. This was no mere bureaucratic delay. It was an aggressive suppression of the work.
This episode reveals a sobering reality. Political authority can be misled by selective truth. Past sin can be weaponized against present obedience. Even when God’s people act lawfully and faithfully, opposition may still prevail temporarily.
5. Ezra 4:24, The previous work of rebuilding the temple in the days of Darius is again considered
“Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.”
This verse returns the narrative to the earlier period under Zerubbabel, reconnecting with Ezra 4:5 after the long parenthetical overview of opposition in verses 6 through 23. The interruption of the temple work lasted approximately fifteen years. The enemies of Judah succeeded in delaying the work, but not in destroying it.
The cessation was real and painful, yet it was not final. God’s purposes were not defeated, only postponed. When Darius ascended the throne, the work would resume under prophetic encouragement from Haggai and Zechariah. The opposition had power to hinder, but not to overturn the will of God.
This section teaches a crucial principle. God’s work may be delayed by opposition, but it cannot be ultimately stopped. The enemy may win temporary victories, but never final ones. Faithful obedience sometimes must endure long seasons of waiting, yet the promises of God remain sure.
