Ezra 4:6 · Bible study
Ezra 4:6 Commentary: Ahasuerus and the Unrecorded Accusation
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Who was Ahasuerus? Why is the accusation not recorded?
Research Summary
- Meaning: During the early reign of Ahasuerus, the enemies of the returned exiles wrote a formal accusation against the Jewish community to the Persian king. The content of the accusation is not recorded.
- Key words: Ahasuerus (probably Xerxes or Cambyses), accusation (sitnah, akin to Satan), beginning of his reign, inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
- Main debate: Which Persian king is meant by Ahasuerus? Some say Cambyses (Clarke, Gill, Barnes); others say Xerxes (Cambridge Bible, JFB).
- Theological theme: Persistent opposition against God's people, even under new rulers; the weapon of slander and false accusation; God's people live under scrutiny and attack but are sustained by faith.
- Best use: As a pastoral teaching point that opposition to God's work often comes through words, that timing matters, and that not every attack is recorded in detail, but the history of redemption continues.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, an accusation was lodged against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.
WEB World English Bible 2000
In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the commencement of his reign, they have written an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And in the reign of Assuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Juda and Jerusalem.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y en el reinado de Assuero, en el principio de su reinado, escribieron acusaciones contra los moradores de Judá y de Jerusalem.
E sob o reinado de Assuero, no princípio de seu reinado, escreveram uma acusação contra os moradores de Judá e de Jerusalém.
Sous le règne d’Assuérus, au commencement de son règne, ils écrivirent une accusation contre les habitants de Juda et de Jérusalem.
Und da Ahasveros König ward, im Anfang seines Königreichs, schrieben sie eine Anklage wider die von Juda und Jerusalem.
En onder het koninkrijk van Ahasveros, in het begin zijns koninkrijks, schreven zij een aanklacht tegen de inwoners van Juda en Jeruzalem.
Sotto il regno d’Assuero, al principio del suo regno, scrissero un’accusa contro gli abitanti di Giuda e di Gerusalemme.
Bo gdy królował Aswerus, tedy na początku królestwa jego, napisali skargę przeciwko obywatelom Judzkim i Jeruzalemskim,
А в царствование Ахашвероша, в начале царствования его, написали обвинение на жителей Иудеи и Иерусалима.
在亞哈隨魯 才 登基的時候，上本 控告 猶大 和耶路撒冷 的居民。
And in the time of Ahasuerus, when he first became king, they put on record a statement against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Ezra 4:6
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this verse records an accusation sent to the Persian king against the Jewish community, but they disagree on which king the name 'Ahasuerus' points to. Adam Clarke, John Gill, and Albert Barnes identify him as Cambyses, son and successor of Cyrus. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, however, argue for Xerxes, the ruler of the book of Esther. Despite this debate, all note the term 'accusation' (Hebrew sitnah) is rare, occurring elsewhere only in Genesis 26:21, and is closely related to the word 'Satan' (opponent). The verse thus signals persistent opposition. Why the letter's contents are withheld is uncertain; Keil and Delitzsch suggest the reader may infer their severity from the word sitnah itself. The verse serves as a thematic summary of the enemies' ongoing efforts to undermine the rebuilding work.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Ahasuerus as Cambyses: Clarke, Gill, and Barnes rely on Josephus and the chronological proximity to Cyrus's death; the temple work was interrupted during Cambyses' reign.
- Ahasuerus as Xerxes: Cambridge Bible and JFB note the name Ahasuerus is the Hebrew for Xerxes, and the book of Esther connects Ahasuerus with Xerxes.
What is clear: Whatever the identification, during the reign of this king an accusation was written against the Jewish community in Judah and Jerusalem, continuing the pattern of opposition documented in the chapter.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of Ahasuerus | A Persian king, but not the same as the later Artaxerxes or Darius mentioned in the chapter. | Clarke, Gill, and Barnes identify him as Cambyses (son of Cyrus); Cambridge Bible and JFB identify him as Xerxes (husband of Esther). |
| Meaning of 'accusation' (sitnah) | It indicates hostility and enmity, related to the word Satan. | Some see it as a formal written complaint (likely similar to later letters); others emphasize the root meaning of enmity without specifying genre. |
| Reason for omitting the accusation's contents | It was probably unfavourable to the Jews and perhaps unsuccessful; the author skips to the next reign. | Keil & Delitzsch think the word 'sitnah' itself conveys the needed info; others suggest the letter was short and not worth copying. |
| Chronological order of chapter 4 | The chapter covers multiple reigns (Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes), not in strict chronological sequence. | Some arrange as Darius (v.5) before Ahasuerus; others see verses 6-23 as a topical collection of opposition, with v.6 being a snap shot of the reign between Darius and Artaxerxes. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The verse is set in the Persian period, following Cyrus's decree allowing the Jews to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1). Chapter 4 spans several reigns, and verse 6 is a transitional note between the reigns of Cyrus/Darius and Artaxerxes. Ahasuerus, whether Cambyses (529, 522 BC) or Xerxes (486, 465 BC), came to the throne at a time when the Jews' enemies saw an opportunity. The phrase 'in the beginning of his reign' suggests that the enemies acted quickly, perhaps to catch the king early before he could become favorable to the Jews, as Darius had been.
The accusation is written, not spoken, indicating a formal complaint intended for the royal court. The word sitnah (שִׂטְנָה) literally means 'enmity' or 'hostility'; its root is the same as 'Satan'. Cambridge Bible notes that the LXX misunderstood it as epistole (letter). This accords with common practice: local officials in the Persian empire regularly wrote to the king to discredit peoples or cities they opposed. The letter to Artaxerxes later in the chapter (vv.8-16) follows this pattern, charging that Jerusalem was a rebellious city and that its rebuilding would harm the crown. The accusation in verse 6 probably contained similar charges, though they are not preserved.
The recipients are named as 'the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem', a specific designation that distinguishes them from the surrounding peoples who opposed them. The verse leaves the fate of the accusation unresolved, perhaps because the answer from Ahasuerus is not recorded. Yet by placing it here, the author shows that opposition did not end with the accession of a new monarch; it was a constant theme of the restoration period.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no major variants in the Hebrew text of Ezra 4:6. The KJV and some older translations include the phrase 'unto him' (as in 'wrote they unto him'), but this is not present in the Hebrew; the Revised Version omits it. The word sitnah appears only here and in Genesis 26:21 (as a place name). The LXX misinterpreted it as epistole (letter), according to the Cambridge Bible. No other substantive textual issues are reported in the consulted commentaries.
Reception History
This verse has received less direct attention in church history than the fuller accounts of opposition in Ezra 4. However, its mention of an accusation during the reign of Ahasuerus has connected it to the story of Esther, where a later Ahasuerus (Xerxes) appears. The word sitnah, related to Satan, has been used in homilies on spiritual warfare: false accusations against God's people are part of the adversary's strategy. Some medieval Jewish commentators, such as Jarchi (Rashi), noted the chronological questions. In Christian tradition, the verse is often read as a reminder that the church, like the restoration community, faces slander and that the outcome is in God's hands even when the charges appear in secular records. It is also cited alongside Revelation 12:10 to show that the 'accuser' (related root) is ultimately defeated.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Opposition often takes the form of false accusation. The enemies wrote a sitnah, a word linked to the character of Satan (Revelation 12:10). Believers can expect to be accused by those who oppose God's work.
- Opposition can come at the most hopeful times: 'in the beginning of his reign,' when the community may have hoped for relief. A change in political leadership does not guarantee an end to hostility.
- The silence of the verse about the outcome reminds us that not every accusation against God's people is overturned in this life. Yet the story continues beyond verse 6; God's purposes for Jerusalem are not derailed by slander.
Five-point outline
- The new reign raises hopes; the enemies make their move.
- They file a formal complaint, written and deliberate.
- Their weapon is the accusation, not military force.
- The object of their hostility is God's people in God's city.
- The record does not tell the result, perhaps because the answer was unfavorable, or because the author focuses on the continuity of opposition.
Illustration hooks
- A student lies about a classmate to get them in trouble before a new teacher arrives. The teacher does not yet know the student's character, so the lie might seem credible.
- A community group submits a petition against a minority congregation building a new meeting place, citing made-up fears about traffic or noise. The local council hears the complaint.
- An employee spreads rumors about a coworker just after a new manager is hired, hoping to gain favor and remove a rival.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why does God let false accusations succeed in slowing His people's work?
- How should we respond when we are slandered for doing what is right?
- Does this verse give us reason to expect that God will protect our reputation?
Leading a Discussion
Ezra 4:6 is a single verse tucked between longer accounts of opposition. It records an accusation against God's people during the reign of Ahasuerus, but the contents of that accusation are not given. Why would the biblical author include a verse like this, which seems incomplete? Small groups can explore the dynamics of persecution, the use of slander, and the continuing faithfulness of God through periods of apparent setback.
Discussion questions
- What do you notice about the timing of the accusation, why 'in the beginning of his reign'? What does that tell us about the enemies' strategy?
- The Hebrew word for 'accusation' here is sitnah, related to 'Satan' (adversary). Read Revelation 12:10. How does this connection deepen your understanding of the opposition God's people face?
- The author chose not to record the accusation or its outcome. Why might he have done that? What effect does this silence have on the reader?
- Compare this verse with the later letter to Artaxerxes (verses 8-16). What similarities do you see? What might this suggest about the content of the missing accusation?
- The verse speaks of 'the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.' Why is that specific wording used? What is at stake in their identity?
- Have you ever been falsely accused? How did you respond? What support did you need from others?
- How does this passage challenge or encourage your trust in God's justice, even when accusations are not answered in your timeline?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Esther 1:1 | Now in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over one hundred twenty-seven provinces), |
| Daniel 9:1 | In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the offspring of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— |
| Matthew 27:37 | They set up over his head the accusation against him written, “THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” |
| Acts 24:5 | For we have found this man to be a plague, an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. |
| Acts 24:9 | The Jews also joined in the attack, affirming that these things were so. |
| Acts 24:13 | Nor can they prove to you the things of which they now accuse me. |
| Acts 25:7 | When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove, |
| Revelation of John 12:10 | I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation, the power, and the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ has come; for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke identifies the Ahasuerus in this verse as the Persian king the Greeks called Cambyses. He notes this king reigned only seven years and five months, and during that entire time the work on the temple remained stopped.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes identifies Ahasuerus as Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus, noting that Persian kings often carried two names. His point clarifies the historical figure behind the biblical title.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible identifies the Hebrew word translated "accusation" here as "sitnah," a term connected to the name "Satan" and used elsewhere only for a well Isaac called "Enmity." This highlights the hostile charge brought against the returning Jewish community to King Xerxes.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
This note emphasizes that the enemies of Judah acted swiftly, writing a formal accusation against the Jewish inhabitants at the very start of King Ahasuerus's reign. The timing points to a deliberate effort to undermine God's people before the new king could establish his policies.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill identifies this Ahasuerus not as Esther's husband but as Cambyses, son and successor of Cyrus, who was hostile to the Jews. Their enemies seized the opportunity of Cyrus's death to file a malicious accusation early in Cambyses's reign, painting the Jews as a turbulent and rebellious people.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB clarifies that Ahasuerus is a royal title, not a personal name, and identifies the king here as Xerxes, successor to Darius. They note that the accusation written at the start of his reign connects to the later letter to Artaxerxes.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch argue that the letter from Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel is actually the same as the one that follows from the higher officials Rehum and Shimshai. The comment about the letter being in Aramaic directly introduces the Aramaic text, and the different names just identify the officials who wrote on behalf of the original accusers.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that the Jews were right to refuse the Samaritans' help, because the Samaritans had never truly converted from their syncretistic worship to the Lord alone. Their claim to seek God was hollow; admitting them would have polluted the congregation. The time for Gentiles to enter would not come until Christ.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that the accusers craft their argument to hit the king where he cares most: his treasury. They warn of lost tax revenue and urge a search of royal archives to prove Jerusalem's history of rebellion. This reveals how enemies of God's people often mix truth with malice to manipulate those in power.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley identifies Ahasuerus as a common royal title for several Persian kings, then specifies that this particular one is likely Cambyses, son and successor of Cyrus. He adds that Cambyses was known to be no friend to the Jewish people.