Ezra 4 13

Ezra 4:13 kjv

Be 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.

Ezra 4:13 nkjv

Let it now be known to the king that, if this city is built and the walls completed, they will not pay tax, tribute, or custom, and the king's treasury will be diminished.

Ezra 4:13 niv

Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and eventually the royal revenues will suffer.

Ezra 4:13 esv

Now be it known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be impaired.

Ezra 4:13 nlt

And the king should know that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are completed, it will be much to your disadvantage, for the Jews will then refuse to pay their tribute, customs, and tolls to you.

Ezra 4 verses

Ezra 4 13 Meaning

Ezra 4:13 presents an urgent appeal from adversaries to King Artaxerxes, asserting that if the city of Jerusalem and its walls are rebuilt, the king will forfeit all revenue and territorial control from the region west of the Euphrates River. This verse encapsulates a calculated attempt by the opposition to halt God's people's work by painting it as a political threat, aimed at diminishing the king's imperial authority and treasury.

Ezra 4 13 Context

Ezra 4:13 is part of a letter penned by the adversaries of the returned Jewish exiles to King Artaxerxes. The book of Ezra details the return from Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding efforts, first of the altar and temple (under Cyrus/Darius) and later of the city walls (interrupted and resumed). Chapter 4 specifically outlines the various phases of opposition. This particular verse comes from an Aramaic section (Ezra 4:8-6:18), indicating its nature as an official or administrative communication. The opponents, likely local Persian officials and residents, were greatly disturbed by the Jewish restoration. Their strategy was to appeal directly to the king's self-interest and fear of revolt, drawing on historical records of Jerusalem's past rebellions against previous empires. By claiming potential financial losses and territorial insurgency, they sought an imperial decree to halt the rebuilding, thereby framing a divinely mandated restoration as a politically seditious act.

Ezra 4 13 Word analysis

• "Therefore": This conjunctive particle links the verse directly to the preceding accusations (Ezra 4:12), which described Jerusalem as an inherently "rebellious and wicked city" whose rebuilding activities were a long-standing threat to kings and provinces. It sets up the logical consequence of allowing such a city to rebuild.
• "we would inform the king" (לַמַּלְכָּא יִדַּע lamalkā yidd́aʿ, literally "to the king be known" or "it should be known to the king"): This phrase conveys an immediate and serious warning, presented as a loyal service to the monarch. The opponents posture themselves as vigilant protectors of the Persian Empire's interests. It's a formal and respectful, yet accusatory, address.
• "that if this city is built" (דִּיהֵן קִרְיְתָא דָךְ אֶשְׁתְּבָאָה dīhēn qiryetā dāk ʾeshttbāʾâ):
  • "this city" (קִרְיְתָא דָךְ qiryetā dāk): Specifically names Jerusalem, known historically for its strategic location and rebellious past against Assyrian and Babylonian overlords.
  • "is built" (אֶשְׁתְּבָאָה ʾeshttbāʾâ): This Aramaic verb implies completion of the building project, not just its initiation. The concern is with the finished structure, hinting at full restoration.
• "and its walls finished" (וְשׁוּרַיָּא כְלִילָה wšūrayyā kelīlâ):
  • "walls" (שׁוּרַיָּא šūrayyā): Walls signify defense, autonomy, and fortifications. For an imperial power, strong city walls indicated potential for defiance and a challenge to control. It was less about the temple (which served Persian interests in providing a stable local cult) and more about a fortified political entity.
  • "finished" (כְלִילָה kelīlâ): Emphasizes the completion of military strength. A finished wall transforms a vulnerable settlement into a secure stronghold, increasing the perceived threat of independence or revolt.
• "you will then have no possession" (מָה לָךְ לַחֲלַק לֶאֱחֹזָה mā lāk laḥalaq leʾeḥōzāh, literally "what to you portion to take hold of" or "you will have no hold/portion"): This directly appeals to the king's sovereign interests. The Aramaic suggests a complete loss of power and rights over the region. The fear expressed is the inability to levy taxes or exact tribute, losing both revenue and administrative control. This targets the primary concerns of any imperial government.
• "in the region beyond the River" (בַּעֲבַר נַהֲרָה baʿabar naharāh):
  • "region beyond the River" (עֲבַר נַהֲרָה ʿabar naharāh): This refers to the satrapy or province of Trans-Euphrates, which included Syria, Phoenicia, and Judah. This was a critical region for the Persian Empire, both geographically (acting as a buffer towards Egypt and the Mediterranean) and economically. Losing control of Jerusalem within this satrapy was presented as the domino effect leading to the loss of the entire valuable province. The specific geographical naming highlights the broad implications of their claim.

Words-group by words-group analysis:

• "Therefore we would inform the king that if this city is built and its walls finished": This whole clause sets up a clear conditional argument for the king, presenting a "cause-and-effect" scenario where the Jewish rebuilding effort leads directly to imperial detriment. The polite but urgent language of "informing" disguises the manipulative and fear-mongering intent, leveraging the perceived loyalty of the senders against the suspected disloyalty of the Jews. The coupling of "city" and "walls" signifies a fully restored, fortified urban center, potentially acting as a base for future defiance against the Persian state.
• "you will then have no possession in the region beyond the River": This phrase delivers the chilling forecast and the ultimate consequence for the king. It translates the "threat" from local to imperial scale. It's a calculated exaggerati to impress upon the king the supposed grand danger. This statement aims to hit the king's weakest point—his financial income and political authority—suggesting complete secession of a vital part of his empire. The reference to "the River" (Euphrates) marks the vast and strategic territory at stake.

Ezra 4 13 Bonus section

• The Aramaic portion of Ezra (4:8–6:18 and 7:12–26) comprises official correspondence between Persian kings and Jewish officials/opponents. This particular verse being in Aramaic indicates it was part of an actual, formal letter submitted to the Persian administration.
• The argument concerning "tribute, custom, and toll" (Ezra 4:13 implies tax revenue and control) was a potent one for an imperial power like Persia, whose strength relied on efficient collection of taxes and loyalty from its satrapies. Rehum and Shimshai knew how to appeal directly to the king's fundamental imperial interests.
• Historically, Jerusalem had indeed been a troublesome city for successive empires, with several rebellions against Assyrian and Babylonian rule preceding the exile. The accusers here capitalize on this known history to validate their claims of future sedition, presenting Jerusalem's rebuilding as a cyclical threat.
• The strategic location of Jerusalem, as a fortified city on the trade routes and a gateway to Egypt, made its status a perpetual concern for any major empire. Controlling this key location was crucial for wider regional stability and trade.

Ezra 4 13 Commentary

Ezra 4:13 serves as a pivotal moment in the narrative of opposition against God's work. The verse reveals the cunning tactics of adversaries: rather than opposing the temple as a religious edifice, they pivot to portray the city rebuilding—specifically its walls—as a direct political threat to the ruling empire. This was a masterstroke of political maneuver, framing a religiously motivated endeavor as a secessionist movement. The core argument rests on the accusation that a rebuilt and fortified Jerusalem would inevitably lead to rebellion, resulting in the Persian king losing vital tribute and control over the vast and crucial Trans-Euphrates satrapy. This appeal highlights the timeless conflict where the rebuilding efforts of God's people often face secular opposition fueled by fear, economic interest, and a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of their true, divinely-guided motives. It demonstrates how worldly powers perceive strength (like fortified walls) as a challenge to their dominion, irrespective of the underlying spiritual purpose.