The Bible Says
Ezra 4:11-16 Meaning

Ezra 4:11-16 opens by explaining that a written message was conveyed to King Artaxerxes, ruler of Persia from 465 BC to 424 BC. Now this is the copy of the letter which they sent to him: To King Artaxerxes: Your servants, the men in the region beyond the River, and now (v. 11). The letter’s recipients identify themselves as subjects living in the region beyond the River, a phrase referring to territories west of the Euphrates. These correspondents acknowledge the king’s authority and seek to alert him about events unfolding in the land of Judah.

King Artaxerxes is here presented as the Persian monarch who inherited a vast empire, including Judea, following his predecessors. By addressing him with respectful tones, the authors display loyalty while subtly setting the stage to accuse the returned exiles of wrongdoing. Their approach highlights the fragile political climate in which smaller provinces relied on the king for resources and power.

The letter read: let it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us at Jerusalem; they are rebuilding the rebellious and evil city and are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations (v. 12). Their letter identifies the Jewish exiles in Jerusalem, portraying them as reviving a city that was historically known for opposing foreign dominion. Jerusalem’s reputation in former times was sometimes characterized by conflicts and resistance to outside control.

This depiction of Jerusalem as a rebellious city serves as a strategic argument meant to cast suspicion on the returning exiles. Labeling the city “evil” suggests that its reconstruction could pose a threat to the king’s stability. The accusers seek to create fear that this rebuilding effort will undermine Persian authority and allow these supposedly disloyal inhabitants to rise against their imperial ruler.

Continuing they say, "Now let it be known to the king, that if that city is rebuilt and the walls are finished, they will not pay tribute, custom or toll, and it will damage the revenue of the kings" (v. 13). Here, the authors of the letter emphasize the potential economic threat: a city protected by completed walls could withhold valuable tax revenues. Tribute and tolls were central to Persia’s power and wealth.

The fear-based message is clear: should Jerusalem’s walls be erected, the repercussion would affect King Artaxerxes’s treasury. Their argument implies that strong defenses often produce fierce loyalty to local rulers rather than to distant imperial powers, possibly encouraging insubordination and tax evasion.

Now because we are in the service of the palace, and it is not fitting for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore we have sent and informed the king (v. 14). In these words, the correspondents claim a sense of devotion to the royal court, stressing their concern for the king’s honor. By portraying themselves as faithful subjects, they frame their intervention as a noble act intended to protect Artaxerxes’s reputation and authority.

This rhetoric underscores a deeply political and antisemitic motive. The writers insinuate that ignoring the situation in Jerusalem would equate to dishonoring the king. Thus, they deepen their indictment of the Jews’ project by presenting themselves as righteous defenders of the realm rather than potential rivals or mere informants.

Next they encourage the king for a search may be made in the record books of your fathers. And you will discover in the record books and learn that that city is a rebellious city and damaging to kings and provinces, and that they have incited revolt within it in past days; therefore that city was laid waste (v. 15). The letter urges the king to investigate Jerusalem’s past by consulting official historical records, presumably stored in Persian archives. It alleges that the city’s history is filled with insurrections and rebellious activity.

Such an appeal to documented facts seeks to give weight to their argument. By referring to earlier conflicts and punishment-specifically the city’s destruction-they reinforce their claim that Jerusalem’s reconstruction would most likely revive ancient hostility. They frame their caution as a matter of documented precedent, not mere rumor.

Finally they state, "We inform the king that if that city is rebuilt and the walls finished, as a result you will have no possession in the province beyond the River" (v. 16). The warning concludes by insisting that a restored Jerusalem would effectively remove it from the king’s grasp. Complete fortifications would bolster the city’s security to the point that it could sever itself from Persian control and undermine the empire’s western holdings.

The message thus ends with a dire caution: continued construction in Jerusalem poses a threat not only to immediate tax revenues but also to the broader stability and influence of the empire. In this portrayal, the city’s strengthening equates to a potential uprising and a shift in political allegiance, leaving the king without what is considered rightfully his.