EZRA 4:1-4

In this passage, the returning exiles are approached by the inhabitants of the land north of Jerusalem who offer to help them rebuild the Temple. But the Jewish rulers turn down their offer. The question to ask is “Why?” Actually, several reasons are actually given in the text, but that may not tell the whole story. Let us start with the stated reasons given to the northerners, who later became the Samaritans.

In verse 3 they are told, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God.” The Anchor Bible translation reads, “You do not have the same purposes as we do in building a house for our God.” This statement comes right after the northerners had told the Jews that they worshiped the same God. Obviously, there is a hint here that the Jews disputed that fact since they pointedly said “our God” rather than “the God of both of us.”

But a more concrete reason is given next. Fensham says that “their reply to the Samaritans..is a no, built on legal grounds. The Persian king granted the right to rebuild the temple only to the returnees, not to any other people. But as a background we have the old political and religious differences.” And these latter contributing factors probably represent the real reason for the refusal.

Eskenazi delves into the historical background which it is necessary for us to understand at this point.“According to 2 Kings 17, Assyria forcibly repopulated Samaria after deporting the Israelites, and these foreigners developed a syncretistic religion (2 Kings 17:41). Their history and practice may account for their rejection...the returnees claim that Cyrus's decree applies only to them. They consider themselves the sole legitimate remnant of Judah, the heir of the Israel called by God out of Egypt.”

Similarly, Cundall explains the background to the phrase “people of the land” in verse 4. “The significance of the...phrase varies considerably in the biblical period. Originally it indicated an influential group, possibly the principal land-owners (cf. 2 Ki 23:30). Haggai appears to apply it to the returned exiles (Hg. 2:4) whereas his contemporary, Zechariah (c. 530 BC) uses it of those who had not gone into exile (Zc. 7:1-5). By the Chronicler's time (c. 400 BC) it refers to the hybrid population, later known as the Samaritans, descended from groups settled in the area by the Assyrians (cf. 2 Ki 17:24-41).” Thus, the people of the land are “local inhabitants who did not share the experience and ideology of the returning exiles.” (Eshenazi)

Nonetheless, as Clines puts it, “The categorical rejection of 'the people of the land' (v. 4) who claimed to be Yahweh-worshippers seems offensively exclusivist and even racist.” And Sparks seems to agree with that charge in his explanation: “Older laws that once excluded certain foreigners from the Israelite assembly were interpreted as a general rejection of foreigners (cf. Deut 23:4-8: Neh 13), and 'Israel' came to refer mainly to Jews returning from Babylon, so that the natives of Palestine, however 'Jewish,' were excluded from the community.”

To counter this charge of racism, it is first necessary to explain a little further what the “syncretistic” religion of the Samarians was like. Clines says, “As for the religious practices of such Assyrian settlers, they are likely to have been similar to those of colonists of Sargon who 'feared the Lord, and also served their graven images' (I Kg. 17:41; cf. 17:24-40). For a non-Israelite the worship of the gods of one's homeland together with the god of one's adopted country was entirely natural...We might think it a nice question whether worship of Yahweh in such a context has the right to be called worship...of Yahweh, but for the returned exiles the answer was clear, that since Yahweh demanded exclusive worship, and moreover had driven his people into exile because of their disobedience on this very score, the restored community was obliged to separate itself from those who did not share its understanding of Yahweh's exclusive claims.”

Short agrees that it was not primarily racial differences that divided the Samaritans and Jews when he says that “the Jewish leaders refused their request because they considered these neighbors to be grossly in error as to their religious practices, and that to permit such cooperation would be likely to cause the faith of the Jews to become contaminated.” And Clines also brings up that last consideration when he says that “co-operation in the actual work of rebuilding would naturally involve co-operative arrangements about the cultus of the restored temple.”

In summary, “the major reason for rejecting the proposal of the peoples of the lands no doubt was that they were regarded by the returnees as mongrel groups and hence not true worshipers of Yahweh.” (Myers)

As a major piece of evidence confirming that it was a religious, rather than racial, issue with the Jews comes from subsequent decisions found in Ezra-Nehemiah. Eskenazi points out, “At a later period Ezra-Nehemiah shows some readiness to include outsiders (see Ezra 6:21).” But that was only after those people had “separated himself from the pollutions of the peoples of the land to worship the LORD, the God of Israel.” (RSV) “In other words, although variations in the intensity of ethnic sentiment are visible in the biblical sources from beginning to end, these sentiments are consistently secondary to religious identity, which permitted outsiders to assimilate to Israel/Judaism.” (Sparks)

This is not the only time in biblical history that the question arose concerning the acceptance or rejection of outside help. Way back in Genesis 23 we see that Abraham first turned down the Hittite offer of one of their tombs in which to bury his wife. Then he turned down the gift of a plot of land in which to bury her. He insisted on purchasing it instead. In that manner, the Jews had a legal right to land in Canaan and were not dependent on a pagan ruler for it.

Unfortunately, subsequent kings of Israel and Judah did not learn from this example, but continually sought military help from major world powers around them, a move which God consistently condemned through the prophets and which often eventually backfired on the Jews.

We see this same issue even cropping up later in the NT, as for example in Acts 16 when Paul is followed around by the possessed slave girl who keeps testifying that he and his companions “are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” He commands the spirit to come out of her. The reason for Paul's action is best summarized by Shel Silverstein in his poem “Helping.”

    Some kind of help is the kind of help

    That helping's all about

    And some kind of help is the kind of help

    We all can do without.

Unfortunately, Christians today seem to have forgotten these lessons and continue to make unholy alliances with either left- or right-wing politicians who do not at all share their religious convictions but who do promise to give us the help we feel we need but are not getting from God Himself in a timely enough manner.