Ezra 4 20

Ezra 4:20 kjv

There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them.

Ezra 4:20 nkjv

There have also been mighty kings over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the region beyond the River; and tax, tribute, and custom were paid to them.

Ezra 4:20 niv

Jerusalem has had powerful kings ruling over the whole of Trans-Euphrates, and taxes, tribute and duty were paid to them.

Ezra 4:20 esv

And mighty kings have been over Jerusalem, who ruled over the whole province Beyond the River, to whom tribute, custom, and toll were paid.

Ezra 4:20 nlt

Powerful kings have ruled over Jerusalem and the entire province west of the Euphrates River, receiving tribute, customs, and tolls.

Ezra 4 verses

Ezra 4 20 Meaning

Ezra 4:20 is an excerpt from a letter written by Jerusalem's adversaries, specifically Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe, to King Artaxerxes. The verse argues that historically, Jerusalem was home to powerful kings who extended their rule over vast territories, including "all countries beyond the river" (Trans-Euphrates region), and commanded significant economic power through collecting various forms of taxes, tribute, and customs from their subject nations. The purpose of this historical recall was to present Jerusalem as a consistently rebellious city with the potential for regaining its past formidable independence, thereby posing a threat to the Persian Empire's authority and revenue. The adversaries leveraged a historical truth—the extensive dominion of kings like David and Solomon—to sow fear and persuade Artaxerxes to halt the rebuilding efforts in Jerusalem.

Ezra 4 20 Context

Ezra chapter 4 describes the sustained opposition faced by the Jewish exiles who returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple and city walls under the decrees of Persian King Cyrus. After initial refusal to allow foreign involvement in their sacred work (Ezra 4:1-3), the adversaries, primarily the people of the land who had settled there during the exile, intensified their efforts to hinder the rebuilding. They "hired counsellors against them" (Ezra 4:5) to frustrate their purpose, eventually penning letters of accusation to the reigning Persian king, Artaxerxes.

Ezra 4:20 is a key argument within one of these letters, specifically sent by Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and their associates (Ezra 4:8-16). They accuse the Jews of rebuilding a "rebellious and bad city" (Ezra 4:12), warning that if the city and walls were completed, Jerusalem would once again become a powerful and independent entity, refusing to pay tribute and thus diminishing the Persian king's revenue and authority in the region. To support this claim, they point to Jerusalem's historical might. They recall a period, largely under the reigns of David and Solomon, when Judean kings commanded a vast empire extending across the Trans-Euphrates region, receiving tribute and customs from surrounding nations. This historical fact, presented as evidence of Jerusalem's intrinsic nature to rebel and dominate, was designed to alarm the Persian king and secure his order to cease the rebuilding work, which indeed occurred following this communication.

Ezra 4 20 Word analysis

• And there have been: The Aramaic here is "v'havu," functioning as an impersonal, factual statement, indicating a historical reality without specifying particular individuals or precise dates. It sets the stage for a universally accepted claim about Jerusalem's past.
• mighty kings: (Aramaic: מַלְכִין שִׁלִּיטִין - malḵīn šillīṭīn). Malḵīn means "kings," and šillīṭīn means "having dominion" or "exercising authority," emphasizing power and effective rule. This is not merely about titular kings but rulers who held sway and exercised control. It refers to Judean kings like David and Solomon, whose reigns brought significant political and economic strength to Jerusalem. The adversaries strategically chose these terms to highlight a formidable past and potential future threat.
• over Jerusalem: (Aramaic: עַל־יְרוּשְׁלֶם - ʿal-Yĕrūšlemi). This phrase positions Jerusalem as the strategic capital and nexus of power. It signifies that the city itself was the seat from which this mighty rule was exercised, linking the city's restoration directly to its past imperial ambition.
• which have ruled: (Aramaic: וְשַׁלִּיטִין - vəšallīṭīn). A repetition of the root from šillīṭīn, underscoring the active, powerful exercise of authority.
• over all countries beyond the river: (Aramaic: בְּכֹל עֲבַר נַהֲרָה - bəḵol ʿavar nahărāh). This is a crucial geographical and political term, Abar-Nahara, referring to the Trans-Euphrates region (literally "across the river"). In Persian administration, this was a large satrapy west of the Euphrates, encompassing Syria, Phoenicia, and Judah. For Israelite kings, particularly Solomon (1 Kgs 4:21, 24), this extensive domain signified imperial might far beyond the tribal lands. The adversaries intentionally use this phrase, recognized within the Persian administrative lexicon, to amplify the historical scope of Jerusalem's power and its direct competition with, or subversion of, a major Persian provincial territory.
• and toll, tribute, and custom: (Aramaic: וּמִדָּה בְּלוֹ וַהֲלָךְ - ūmiddāh bəlo vahalakh). These are distinct terms for revenue collected.
  • Middah: Refers to a direct tax, often in grain or money.
  • Bəlo: Could be a tribute in the form of conscripted labor, foodstuffs, or general dues from vassals.
  • Halakh: Likely refers to transit tolls or customs duties collected on goods moving along roads or trade routes.This triple mention underscores the economic self-sufficiency and imperial dominance of Jerusalem's former kings. It indicates their ability to extract wealth from subjugated populations, a direct mirror of how the Persian Empire itself functioned, thus making the threat palpable to Artaxerxes.
• was paid unto them: (Aramaic: יִתְיְהִיב לְהוֹן - yittĕhiyib ləhon). This phrase clearly states that these levies were received by Jerusalem's kings, not paid by them. This solidifies the adversaries' point about Jerusalem's powerful, autonomous, and tax-collecting status, emphasizing a historical precedent of economic independence that could potentially lead to the withholding of such payments from the current Persian treasury.

Ezra 4 20 Bonus section

The mention of "countries beyond the river" is a specific nod to the geography of the Near East. The "river" in question is the Euphrates. The territory "beyond the river" (west of it) was a major administrative satrapy of the Achaemenid Persian Empire known as Abar-Nahara or Trans-Euphrates. By claiming that ancient Judean kings ruled this territory, the adversaries were directly implying that Jerusalem previously controlled a significant imperial district now belonging to Persia. This was a direct challenge to Persian authority presented through historical precedent, a very effective political maneuver. Furthermore, this claim underscores the accuracy of the biblical accounts of David and Solomon's vast kingdoms (e.g., 2 Sam 8; 1 Kgs 4), even if amplified for the adversaries' immediate rhetorical purpose. The fact that the adversaries (non-Israelites) acknowledged this historical greatness validates the biblical narrative concerning Israel's powerful monarchy before its decline and exile. This provides an external, if hostile, testimony to the grandeur of God's work through His chosen kings in a previous era.

Ezra 4 20 Commentary

Ezra 4:20 serves as a pivotal point in the narrative of opposition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It encapsulates the calculated deceit and shrewd political maneuvering of the adversaries. They masterfully twisted historical truth—the extensive and wealthy dominion of Israel's kings, particularly David and Solomon, whose empires indeed reached across the Euphrates—into a deceptive narrative of inherent rebellion and future economic threat to the Persian crown. By emphasizing "mighty kings" and the collection of "toll, tribute, and custom," they painted a vivid picture of a potential rival power, thereby striking directly at King Artaxerxes' self-interest and desire for stability and revenue. This verse, therefore, highlights the nature of spiritual opposition, often manifesting in politically expedient lies and fear-mongering tactics designed to halt God's work. It reminds us that past glories, when viewed through jaundiced eyes, can be distorted into present dangers by those who oppose the divine plan. The very fact that this detailed Aramaic historical claim was included shows the meticulous nature of the adversaries' plotting and their understanding of imperial administration.