D. Opposition to Rebuilding (4:1-24)

The opposition twice foreshadowed in ch. 3 becomes a reality here. A long sequence of harassments begins in this chapter and lasts virtually until the end of the book of Nehemiah. Uncharacteristically the opponents are nameless here, but the reference to Assyrian deportations in 4:2 strongly suggests Samaritan involvement.

In our present age of toleration and ecumenicity, their offer to assist the Jews in rebuilding the temple seems entirely reasonable. As they point out, they too seek God and sacrifice to him. The response of Zerubabbel and Joshua, in contrast, smacks of intolerance and parochialism when they say, “You have no part with us in building a temple to our God” (v.3). Yet in light of the description of Samaritan religion in 2Ki 17:24ff. (tendentious though it may be) and the longstanding political and religious differences between the North and South, it becomes more understandable.

Samaritan religion, an admixture of biblical and pagan religion, constituted a severe threat to the returnees because of its implicit assertion that it is acceptable to mix the holy with the unholy, the clean with the unclean. This tendency toward syncretism had plagued the Israelites since their days in the desert, and once again the menace confronted them. The returned Jews faced, not so much the question of tolerance versus intolerance, but the issue of maintaining their identity as the people of God. They could offer but one response.

Faced with Zerubabbel’s stunning rebuff, the Samaritans initiated a vigorous, persistent (as indicated by the repeated use of participles), and successful campaign to halt work on the temple. This hiatus lasted some sixteen years (536-520 b.c.). The prophet Haggai placed the blame for the interruption of the rebuilding program squarely upon the Jews themselves. They were more concerned with their own homes than with the house of God (Hag 1:3-4).

Vv.6-23 present a major interpretive problem. The events through 4:5 took place during the reign of Cyrus the Great (539-530 b.c.), but this section records opposition during the times of Xerxes I (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes I (465-425 b.c.). The following material, Ezr 5-6, resumes with the reign of Darius I (522-486 b.c.), culminating with the completion of the temple in 516 b.c.

But why is material inserted here that is clearly out of place chronologically? Some commentators have maintained that this dislocation is simply one of several such accidental digressions in Ezra-Nehemiah, the primary example being the problem of Ne 8-10. On the other hand, several recent commentators have suggested that the present order is intentional. They convincingly argue that the similar language and content of 4:5 and 24 effectively bracket 4:6-23, indicating that this passage is a deliberate aside. The effect is to group 4:1-5 topically with other examples of opposition in order to justify Zerubabbel’s rejection of Samaritan help and to further substantiate the call for separation from non-Jews.

This section preserves letters to and from King Artaxerxes, written not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic, the diplomatic language of the day. The letter from Rehum and Shimshai, otherwise unknown officials of the Persian province, refers to attempts to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, suggesting that Nehemiah was not the first to undertake the project. Artaxerxes' response is not surprising since he had never authorized the work and because he had faced a number of revolts in the western part of his empire. Later this same king sponsored both the reforms of Ezra and the work of Nehemiah.