Ezra 4:7-16 · Bible study
Ezra 4:7-16 Commentary: Artaxerxes and the Aramaic Letter Against Jerusalem
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Study Ezra 4:7-16: the Samaritan letter to Artaxerxes in Aramaic, accusations against Jerusalem, and the interpretive question of which Persian king.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Persian officials accuse the returning Jews of rebuilding a rebellious city, seeking to stop the work through a letter to Artaxerxes.
- Key words: “Artaxerxes” (king’s name, debated as Cambyses or Pseudo-Smerdis); “Aramith” (Aramaic, the language of the letter and of the text from v. 8 onward).
- Main debate: Which Persian king is Artaxerxes here, and does this account fit chronologically before or after the temple work resumed under Darius?
- Theological theme: Opposition to God’s work often comes through political manipulation and selective history; God’s purposes are not thwarted.
- Best use: Preaching on faithful perseverance under false accusation, or teaching on the historical reliability of Ezra’s sources.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
7And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. It was written in Aramaic and then translated.
8Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote the letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes as follows:
9From Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates—the judges and officials over Tripolis, Persia, Erech and Babylon, the Elamites of Susa,
10and the rest of the peoples whom the great and honorable Ashurbanipal deported and settled in the cities of Samaria and elsewhere west of the Euphrates.
11(This is the text of the letter they sent to him.) To King Artaxerxes, From your servants, the men west of the Euphrates:
12Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came from you to us have returned to Jerusalem. And they are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city, restoring its walls, and repairing its foundations.
13Let it now be known to the king that if that city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, they will not pay tribute, duty, or toll, and the royal treasury will suffer.
14Now because we are in the service of the palace and it is not fitting for us to allow the king to be dishonored, we have sent to inform the king
15that a search should be made of the record books of your fathers. In these books you will discover and verify that the city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, inciting sedition from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed.
16We advise the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, you will have no dominion west of the Euphrates.
WEB World English Bible 2000
7In the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in Syrian and delivered in the Syrian language.
8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows.
9Then Rehum the chancellor, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites,
10and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over and settled in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth, wrote.
11This is the copy of the letter that they sent: To King Artaxerxes, from your servants, the people beyond the River.
12Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us to Jerusalem. They are building the rebellious and bad city, and have finished the walls and repaired the foundations.
13Be it known now to the king that if this city is built and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful to the kings.
14Now because we eat the salt of the palace and it is not appropriate for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore we have sent and informed the king,
15that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. You will see in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have started rebellions within it in the past. That is why this city was destroyed.
16We inform the king that if this city is built and the walls finished, then you will have no possession beyond the River.
KJV King James Version 1769
7And 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.
8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort:
9Then 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,
10And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.
11This 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.
12Be 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.
13Be 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.
14Now 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;
15That 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.
16We 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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
7And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian character, and set forth in the Syrian tongue.
8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort:
9then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites,
10and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth.
11This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto Artaxerxes the king: Thy servants the men beyond the River, and so forth.
12Be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations.
13Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful unto the kings.
14Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not meet for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore have we sent and certified the king;
15that 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 laid waste.
16We certify the king that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, by this means thou shalt have no portion beyond the River.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
7and in the days of Artaxerxes have Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions written unto Artaxerxes king of Persia, and the writing of the letter is written in Aramaean, and interpreted in Aramaean.
8Rehum counsellor, and Shimshai scribe have written a letter concerning Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king, thus:
9Then Rehum counsellor, and Shimshai scribe, and the rest of their companions, Dinaites, and Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians, Susanchites, (who are Elamites),
10and the rest of the nations that the great and honourable Asnapper removed and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest beyond the river, and at such a time:
11This is a copy of a letter that they have sent unto him, unto Artaxerxes the king: `Thy servants, men beyond the river, and at such a time;
12Be it known to the king, that the Jews who have come up from thee unto us, have come in to Jerusalem, the rebellious and base city they are building, and the walls they have finished, and the foundations they join.
13`Now, be it known to the king, that if this city be builded, and the walls finished, toll, tribute, and custom they do not give; and at length to the kings it doth cause loss.
14Now, because that the salt of the palace is our salt, and the nakedness of the king we have no patience to see, therefore we have sent and made known to the king;
15so that he doth seek in the book of the records of thy fathers, and thou dost find in the book of the records, and dost know, that this city is a rebellious city, and causing loss to kings and provinces, and makers of sedition are in its midst from the days of old, therefore hath this city been wasted.
16We are making known to the king that, if this city be builded and the walls finished, by this means a portion beyond the river thou hast none.'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
7And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic, and interpreted in Aramaic.
8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king after this sort:
9Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites,
10and the rest of the peoples whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over and settled in the cities of Samaria, and the rest [of the country] on this side the river, and so forth.
11This is the copy of the letter that they sent to him: To Artaxerxes the king: Thy servants the men on this side the river, and so forth.
12Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from thee unto us have come to Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and they complete the walls and join up the foundations.
13Be it known therefore unto the king, that, if this city be built and the walls be completed, they will not pay tribute, tax, and toll, and in the end it will bring damage to the kings.
14Now, since we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not right for us to see the king's injury, therefore have we sent and informed the king;
15that search may be made in the book of the annals of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the annals and know that this city is a rebellious city, which has done damage to kings and provinces, and that they have raised sedition within the same of old time, for which cause this city was destroyed.
16We inform the king that if this city be built and its walls be completed, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
7And in the days of Artaxerxes, Beselam, Mithridates, and Thabeel, and the rest that were in the council wrote to Artaxerxes king of the Persians: and the letter of accusation was written in Syrian, and was read in the Syrian tongue.
8Reum Beelteem, and Samsai the scribe wrote a letter from Jerusalem to king Artaxerxes, in this manner:
9Reum Beelteem, and Samsai the scribe and the rest of their counsellors, the Dinites, and the Apharsathacites, the Therphalites, the Apharsites, the Erchuites, the Babylonians, the Susanechites, the Dievites, and the Elamites,
10And the rest of the nations, whom the great and glorious Asenaphar brought over: and made to dwell in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the countries of this side of the river in peace.
11(This is the copy of the letter, which they sent to him:) To Artaxerxes the king, thy servants, the men that are on this side of the river, send greeting.
12Be it known to the king, that the Jews, who came up from thee to us, are come to Jerusalem a rebellious and wicked city, which they are building, setting up the ramparts thereof and repairing the walls.
13And now be it known to the king, that if this city be built up, and the walls thereof repaired, they will not pay tribute nor toll, nor yearly revenues, and this loss will fall upon the kings.
14But we remembering the salt that we have eaten in the palace, and because we count it a crime to see the king wronged, have therefore sent and certified the king,
15That search may be made in the books of the histories of thy fathers, and thou shalt find written in the records: and shalt know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to the kings and provinces, and that wars were raised therein of old time: for which cause also the city was destroyed.
16We certify the king, that if this city be built, and the walls thereof repaired, thou shalt have no possession on this side of the river.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Ezra 4:7
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions recognize this passage as a record of organized opposition to the Jewish rebuilding effort. The letter, written in Aramaic (the diplomatic language of the Persian court), accuses the Jews of fortifying a city with a history of rebellion. There is agreement that the writers, Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe, were Persian officials in Samaria acting on behalf of the transplanted peoples described in vv. 9, 10. The chronicler includes the letter verbatim, likely from Persian archives, to show how God’s people faced political resistance even when they were acting under imperial authorization.
On the identity of the king, the consulted sources agree that “Artaxerxes” here refers to a king who ruled before Darius I, but they differ on which one. Barnes and the Cambridge Bible identify him as Gomates (the Pseudo-Smerdis, 522 BC), while Clarke, Wesley, and Gill take him to be Cambyses (529, 522 BC). This chronological question matters because the chapter as a whole (vv. 5, 24) shows the temple work stopping until the second year of Darius, so the events of vv. 7, 23 must fall within the reigns of Cyrus’s immediate successors.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Artaxerxes = Pseudo-Smerdis: The king’s name matches the period between Cyrus and Darius; Barnes and the Cambridge Bible note that the ‘fathers’ in v. 15 would not be ancestors of a usurper, but the phrase is conventional.
- Artaxerxes = Cambyses: Clarke and Gill argue that Cambyses is called Artaxerxes here, as a common title; the chronological flow from v. 5 (Cyrus → Darius) supports this identification.
- Chronological insertion (Artaxerxes I): The reference to finished walls (v. 12) seems more plausible in the mid-5th century; this view sees vv. 6–23 as a flash forward to later opposition under Xerxes and Artaxerxes I.
What is clear: Regardless of the exact king, the passage records a historical letter of opposition sent to the Persian court, and it shows how the Jewish community’s obedience to God’s call to rebuild was met with political manipulation and false accusation.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of Artaxerxes | The Artaxerxes of v. 7 is a Persian king who reigned before Darius I, during the period when the temple work was stalled. | Barnes and the Cambridge Bible identify him as the Pseudo-Smerdis (Gomates, 522 BC). Clarke, Wesley, and Gill argue he is Cambyses (529, 522 BC). A third view treats the name as anticipating Artaxerxes I Longimanus, making the entire passage a chronological insertion. |
| Purpose and significance of the Aramaic language note | All traditions agree that the mention of Aramaic (‘the Syrian tongue’) is historically authentic and marks a shift in the biblical text from Hebrew to Aramaic for the official correspondence. | The debate is minor: some see the note as simply documenting the language of diplomacy (Barnes), while others stress it as evidence that the letter was written by Persian officials, not Samaritans (Gill). Both affirm the passage’s reliability. |
| Historicity of the accusations | Commentators agree that the letter exaggerates the political threat. Jerusalem had rebelled in the past, but the current rebuilding was authorized by Cyrus. | While most say the claim of finished walls (v. 12) is an overstatement, a few (Matthew Henry) argue it reflects the actual rapid progress of the work. The disagreement does not affect the main point of opposition. |
| Relationship to the rest of Ezra 4 | The passage illustrates the hostility described in vv. 4, 5. All agree that the letter is one of several attempts to stop the work. | The chronological order is debated. The Cambridge Bible presents two main solutions: either the events of vv. 7, 23 fit between Cyrus and Darius (sequential), or they are a later insertion describing opposition under Xerxes and Artaxerxes I (parenthetic). Both views have supporters. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The passage drops the reader into a complex political landscape. After Cyrus’s decree in 538 BC, returning exiles began rebuilding the temple. But the “people of the land”, populations resettled in Samaria by earlier Assyrian kings, opposed them from the start (Ezra 4:4, 5). These opponents hired counselors to frustrate the project, and the campaign of obstruction continued through successive reigns: Cyrus, then Cambyses (or Pseudo-Smerdis), then Darius.
Verse 7 marks the first specific letter of accusation. It was written “in the days of Artaxerxes,” and the chronicler notes that it was composed and delivered in Aramaic, the official language of Persian administration west of the Euphrates (see 2 Kings 18:26; Dan 2:4). Starting at v. 8, the biblical text itself shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic, continuing through Ezra 6:18. This linguistic change powerfully authenticates the account: the scribe Ezra copied the state correspondence as it stood, in the language of the empire.
The list of nations in vv. 9, 10 traces back to the deportation policies of “Osnappar.” Commentators identify this figure either with Ashurbanipal (the great Assyrian king) or Esar-haddon; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown favors Esar-haddon. These peoples had been forcibly relocated to Samaria by Assyrian kings, creating a mixed population that saw the returning Jews as a threat to their own land claims and political standing.
The letter’s claim about Jerusalem’s rebellious history had real force. Verse 15 asks the king to search the “book of the records of your fathers,” a practice attested elsewhere in Persian administration (Est 6:1, 2). The opponents knew that the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem precisely because of its rebellions against Babylonian hegemony. By framing the rebuilding as a fresh rebellion against Persian authority, they struck at a nerve, and the king’s reply (vv. 17, 22) shows the tactic succeeded.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentary excerpts mention no significant textual variants for this passage. The shift from Hebrew to Aramaic in v. 8 is a feature of the received text, not a variant. Some manuscripts attest minor spelling differences in the list of peoples (e.g., “Asnapper” vs. “Osnappar”), but these do not affect meaning. The text is well preserved and consistent with other Persian-era correspondence found in Ezra.
Reception History
Jewish and Christian readers have long seen this passage as a classic example of how God’s work provokes opposition from those whose interests are threatened. Early interpreters, such as the church fathers, often pointed to the letter as a type of the accusations made against the early church by Roman authorities. The emphasis on written records (v. 15) has been taken as a demonstration that God preserves history for His purposes, the same Persian archives that were searched would later confirm the Jews’ right to rebuild. In the Reformation era, commentators like Calvin and Luther used the passage to encourage believers facing slander from civil authorities. More recently, the Aramaic section has been valued by scholars studying the development of biblical languages and the administrative practices of the Persian Empire.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The accusation: rebuilding labeled rebellion. The opponents call Jerusalem “the rebellious and bad city” (v. 12). They twist a faithful act of restoration into a political threat. Just as the returned exiles faced false charges, believers today may be misrepresented when they seek to build what God has commanded.
- The appeal: loyalty to the king versus fear of loss. The writers say, “we eat the salt of the palace” (v. 14). Their concern for the king’s honor masks a deeper anxiety about losing their own position and revenue. Human allegiances often compete with the call to advance God’s kingdom.
- The frightening prophecy: “no possession beyond the River.” The opponents warn that a rebuilt Jerusalem will cost the king his territory. In a sense they were right, Jerusalem later became a center of resistance to empire, but that does not justify their opposition. The passage cautions us against opposing God’s work even when it looks politically inconvenient.
Five-point outline
- Who is writing? Persian officials and transplanted peoples (vv. 8, 10).
- What is the charge? Building a rebellious city (v. 12).
- What is the economic argument? Loss of tribute, custom, and toll (v. 13).
- What is the personal appeal? Loyalty and fear of the king’s dishonor (v. 14).
- What is the historical evidence? Past rebellions recorded in the archives (v. 15).
Illustration hooks
- A letter to the boss. A coworker sends an email to your manager, selectively citing old incidents to paint you as a troublemaker, just to protect their own position.
- Selective history. Imagine a town known for a past riot. Years later, a community group wants to renovate the town square. Opponents cite the old riot as proof that any gathering is dangerous, ignoring the decades of peace.
- “Eating salt.” In some cultures, sharing a meal creates a bond of loyalty. The opponents use that bond as leverage. Compare how loyalty to God can be tested when our jobs or reputations are on the line.
Questions your congregation is asking
- How do I respond when I am falsely accused because of my faith or my obedience to God?
- When does loyalty to my employer or government conflict with my loyalty to Christ, and how do I navigate that?
- Are there ways I, like the Samaritans, oppose what God is doing because it threatens my comfort or security?
Leading a Discussion
This passage invites us inside a political conflict that threatened God’s rebuilding project. The Jewish community was doing exactly what Cyrus had authorized, restoring Jerusalem, yet their neighbors interpreted it as a threat. The letter to Artaxerxes is a masterpiece of persuasive half-truth: every accusation had a grain of historical truth, but the motive was self-protection, not loyalty to the crown.
Discussion questions
- Read vv. 7, 10. Why do you think the chronicler includes the long list of nations? What does it tell you about the coalition opposing the Jews?
- In v. 12 the opponents call Jerusalem “the rebellious and bad city.” What evidence might they have had for that charge? How does the Bible itself describe Jerusalem’s history (e.g., 2 Kings 24:20)?
- What economic pressure do the writers apply in v. 13? Why would the threat of lost tribute alarm a Persian king?
- Verse 14 contains the phrase “we eat the salt of the palace.” How does this appeal to loyalty work? Is it sincere? How might we be tempted to use similar loyalty language to advance our own interests?
- The opponents ask the king to search the archives (v. 15). What does this tell you about the Persian administrative system? How does God use even secular records to accomplish His purposes?
- Notice the shift to Aramaic starting at v. 8. What does the language of the text itself tell us about the authenticity of this account? How does that strengthen your confidence in Scripture?
- Imagine you were one of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem when this letter was sent. How would you have felt? What resources of faith might you have drawn on? How does this passage encourage you in seasons when your efforts for God are blocked or misrepresented?
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)
| II Kings 18:26 | Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it. Don’t speak with us in the Jews’ language, in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” |
| Ezra 4:17 | Then the king sent an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions who live in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace. |
| Ezra 5:6 | The copy of the letter that Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, and Shetharbozenai, and his companions the Apharsachites who were beyond the River, sent to Darius the king follows. |
| Isaiah 36:11 | Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Don’t speak to us in the Jews’ language in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” |
| Daniel 2:4 | Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” |
| II Samuel 8:17 | Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, Seraiah was scribe, |
| II Samuel 20:25 | Sheva was scribe, Zadok and Abiathar were priests, |
| II Kings 18:18 | When they had called to the king, Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder came out to them. |
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
6 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes identifies the Artaxerxes of this passage as the impostor Pseudo-Smerdis, not a legitimate king. He unpacks the Persian administrative structure behind the letter, explaining that the chancellor was the governor’s independent secretary, and that phrases like “beyond the river” refer to the region west of the Euphrates.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible argues that verses 6-23 were inserted out of order by a compiler who mistakenly thought they belonged here. Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are the later kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus, and the letters refer to rebuilding city walls, not the Temple, which was already finished.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB identifies the specifics behind the opposition to rebuilding Jerusalem: the officers writing were Persian deputy governors, their letter used the official Aramaic language, and the colonists named had been resettled by Esar-haddon. He also explains that the phrase "maintenance from the king's palace" means receiving support as "salted with the salt of the palace," an Eastern idiom.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues the Samaritans had no right to join the temple work because they never truly converted from heat
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 Artaxerxes as Cambyses, noting he is also called Ahashuerus. He explains the letter was written in Chaldee with Syrian characters. The claim made in the letter, he says, is a fabricated fiction, confidently asserted to deceive the king through hired counselors.