Catholic Commentary
Accusations Filed Under Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes
6In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.7In the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in Syrian and delivered in the Syrian language.
Ezra 4:6–7 describes written accusations filed against the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem during the reigns of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) and Artaxerxes I of Persia. A coalition of officials, including Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, composed a formal letter in Aramaic to the Persian king, initiating systematic opposition to the Temple's reconstruction through diplomatic channels.
When God's people do sacred work, bureaucratic opposition becomes a spiritual warfare tactic—not a political setback.
Typological and Spiritual Senses
In the allegorical sense, the persistent filing of written accusations against God's people anticipates the legal machinations leveled against Christ before Pilate (Luke 23:2–5), where formal charges are similarly weaponized to obstruct God's salvific work. The śiṭnāh — the Satan-rooted accusation — points forward to the Accuser of Revelation 12:10, who "accuses them day and night before our God." The holy city under siege by paperwork foreshadows the Church herself, perpetually accused before earthly tribunals.
In the anagogical sense, Jerusalem being obstructed at the moment of its restoration points toward the eschatological tension of the Kingdom: already inaugurated in Christ, not yet fully consummated, and subject to ongoing opposition until the New Jerusalem descends complete and unassailable (Rev 21:2).
Catholic tradition has consistently read the trials of the returned exiles through the lens of the Church's own experience of persecution and calumny. St. Augustine, in The City of God (Book XVIII), observes that the earthly city has always mobilized its institutional powers against the City of God, employing law, language, and diplomacy as instruments of suppression. The bureaucratic character of the opposition in Ezra 4 is theologically instructive: evil does not always appear as raw violence but often as process, procedure, and paperwork — what the Catechism calls "structures of sin" (CCC §1869), systemic arrangements that obstruct human dignity and, in the biblical context, divine worship.
The root word śiṭnāh (accusation) alerts the Catholic reader to the demonic undercurrent beneath political opposition to God's plan. The Catechism teaches that Satan "was a murderer from the beginning" who "is the father of lies" (CCC §391, citing John 8:44), and the diabolical dimension of false accusation is a recurring scriptural motif (Job 1:9–11; Zech 3:1–2; Rev 12:10). The Church Fathers, especially Origen (Homilies on Numbers 27), saw the enemies of Israel's restoration as types of the demonic forces that resist the soul's return to God after sin.
Pope Benedict XVI, in Verbum Domini (§41), notes that the unity of the Old and New Testaments means that the trials of Israel are never merely historical curiosities but revelatory patterns: God permits opposition as a purification of his people's faith and fidelity, and the very resistance the community faces becomes the occasion for deeper dependence on divine providence. The Aramaic diplomatic letter, drafted in the language of empire, also reminds us that the Church must engage — without capitulating to — the cultural and political idioms of every age, just as Ezra's narrator did by preserving the Aramaic documents verbatim.
Contemporary Catholics navigating institutional opposition — whether in workplaces hostile to religious expression, legislative environments that restrict the Church's mission, or media cultures that caricature the faith — find in Ezra 4:6–7 a sober but consoling realism. The Bible does not promise that God's work will proceed without bureaucratic resistance or formal accusation; it promises that such resistance is neither new nor ultimately decisive. The śiṭnāh filed against Jerusalem is a reminder that calumny against the Church and its members carries a diabolical pedigree and should be recognized as such — neither panicked over nor ignored.
Practically, this passage invites the Catholic to three responses: (1) Discernment — to recognize when opposition to good work is spiritually motivated, not merely political; (2) Perseverance — to continue building even while accusations circulate, as Nehemiah literally did with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other (Neh 4:17); and (3) Prayer — specifically, the Church's tradition of invoking St. Michael against the "accusations" of the adversary (the prayer to St. Michael explicitly references Rev 12:10, the heavenly counterpart of Ezra's earthly śiṭnāh). The coalition of opponents wielding imperial language should also alert the faithful to how ideological systems can be assembled against the truth, and encourage them to name that dynamic clearly.
Commentary
Ezra 4:6 — The Accusation Under Ahasuerus
The Ahasuerus named here is almost certainly Xerxes I (r. 486–465 BC), the Persian king featured prominently in the Book of Esther. The phrase "in the beginning of his reign" is significant: newly enthroned monarchs were particularly susceptible to intelligence reports that painted subject populations as unstable or seditious, and the enemies of Judah exploited this political vulnerability with precision. The accusation (Hebrew śiṭnāh, literally "a satan-like charge" — sharing the same root as śāṭān, the adversary) was filed in writing, making it an official state document rather than a mere rumor. The choice of the word śiṭnāh is not accidental: the narrator quietly signals that this opposition is diabolical in character, mirroring the cosmic adversary who opposes God's purposes.
No content of this letter is preserved, which may be intentional — the accusation is mentioned as part of a larger literary pattern (vv. 6–23) that brackets the central narrative of chapters 1–6 to illustrate persistent, multi-generational opposition to the Temple's rebuilding. The verse functions less as a detailed historical report and more as a structural marker: this is what God's people should expect when they undertake sacred work.
Ezra 4:7 — The Coalition Letter to Artaxerxes
Artaxerxes I (r. 465–424 BC) appears here before he reappears as Ezra's patron in chapters 7–8 and Nehemiah's in the book of Nehemiah — a narrative irony the author wants the reader to hold. The letter is authored by a named coalition: Bishlam (possibly "in peace," a greeting incorporated into the name), Mithredath (a Persian name meaning "gift of Mithra"), and Tabeel ("God is good," an Aramaic name), along with unnamed associates. This multi-ethnic, multi-lingual coalition signals that opposition to Jerusalem has taken on a cosmopolitan, transnational character. These are not just angry neighbors; they are embedded in the Persian administrative class.
The notation that the letter was "written in Aramaic (Syriac) and translated in Aramaic" is both a historical and a textual marker. It explains why the text of Ezra shifts here from Hebrew into Aramaic (4:8–6:18), the lingua franca of the Persian Empire, and remains in Aramaic until the actual documents cited within that section conclude. The dual mention of "Aramaic" — referring both to the script and the language — underscores the formal, official nature of the communication: this was not a private grievance but a diplomatic dispatch composed in the administrative tongue of the empire.