_THE COST OF AN IDEALIST'S SUCCESS._
EZRA iv. 6-23.
The fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra contains an account of a
correspondence between the Samaritan colonists and two kings of
Persia, which follows sharply on the first mention of the intrigues of
"the enemies of Judah and Benjamin" at the Persian court in the later
days of Cyrus, and which precedes the description of the fortunes of
the Jews in the reign of Darius. If this has its right chronological
position in the narrative, it must relate to the interval during which
temple-building was in abeyance. In that case the two kings of Persia
would be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus, and Pseudo-Bardes.
But the names in the text are Ahasuerus (_Ahashverosh_) and Artaxerxes
(_Artahshashta_). It has been suggested that these are second names
for the predecessors of Darius. Undoubtedly it was customary for
Persian monarchs to have more than one name. But elsewhere in the
Biblical narratives these two names are invariably applied to the
successors of Darius--the first standing for the well-known Xerxes and
the second for Artaxerxes Longimanus. The presumption therefore is
that the same kings are designated by them here. Moreover, when we
examine the account of the correspondence with the Persian court, we
find that this agrees best with the later period. The opening verses
of the fourth chapter of Ezra deal with the building of the temple;
the last verse of that chapter and the succeeding narrative of the
fifth chapter resume the same topic. But the correspondence relates to
the building of _the walls of the city_. There is not a word about any
such work in the context. Then in the letter addressed to Artaxerxes
the writers describe the builders of the walls as "the Jews _which
came up from thee_."[118] This description would not fit Zerubbabel
and his followers, who migrated under Cyrus. But it would apply to
those who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes.
Lastly, the reign of Pseudo-Bardes is too brief for all that would
have to be crowded into it. It only occupied seven months. Yet a
letter is sent up from the enemies of the Jews; inquiry is made into
the history of Jerusalem by Persian officials at the court; a reply
based on this inquiry is transmitted to Palestine; in consequence of
this reply an expedition is organised which effectually stops the
works at Jerusalem, but only after the exercise of force on the spot.
It is nearly impossible for all this to have happened in so short a
time as seven months. All the indications therefore concur to assign
the correspondence to the later period.
[118] Ezra iv. 12.
The chronicler must have inserted this section out of its order for
some reason of his own. Probably he desired to accentuate the
impression of the malignant and persistent enmity of the colonists,
and with this end in view described the later acts of antagonism
directly after mentioning the first outbreak of opposition. It is
just possible that he perceived the unfavourable character of his
picture of the Jews in their curt refusal of assistance from their
neighbours, and that he desired to balance this by an accumulation of
weighty indictments against the people whom the Jews had treated so
ungraciously.
In his account of the correspondence with the Persian court the
chronicler seems to have taken note of three separate letters from the
unfriendly colonists. First, he tells us that in the beginning of the
reign of Ahasuerus they wrote an accusation against the Jews.[119]
This was before the mission of Ezra; therefore it was a continuance of
the old opposition that had been seen in the intrigues that preceded
the reign of Darius; it shows that after the death of that friendly
monarch the slumbering fires broke out afresh. Next, he names certain
men who wrote to Artaxerxes, and he adds that their letter was
translated and written in the Aramaic language--the language which was
the common medium of intercourse in trade and official affairs among
the mixed races inhabiting Syria and all the regions west of the
Euphrates.[120] The reference to this language probably arises from
the fact that the chronicler had seen a copy of the translation. He
does not tell us anything either of the nationality of the writers or
of the subject of their letter. It has been suggested that they were
Jews in Jerusalem who wrote to plead their cause with the Persian
king. The fact that two of them bore Persian names--viz., Bishlam and
Mithredath--does not present a serious difficulty to this view, as we
know that some Jews received such names, Zerubbabel, for example,
being named Sheshbazzar. But as the previous passage refers to an
accusation against the Jews, and as the following sentences give an
account of a letter also written by the inimical colonists, it is
scarcely likely that the intermediate colourless verse which mentions
the letter of Bishlam and his companions is of a different character.
We should expect some more explicit statement if that were the case.
Moreover, it is most improbable that the passage which follows would
begin abruptly without an adversative conjunction--as is the case--if
it proceeded to describe a letter provoked by opposition to another
letter just mentioned. Therefore we must regard Bishlam and his
companions as enemies of the Jews. Now some who have accepted this
view have maintained that the letter of Bishlam and his friends is no
other than the letter ascribed to Rehum and Shimshai in the following
verses. It is stated that the former letter was in the Aramaic
language, and the letter which is ascribed to the two great officials
is in that language. But the distinct statement that each group of men
wrote a letter seems to imply that there were two letters written in
the reign of Artaxerxes, or three in all.
[119] Ezra iv. 6.
[120] Ezra iv. 7.
The third letter is the only one that the chronicler has preserved. He
gives it in the Aramaic language, and from Ezra iv. 8, where this is
introduced, to vi. 18, his narrative proceeds in that language,
probably because he found his materials in some Aramaic document.
Some have assigned this letter to the period of the reign of
Artaxerxes prior to the mission of Ezra. But there are two reasons for
thinking it must have been written after that mission. The first has
been already referred to--viz., that the complaint about "the Jews
which came up from thee" points to some large migration during the
reign of Artaxerxes, which must be Ezra's expedition. The second
reason arises from a comparison of the results of the correspondence
with the description of Jerusalem in the opening of the Book of
Nehemiah. The violence of the Samaritans recorded in Ezra iv. 23 will
account for the deplorable state of Jerusalem mentioned in Nehemiah i.
3, the effects of the invasion referred to in the former passage
agreeing well with the condition of the dismantled city reported to
Nehemiah. But in the history of Ezra's expedition no reference is made
to any such miserable state of affairs. Thus the correspondence must
be assigned to the time between the close of "Ezra" and the beginning
of "Nehemiah."
It is to Ezra's company, then, that the correspondence with Artaxerxes
refers. There were two parties in Jerusalem, and the opposition was
against the active reforming party, which now had the upper hand in
the city. Immediately we consider this, the cause of the continuance
and increase of the antagonism of the colonists becomes apparent.
Ezra's harsh reformation in the expulsion of foreign wives must have
struck the divorced women as a cruel and insulting outrage. Driven
back to their paternal homes with their burning wrongs, these poor
women must have roused the utmost indignation among their people. Thus
the reformer had stirred up a hornets' nest. The legislator who
ventures to interfere with the sacred privacy of domestic life excites
the deepest passions, and a wise man will think twice before he
meddles in so dangerous a business. Only the most imperative
requirements of religion and righteousness can justify such a course,
and even when it is justified nobody can foresee how far the trouble
it brings may spread.
The letter which the chronicler transcribes seems to have been the most
important of the three. It was written by two great Persian officials. In
our English versions the first of these is called "the chancellor," and the
second "the scribe". "The chancellor" was probably the governor of a large
district, of which Palestine was but a provincial section; and "the scribe"
his secretary. Accordingly it is apparent that the persistent enmity of the
colonists, their misrepresentations, and perhaps their bribes, had resulted
in instigating opposition to the Jews in very high places. The action of
the Jews themselves may have excited suspicion in the mind of the Persian
Satrap, for it would seem from his letter that they had just commenced to
fortify their city. The names of the various peoples who are associated
with these two great men in the title of the letter also show how far the
opposition to the Jews had spread. They are given as the peoples whom
Osnappar (_Esar-bani-pal_) had brought over and set in the city of Samaria,
"_and in the rest of the country beyond the river_."[121] That is to say,
the settlers in the vast district west of the Euphrates are included. Here
were _Apharsathchites_--who cannot be the Persians, as some have thought,
because no Assyrian king ever seems to have penetrated to Persia, but may
be the Parætaceni of Herodotus,[122] a Median people; _Tarpelites_--
probably the people named among the Hebrews after Tubal;[123]
_Apharsites_--also wrongly identified by some with the Persians, but
probably another Median people; _Archevites_, from the ancient Erech
(_Uruk_);[124] _Babylonians_, not only from the city of Babylon, but also
from its neighbourhood; _Shushanchites_, from Shusan (_Susa_), the capital
of Susiana; _Dehaites_--possibly the Dai of Herodotus,[125] because, though
these were Persians, they were nomads who may have wandered far;
_Elamites_, from the country of which Susa was capital. A terrific array!
The very names would be imposing. All these people were now united in a
common bond of enmity to the Jews of Jerusalem. Anticipating the fate of
the Christians in the Roman Empire, though on very different grounds, the
Jews seem to have been regarded by the peoples of Western Asia with
positive antipathy as enemies of the human race. Their anti-social conduct
had alienated all who knew them. But the letter of indictment brought a
false charge against them. The opponents of the Jews could not formulate
any charge out of their real grievances sufficiently grave to secure an
adverse verdict from the supreme authority. They therefore trumped up an
accusation of treason. It was untrue, for the Jews at Jerusalem had always
been the most peaceable and loyal subjects of the Great King. The search
which was made into the previous history of the city could only have
brought to light any evidence of a spirit of independence as far back as
the time of the Babylonian invasions. Still this was enough to supplement
the calumnies of the irritated opponents which the Satrap and his secretary
had been persuaded to echo with all the authority of their high position.
Moreover, Egypt was now in revolt, and the king may have been persuaded to
suspect the Jews of sympathy with the rebels. So Jerusalem was condemned as
a "bad city"; the Persian officials went up and forcibly stopped the
building of the walls, and the Jews were reduced to a condition of
helpless misery.
[121] Ezra iv. 10.
[122] Herodotus, i. 101.
[123] Gen. x. 2.
[124] Gen. x. 10.
[125] Herodotus, i. 125.
This was the issue of Ezra's reformation. Can we call it a success?
The answer to such a question will depend on what kind of success we
may be looking for. Politically, socially, regarded from the
standpoint of material profit and loss, there was nothing but the most
dismal failure. But Ezra was not a statesman; he did not aim at
national greatness, nor did he aim even at social amelioration. In our
own day, when social improvements are regarded by many as the chief
ends of government and philanthropy, it is difficult to sympathise
with conduct which ran counter to the home comforts and commercial
prosperity of the people. A policy which deliberately wrecked these
obviously attractive objects of life in pursuit of entirely different
aims is so completely remote from modern habits of thought and conduct
that we have to make a considerable effort of imagination if we would
understand the man who promoted it. How are we to picture him?
Ezra was an idealist. Now the success of an idealist is not to be
sought for in material prosperity. He lives for his idea. If this idea
triumphs he is satisfied, because he has attained the one kind of
success he aimed at. He is not rich; but he never sowed the seed of
wealth. He may never be honoured: he has determined to set himself
against the current of popular fashion; how then can he expect popular
favour? Possibly he may meet with misapprehension, contempt, hatred,
death. The greatest Idealist the world ever saw was excommunicated as
a heretic; insulted by His opponents, and deserted by most of His
friends; tortured and crucified. The best of His disciples, those who
had caught the enthusiasm of His idea, were treated as the
offscouring of the earth. Yet we now recognise that the grandest
victory ever achieved was won at Calvary; and we now regard the
travels of St. Paul through stoning and scourging, through Jewish
hatred and Christian jealousy, on to the block, as nothing less than a
magnificent triumphant march. The idealist succeeds when his idea is
established.
Judged by this standard--the only fair standard--Ezra's work cannot be
pronounced a failure. On the contrary, he accomplished just what he
aimed at. He established the separateness of the Jews. Among
ourselves, more than two thousand years after his time, his great idea
is still the most marked feature of his people. All along the ages it
has provoked jealousy and suspicion; and often it has been met by
cruel persecution. The separate people have been treated as only too
separate from the rest of mankind. Thus the history of the Jews has
become one long tragedy. It is infinitely sad. Yet it is incomparably
more noble than the hollow comedy of existence to which the absence of
all aims apart from personal pleasure reduces the story of those
people who have sunk so low that they have no ideas. Moreover, with
Ezra the racial idea was really subordinate to the religious idea. To
secure the worship of God, free from all contamination--this was his
ultimate purpose. In accomplishing it he must have a devoted people
also free from contamination, a priesthood still more separate and
consecrated, and a ritual carefully guarded and protected from
defilement. Hence arose his great work in publishing the authoritative
codified scriptures of the Jews. To a Christian all this has its
defects--formalism, externalism, needless narrowness. Yet it succeeded
in saving the religion of the Jews, and in transmitting that religion
to future ages as a precious casket containing the seed of the great
spiritual faith for which the world was waiting. There is something of
the schoolmaster in Ezra; but he is like the law he loved so
devoutly--a schoolmaster who brings us to Christ. He was needed both
for his times and also in order to lay the foundation of coming ages.
Who shall say that such a man was not sent of God? How can we deny to
his unique work the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The harshness of
its outward features must not blind us to the sublimity of its inner
thought or the beneficence of its ultimate purpose.