EXPOSITION. vi 14), no "agreement between the temple CHAPTER IV. of God and idols" (ibid. ver. 16). His OPPOSITION MADE TO TIIE REBUILDING OF determination was bitterly resented. Unable THE TEMPLE BY THE SAMARITANS (eh. iv. to seduce him into alliance with them, the 1-24). In this world, whenever a good Samaritans became his open and avowed work is begun, some kind of opposition is enemies ; during three reigns-the remainder sure to show itself, since Satan will never of the reign of Cyrus, the reign of Cambyses suffer any attack upon his kingdom without (Ahasuerus), and that of the Pseudo-Smerdis resenting it. The opposition may, however, (Artaxerxes) - they so worked upon the be of two kinds. It may be open and pro- Persian court that the rebuilding of the claimed, or it may take the subtler and temple was almost wholly stopped ; no pro- more dangerous shape of seeming approval gress was made until the second year of and patronage. In the case before us, the Darius, when a new opposition showed itself, opposition to Zerubbabel's mission was, at as appears by the next section. the first, of this latter kind. The mixed Ver. 1.-The adversaries. Notwithstand- race, partly Israelite but mainly heathen, ing the friendly guise in which they came, the historian sees from the first that the which had been settled by the Assyrian Samaritans are in reality "adversaries," or monarchs in central Palestine (2 Kings xvii. " persecutors " (tsazey), identical in spirit with 24; Ezra iv. 9, 10), made a specious proposi- Sanballat and his followers, whom Nehemiah tion to the Jewish prince, acceptance of designates by the same word (iv. 11). which would have been fatal to the entire Ver. 2.-We seek yonr God, as ye do. " We seek your God " was true ; " as ye do " movement. The movement was one for the was not true. The Samaritans worshipped re-establishment of God's peculiar people in Jehovah, but not, as the Jews did, exclus- their own fond, under their own system, as ively. "They feared the Lord, and wor- a witness to the nations against polytheism, shipped their own gods" (2 Kings xvii. 33). against idolatry, against materialism and Such worship dishonours Jehovah almost more than total neglect of him. Since the sensualism in religion. As the Samaritans days of Esar-he.ddon. There was more than had adopted a mixed or mongrel worship, one colonisation of Central Palestine by the uniting idolatrous rites with the acknow- Assyrians. Sargon relates the.t he placed ledgment of Jehovah (2 Kings xvii 29-41), Arabians in the country ; the writer of Kings their admission by Zerubbabel to a partner- tells us that it was occupied by Babylonians, Cutha;ans, Avites, Hamathites, and Se)?har- ship in his work would have been equivalent vites (2 Kings xvii. 24) ; the Same.ntam, to the abandonment of pure religion, and themselves said the.t they were "Dinaites, the acceptance of a syncretism inherently Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, .Apharsites, vicious, and sure to develop into pronounced Archevites, Be.bylonie.ns, Susanchites, De- forms of impurity and corruption. Zerub- havites, and Elamites" (infra, vcr. 9). They attributed this last colonization to Esar- babel therefore declined the offer made him haddon. We may suspect that the second -most properly, since there is no "com- colonisation was by Sennacherib, who appears munion between light and darkness" (2 Cor. to have taken Babylon, Hnmnth, Sephar- CH, IV, 1-6.] THE BOOK OF EZRA. 45
vaim, and lvah or Avah (2 Kin~s xviii. 34). son of Cyrus, who reigned from B. c. 529 The result was that the Samantans were a to B.C. 522, and. Smerdis, or Bardes, a very mixed r11ce. nsurper, who occnp1ed the throne for about Ver. 3.-Ye have nothing to do with na ton months in the years B.c. 522 521. to build a house unto our God. You have Darius became king in this last-nameci year, no ground on which to rest your claim of but seems to have counted his reign from uniting with us in this matter. You do not the date of the decease of Cambyses. really wish to build to our God simply and Ver. 6.-And in the reign of Ahaauerus. singly ; nor were you mentioned in the Some critics regard this Abasuerus as iden- decree of Cyrus, which is our warrant for tical with the Aba.suerus of Esther, who is what we a.re doing. generally allowed to be Xerxes, the son and Ver. 4.-Then the people of the land (i. e. successor of Darius Hysta.spis, and the the Samaritans) weakened the hands of the invader of Greece. In this case the Arta- people of Judah. As aiding is called xerxes of the next verse is ta.ken to be Arta- "strengthening the hands" (infra, eh. vi. xerxes Longimanus, and the entire passage 22 ; Isa. xxxv. 3 ; J er. xxiii 14 ; Ezek. xvi. from ver. 6 to ver. 23 inclusively, is re- 49, &c.), so hindering is expressed by garded e.s _parenthetic, having reference to "weakening the hands" (Jer. xxxviii 4), events which happened later than any of though this latter phrase is, comparatively those recorded in eh. vi But the evident speaking, unusual. And troubled them in nexus of vers. 23, 24 is fatal to this view, building. Probably as Sanballat and his which has nothing in its favour beyond the followers troubled the builders of the wall in sequence of the royal names, an uncertain Nehemiah's time (Neh. iv. 1-12). argument in this instance, since we know Ver. 5.-And hired counsellors against that Persian kings bad often more than them. It is always possible at an Oriental one name. If on these grounds we reject court to bribe some of the royal favourites, the proposed identification, and reganl and induce them to use their influence with the chapter as chronologically consecutiYe, the monarch for the furtherance, or hin- Ahasuerus here must be explained as drance, of any work that is being proceeded Cambyses, and the Artaxerxes of ver. 7 as with in any part of the country. The Smerdis. This is the vie,v most usun ll y Samaritans now had recourse to this system, taken, e.nd it seems to the present writer to and employed it with great success for a present fewer difficulties than any other. considerable period. All the days of Cyrus. In the beginning of his reign. As soon as I. e. "all the remaining days," from B.C. ever a new king mounted the throne, fresh 537 to D. o. 529, when Cyrus died, and was representations were made to hinI by the succeeded by his son Cambyses. Even until "adversaries," lest the work should be the reign of Darius. It is implied that the recommenced. Wrote they an e.ccusation. reign of Darius did not immediately follow Comp. vers. 12--16, by which we see the on th11.t of Cyrus. Profane history tells us sort of" accusation" that could be plausibly of two intermediate kings, viz., Cambyses, , brought.