Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 6:6
Now [therefore], Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shethar-boznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which [are] beyond the river, be ye far from thence:
6. The decree of Darius; the prohibition, no interference.
Tatnai Shethar-boznai, &c.] R.V. Tattenai Shethar-bozenai. See Ezr 5:3. Observe the sudden change into the direct address to the governor. Darius’s decree is attached to the copy of Cyrus’s decree, without any prefatory words to mark the transition or to call attention to Darius’s action. The composition of the Compiler or of the document, which he cites, is rough and inartistic; but the meaning of the passage and its connexion with the context cannot be mistaken.
your companions ] R.V. margin. Aram. their. This occurrence of the 3rd pers. pronoun in the original indicates perhaps that the writer transcribed the 3rd pers. pronoun, and omitted to alter it so as to suit his own version.
be ye far from thence ] i.e. keep aloof from Jerusalem, and do not interfere with the work.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This verse gives the words of the decree of Darius, which was grounded upon, and probably recited, the decree of Cyrus.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. Be ye far from thence] Do not interrupt the Jews in their building; but, on the contrary further them all in your power.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
i.e. From hindering or discouraging the work.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Now therefore Tatnai, governor beyond the river,…. The river Euphrates, that side of it towards the land of Israel; Josephus z calls this man master of the horse:
Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence; keep at a distance from the Jews, and give them no disturbance, nor interrupt them in their work of building of the temple, but mind your own business and government.
z Ibid. (Antiqu.) l. 11. c. 4. sect. 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2. Darius decree ordering the reconstruction.
TEXT, Ezr. 6:6-12
6
Now therefore, Tattenai, governor of the province beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and your colleagues, the officials of the provinces beyond the River, keep away from there.
7
Leave this work on the house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site.
8
Moreover, I issue a decree concerning what you are to do for these elders of Judah in the rebuilding of this house of God: the full cost is to be paid to these people from the royal treasury out of the taxes of the provinces beyond the River, and that without delay.
9
And whatever is needed, both young bulls, rams, and lambs for a burnt offering to the God of heaven, and wheat, salt, wine, and anointing oil, as the priests in Jerusalem request, it is to be given to them daily without fail,
10
that they may offer acceptable sacrifices to the God of heaven and pray for the life of the king and his sons.
11
And I issued a decree that any man who violates this edict, a timber shall be drawn from his house and he shall be impaled on it and his house shall be made a refuse heap on account of this.
12
And may the God who has caused his name to dwell there overthrow any king or people who attempts to change it, so as to destroy this house of God in Jerusalem. I, Darius, have issued this decree, let it be carried out with all diligence.
COMMENT
Ezr. 6:6 begins abruptly, suggesting that the introduction of Darius letter has been omitted, to get immediately to the issue. In effect, Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai are commanded in Ezr. 6:6-7 not to interfere. The phrase, keep away from there, apparently was an Aramaic legal formula for such occasions.[34][34] Anchor Bible, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 50.
Ezr. 6:8 specifies that tax money is to be provided from the general area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Euphrates River to pay the total cost. We may wonder why a Persian ruler would give first priority to this project; verse ten will furnish an answer.
Ezr. 6:9 lists the various items for Israels sacrifices that were also to be furnished daily and financed from the public treasury. Evidently they had inquired of Israels priests what would be needed. Since every day was to begin and end with a burnt offering (Num. 28:3-6), this need was specifically anticipated. Wine was a frequent part of offerings (Exo. 29:40 f.; Lev. 23:13). And so was oil; it is mentioned particularly at the anointing of priests for service (Lev. 8:30). Incidentally, Darius is known to have ordered a similar list of supplies for the Hebrew community in Egypt.[35]
[35] Interpreters Bible, Vol. III, p. 618.
This list is notable in that it corresponds exactly with instructions in Leviticus: bulls, rams, lambs (Lev. 1:5; Lev. 1:10), accompanied by wheat and salt (Lev. 2:1).
In Ezr. 6:10, two reasons are given for Darius action. For the benefit of the community of Israel, the offerings would be pleasing to their God. For the benefit of the Persians, the priests were asked to pray for the king and his sons, that is, the total officialdom. This would not have been considered unreasonable; Jeremiah (Jer. 29:7) had urged prayers for the Babylonian rulers when many of Israels citizens were under this authority. Paul recommends the same course of action in the N.T. (1Ti. 2:1-2) respecting Roman rulers. The surprise is that the mighty Persian ruler would request a handful of subjugated, impoverished people whom he was befriending to pray to their strange God for him!
Ezr. 6:11 threatens any violator with painful death, and the reduction of his home to an outhouse. This comes as a shock if we have become acclimated to expecting kindness from the Persians. The Assyrians and Babylonians were noted for their sadism, including the impaling of victims on pointed posts to induce lingering death; but the Persians followed a policy of benevolence toward their enemies to encourage rapid surrender. But this is another matter, having to do with the enforcing of justice.
It is obvious from Persian accounts that they were acquainted with both impalement and crucifixion as a means of punishing criminals. Herodotus,[36] the Greek who recorded Persian history, speaks of Persian crucifixions, though they are like those with which Julius Caesar[37] later punished pirates, in that the victims were first killed and then affixed to crosses,
[36] Great Books of The Western World, Vol. VI, p. 123.
[37] Suetonius, The Lives of The Twelve Caesars, p. 48.
In Ezr. 6:12 Darius invokes a curse in the name of Israels God on anyone who would change his decree so that the temple would be destroyed. Dr. Ironside[38] mentions that this curse was fulfilled in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, of Herod (who altered the Temple), and of the Romans in AD 70. However, there is no need to insist on a literal fulfilment here; after all, the curse is only the pronouncement of the pagan Darius. (Nevertheless, the same idea is expressed in Gen. 12:3.) We may ask, has God bound Himself to carry out the curse pronounced in His name by a pagan? It is noteworthy that when Solomon dedicated the previous Temple, he recognized that God might destroy it because of the peoples sins, and Solomon did not pray for the destruction in turn of its destroyers: only for Israels restoration if they returned to God (1 Kings 8).
[38] Ironside, ibid, p. 55.
The mention in Ezr. 6:12 that God has caused His name to dwell there may be supported by Deu. 12:5; Deu. 12:11 and 1Ki. 5:5. Here again the name means more than a word written on the front of a building; it is a promise of His personal presence.
WORD STUDIES
DARIUS: Preserver, conservator. His name very aptly describes the character of his reign. Cyrus had brought the nation to greatness, and Darius preserved and extended that which Cyrus had begun.
BURNT OFFERING: that which ascends. (The base of this word appears in the second component of the name of the Israeli airline, EL AL.) Two ideas may be present: (1) the total offering ascended in smoke to God, or (2) the priest ascended to the altar with the offering.
PASSOVER: (Pasach: the word, Paschal, comes from this.) To leap over, or pass over (a stream, for example). When God passed over the doors of the Israelites, they were spared, or delivered (Exo. 12:13; Exo. 12:27). Therefore the word almost always refers to this sparing or deliverance.
UNLEAVENED: (The word, matzoth, comes from this): the word imitates the sound of sucking something out with relish: hence, something sweet, i.e., unleavened or unfermented.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(6) Now therefore, Tatnai.Here there is an abrupt transition to the decree of Darius itself, the terms of which were either drawn up by Jewish help, or are freely rendered into the national phraseology by the historian.
Be ye far from thence.That is, keep aloof from any kind of interference.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Now therefore, Tatnai Here Darius turns from quoting the record of Cyrus, which forms a part of his letter in answer to the Samaritan governor’s letter, (Ezr 5:5, note,) and proceeds to prohibit all interference with the Jews or hindering of their work.
Be ye far from thence That is, far from Jerusalem. Meddle not at all with their work.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The King Instructs Tattenai On How To Proceed ( Ezr 6:6-12 ).
Having established what was in the decree of Cyrus, king Darius now issued his instructions to Tattenai and his colleagues on how they are to proceed. Not only were the returnees to be allowed to complete the building of the house of God, but they were to be assisted out of state revenues. Furthermore they were to be provided with everything that was necessary in order to fully satisfy the God of Heaven, in the form of offerings and sacrifices, and all that pertained to them. Darius was clearly well informed concerning the requirements. He would have had many Jewish advisers.
Ezr 6:6
‘Now therefore, Tattenai, governor of Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and your companions the Apharsachites, who are of Beyond the River, be you far from there (‘leave them alone’ or ‘go somewhere else’).’
Note the formal nature of the address. It follows exactly the pattern of the original letter addressed to Darius (Ezr 5:6). And it informed Tattenai and his assistants that they were to leave the builders alone to get on with what they were doing. ‘Be you far from there’ signifies that they are to leave things alone, and possibly suggests that they are to move elsewhere as they are no longer required to be at the site of the new Temple. That would not, of course, mean that they were not to check up on how the work was going, but that they should not interfere in any way while it was going smoothly.
Ezr 6:7
‘Let the work of this house of God alone, let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place.’
The enemies of the Jews now found themselves confounded. Darius expressly states that the work is to be carried out by his duly appointed governor (Zerubbabel) and by the elders of the Jews. And they were to be left alone to carry on with the work, which now had the sanction of the current monarch. It thus had double sanction.
‘In its place.’ That is on the long revered holy site of the Temple. There is a constant requirement that it be built on the very site of the original Temple. This was holy ground and would, in Persian eyes, ensure that the God of Heaven was well pleased.
Ezr 6:8
‘Moreover I make a decree what you shall do to these elders of the Jews for the building of this house of God, that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the River, expenses be given with all diligence to these men, that they be not hindered.’
What was more the elders of the Jews had to be given all financial assistance for the work out of the tribute, customs duties and rents which were gathered for the king’s treasury in the district of Beyond the River, so that nothing would hinder its completion. This went beyond what Cyrus had offered in Ezr 1:4.
The importance of this comes out when we compare the situation at the commencement of the construction of the Temple. Both Haggai and Zechariah emphasise that the work is to be carried on even in the face of financial hardship. But as God had said, ‘the silver is Mine and the gold is Mine’ (Hag 2:8). And now He was proving it. They had commenced in poverty, but now they would complete the work with plenty. It is a reminder to us that if we are faithful to God with what we have, He will often supply a hundredfold.
Ezr 6:9-10
‘And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for burnt-offerings to the God of heaven; also wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests that are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail, that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savour to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons.’
Furthermore, not only were they to be given financial assistance for the building of the house of God, but also in order that all sacrifices and offerings considered necessary by the priests might be offered. They were to be provided with young bullock, rams and lambs (the most valuable first, the least valuable last) in order to make whole burnt offerings to the God of Heaven, along with all the grain, salt, wine and oil that was necessary (see Exo 29:40; Lev 2:13). The king clearly had well informed advice. There are a number of examples of the kings of Persia taking such a detailed interest in the ways of worship of their subjects. These sacrificial requisites were unfailingly to be provided day by day, so that their sweet savour might reach the God of Heaven (compare Gen 8:21; Exo 29:23-25; Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17; Eze 16:19; etc), ensuring the success of their prayers for the lives of the king and his sons. His generosity was not disinterested. Comparison may be made with the Cyrus Cylinder where Cyrus says, ‘may all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities ask Bel and Nebo daily for a long life for me’.
Ezr 6:11
‘Also I have made a decree, that whoever shall alter this word, let a beam be pulled out from his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened on it, and let his house be made a dunghill for this,’
Darius then enforces his decree by calling for severe penalties on any who seek to prevent it being carried out or who seek to water it down. The idea may be of impalement, a recognised form of Persian punishment, but the idea is more probably that the person be strung up on a beam and beaten. The taking of the beam out of his house would ensure the collapse of the house, and this is confirmed by the fact that it is to become a dunghill (compare Dan 2:5; Dan 3:29). Thus would he be punished for hindering the work on God’s house. Such penalty clauses were common in the Ancient Near East.
Ezr 6:12
‘And the God who has caused his name to dwell there overthrow all kings and peoples who will put forth their hand to alter the same, to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem.’
We have here a further indication of self-interest. The only kings and peoples who would put forth their hands to destroy Jerusalem, in view of his decrees, would be those who were enemies of Persia, and he is seeking God’s help in their overthrow. At the same time he is demonstrating to God his own deep concern for His house. Surely in the light of this God will look kindly on the house of Darius.
‘The God who has caused His Name to dwell there.’ This is a clear indication of Jewish advisers behind the decree. It is a typical phrase from Deuteronomy. Compare Deu 12:11; Deu 16:2; Deu 26:2; 1Ki 8:29.
Ezr 6:12
‘I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with all diligence.’
Darius ends his decree by emphasising that it is one that he has made (contrast Ezr 4:21) and that it should therefore be carried out with due diligence. The instruction is clear. There is to be no delay in carrying it out.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Observe how the hand of the Lord is with this decree. Tatnai and his companions are reproved for opposing God’s work. Darius not only commands the temple to be built, but at his own cost and charge. Nay more, he makes allowance for the daily sacrifice; and desires that in this temple prayers and sacrifices may be continually offered for the life of himself and his sons. Yea, as if under the spirit of prophecy, he looks up to God to vindicate his own cause in destroying kings as well as people, whosoever shall put forth an hand to the ruin of the temple. Surely one is led almost to believe, that such a friend to God’s cause must be a partaker of God’s grace. Was not this another instance of the Jew and Gentile being alike interested in Jesus? Solomon’s temple had a Hiram, king of Tyre, to give aid: and here is a Darius, king of Persia, contributing to the second temple. Were not both, blessed Jesus, meant by thee to prefigure the united church of thy glorious redemption, as including both the Jew and the Gentile?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 6:6 Now [therefore], Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which [are] beyond the river, be ye far from thence:
Ver. 6. Be ye far from thence ] i.e. Come not at them, to hinder them at all. Thus, though the Church’s enemies bandy together and bend all their forces against her; yet are they bounded by Almighty God (who saith unto them, Be ye far from thence), as is the raging sea, Jer 5:22 . Surely, saith the psalmist, the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain, Heb. gird, that is, keep it within compass, as with a girdle. The Septuagint render it thus, The remnant of wrath shall keep holy day to thee, that is, it shall rest from working, or acting, how restless soever it be within.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 6:6-12
6Now therefore, Tattenai, governor of the province beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai and your colleagues, the officials of the provinces beyond the River, keep away from there. 7Leave this work on the house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site. 8Moreover, I issue a decree concerning what you are to do for these elders of Judah in the rebuilding of this house of God: the full cost is to be paid to these people from the royal treasury out of the taxes of the provinces beyond the River, and that without delay. 9Whatever is needed, both young bulls, rams, and lambs for a burnt offering to the God of heaven, and wheat, salt, wine and anointing oil, as the priests in Jerusalem request, it is to be given to them daily without fail, 10that they may offer acceptable sacrifices to the God of heaven and pray for the life of the king and his sons. 11And I issued a decree that any man who violates this edict, a timber shall be drawn from his house and he shall be impaled on it and his house shall be made a refuse heap on account of this. 12May the God who has caused His name to dwell there overthrow any king or people who attempts to change it, so as to destroy this house of God in Jerusalem. I, Darius, have issued this decree, let it be carried out with all diligence!
Ezr 6:6 For information on these people and their governmental offices see Ezr 5:3.
NASB, NJBkeep away from there
NKJVkeep yourselves far from there
NRSVkeep away
TEVstay away from the Temple
This phrase is literally far be from there. It is an Aramaic legal idiom also found in Egyptian papyri of this period (cf. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 643). The VERB (BB 1089, KB 1858) is a Peal IMPERATIVE PLURAL. The command is both physical and mental (BDB 113, keep aloof). It may be an Aramaic legal idiom (Anchor Bible, vol. 14, p. 50).
Notice that the Persian leaders who officially initiated the inquiry are now commanded to
1. stop hindering the work and stay away (Ezr 6:7)
2. pay for the work (without delay, Ezr 6:8)
3. provide the necessary sacrificial animals and other items the priests needed for annual as well as daily offerings (cf. Ezr 6:9).
Ezr 6:7 Leave this work. . .alone This is another Peal IMPERATIVE (BDB 1114).
rebuild This VERB (BDB 1084) is a Peal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense.
on its site See note at Ezr 5:15. Apparently the use of ancient foundations was a Near Eastern way of showing continuity with previous generations.
Ezr 6:8 Darius is following Cyrus’ decree by funding the project from the Persian royal treasury.
Ezr 6:9 whatever is needed, both young bulls, rams, and lambs for a burnt offering Obviously the Persian Archives received information from the Jews because they knew exactly the type of sacrifices which needed to be offered (cf. Exo 29:38 ff; Lev 2:1; Numbers 28 :llff). From other archaeological finds it is clear that the Persians made the effort to know the regulations and cultus of the religions of their empire.
salt Salt was to be a part of every sacrifice (cf. Lev 2:13; Num 18:19; Eze 43:24). Salt was a cultural sign and symbol of a covenant (cf. 2Ch 13:5). It was an idiom of fellowship and loyalty (cf. Ezr 4:14).
Ezr 6:10 may be acceptable sacrifices to the God of heaven and pray for the life of the king and his sons This acceptable sacrifices (BDB 1102, cf. Dan 2:46) is a Hebrew (BDB 629) idiom, soothing aroma (e.g., Gen 8:21; Exo 29:18; Exo 29:25; Exo 29:41; Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17; Lev 26:31), which denoted an acceptable offering that corresponded to YHWH’s specifications, directions, as well as the proper motive.
This fits in perfectly with the Persian religious world-view as we understand it from Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and later, Artaxerxes. Although they were Zoroastrians they sought the good will of the national gods of the ancient Near East by repatriating their peoples, rebuilding their temples, and by making sure the regular sacrifices were done appropriately. Their actions had more to do with self-interest and superstition than religious zeal.
Ezr 6:11 This verse has three IMPERFECTS used in a JUSSIVE (command) sense (Ezr 6:12; Ezr 7:21 also have 2 IMPERFECTS used in the same way). This royal threat was serious!
impaled This can mean impaled (Hithpael IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense, NASB, NRSV, TEV, NJB), crucified (BDB 1099, KB 1913, ASV), hanged (NKJV, cf. 1Es 6:32), or flogged (REB). Whatever the exact meaning, it was a public display of capital punishment used as a deterrent (cf. Gen 40:22; Gen 41:13; Deu 21:23; Dan 2:5; Dan 3:29).
Ezr 6:11 is typical of the curse formulas used to insure compliance to royal edicts.
his house shall be made a refuse heap on account of this The Septuagint, 1Es 6:32, and JPSOA have forfeit. However, the rabbinical understanding is reflected in the Aramaic Targums, which translate this as dung-hill (cf. 2Ki 10:27; Dan 2:5). Reducing criminals’ homes and possessions to rubbish was a common practice in the ancient Near East to humiliate both the offender and his family. The ultimate cultural insult would be to turn the site of the home into a public latrine.
Ezr 6:12 the God who has caused His name to dwell there This follows the covenant phrasing of Deuteronomy (cf. Deu 12:5; Deu 12:11; Deu 12:13-14; Deu 12:18; Deu 26:2; and Exo 20:24). This became a reference to Mount Moriah in Jerusalem (cf. Gen 22:2; 1Ch 21:18-27; 2Ch 3:1) where, later, Solomon’s Temple was built.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Tatnai, governor = Tatnai, pasha. See notes on Ezr 5:3, Ezr 5:6.
companions = fellow-labourers or colleagues.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Ezr 6:6-7
Ezr 6:6-7
DARIUS’ REPLY TO TATTENAI; GOVERNOR BEYOND THE RIVER
“Now therefore, Tettanai, governor beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and your companions the Apharsachites, who are beyond the River, be ye far from thence: let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place.”
“This order must have stunned Tettanai and his companions.” Not only did Darius confirm the existence of the decree of Cyrus, he added his own authority and power to back it up, and even commanded the expenses of the project to be borne by the tax revenues which Tattenai controlled; and that probably meant that some of the expense would come out of Tattenai’s own pockets.
“Be ye far from thence” (Ezr 6:6). This should not be interpreted to mean that the governor was not to go near the temple for purposes of inspection; but, “It meant: Do not interfere with or impede the work on the building.” Matthew Henry commented that, “The manner of Darius’ expression here indicates that he knew that Tattenai and his companions had a mind to hinder the work.”
E.M. Zerr:
Ezr 6:6. Up to this point in the return letter, the king has been relating what he found in the official records; that it was in harmony with the claim of the Jews. From this on the letter will contain his own decree in the matter. It is directed to the officials who sent the letter of inquiry. In order that no hindrance be had in executing the decree, the officers are mentioned by name. Beyond the river means the same river as this side of the river. The difference is in the point from where the expression is made. The former is now made from the east side of the Euphrates, while the latter was from the west side. Be ye far from thence is a nice way of telling them to get out of the way of the work.
Ezr 6:7. They not only must get away from the work as far as being objectors, but must not hinder it in any indirect manner; they must let the work of this house of God alone. They were not even to insist on participating in the work as did the adversaries in Ezr 4:2, but let the Jews do it.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
your companions
Chald. “their societies.”
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Tatnai: Ezr 5:3
your companions: Chal, their societies, Ezr 5:6
be ye far: Gen 32:28, Gen 43:14, Neh 1:11, Psa 76:10, Pro 21:1, Pro 21:30, Isa 27:8, Act 4:26-28, Rom 8:31
Reciprocal: Ezr 4:9 – Apharsathchites Ezr 5:5 – then they returned Ezr 6:22 – the king Ezr 7:21 – beyond the river Ezr 7:25 – beyond the river Neh 2:7 – let letters
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 6:6-7. Be ye far from thence Come not near Jerusalem to give the Jews any hinderance or disturbance. Let the work of the house of God alone The manner of expression intimates that he knew they had an inclination to hinder it. Thus was the wrath of the enemy made to praise God, and the remainder thereof did he restrain.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
6:6 Now [therefore], Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which [are] beyond the river, be ye far {c} from thence:
(c) Meddle not with them neither hinder them.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Darius’ decree 6:6-12
Evidently Darius also saw the Jerusalem temple as a monument to his own success. He instructed Tattenai to allow the Jewish governor, Zerubbabel, and his people to proceed unobstructed. Darius seems to have viewed Zerubbabel as the ruler of the Jews living in the jurisdiction of Tattenai, who governed the whole province that included Palestine and Jerusalem. Darius further specified that the provincial treasury should pay all costs (Ezr 6:8), and that the provincial governor should provide the items required for sacrifices in the temple. The king also wanted the Jews to pray for him and his family (Ezr 6:10).
"Although Darius revered Ahuramazda especially, it is understandable that in a world of polytheism he would want to make sure that he was in the favor of every god in his empire." [Note: Fensham, The Books . . ., p. 90.]
One wonders if stories about Daniel (ca. 605-536 B.C.), who served under Cyrus (Dan 6:28), might have had some influence on Darius. The Darius that the book of Daniel mentions, however, was Darius the Mede, not this Darius, who was a Persian.
". . . Darius [the Persian] himself was a monotheist and an adherent of the new faith of Zoroastrianism, but it is not known whether this religious orientation had any effect on his policies this early in his reign." [Note: Vos, p. 49.]
Impaling (Ezr 6:11) was a common method of execution in the Persian Empire (cf. Est 7:9-10), and Darius practiced it. After he subdued a rebellion in Babylon, Darius impaled 3,000 rebels there. [Note: Herodotus, 2:3:159.]
"Impalement was a well-known kind of punishment in the ancient Near East for grave offenses. One side [end?] of a beam was sharpened and the other side planted in the ground. The sharp point was inserted under the chest of a person and pushed through his esophagus and lungs. He was then left to hang until he died." [Note: Fensham, The Books . . ., p. 91.]
The king closed his decree by calling down Yahweh’s curse on anyone who might attempt to change it (Ezr 6:12).
"Darius’ curse on anyone who would destroy the temple was fulfilled in: (a) Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated it in 167 B.C., and died insane three years later; (b) Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.), who added extensively to the temple to glorify himself, and who had domestic trouble and died of disease; and (c) the Romans, who destroyed the temple in A.D. 70, and later had their empire destroyed." [Note: Martin, pp. 663-64.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE
Ezr 6:6-22
THE chroniclers version of the edict in which Darius replies to the application of the Satrap Tattenai is so very friendly to the Jews that questions have been raised as to its genuineness. We cannot but perceive that the language has been modified in its transition from the Persian terra-cotta cylinder to the roll of the Hebrew chronicler, because the Great King could not have spoken of the religion of Israel in the absolute phrases recorded in the Book of Ezra. But when all allowance has been made for verbal alterations in translation and transcription, the substance of the edict is still sufficiently remarkable. Darius fully endorses the decree of Cyrus, and even exceeds that gracious ordinance in generosity. He curtly bids Tattenai “let the work of the house of God alone.” He even orders the Satrap to provide for this work out of the revenues of his district. The public revenues are also to be used in maintaining the Jewish priests and in providing them with sacrifices-“that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savour unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons.” {Ezr 6:10}
On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that Darius sent a reply that was favourable to the Jews, for all opposition to their work was stopped, and means were found for completing the temple and maintaining the costly ritual. The Jews gratefully acknowledged the influence of God on the heart of Darius. Surely they were right in doing so. They were gifted with the true insight of faith. It is no contradiction to add that-in the earthly sphere and among the human motives through which God works by guiding them-what we know of Darius will account to some extent for his friendliness towards the Jews. He was a powerful ruler, and when he had quelled the serious rebellions that had broken out in several quarters of his kingdom, he organised his government in a masterly style with a new and thorough system of satrapies. Then he pushed his conquests farther afield, and subsequently came into contact with Europe, although ultimately to suffer a humiliating defeat in the famous battle of Marathon. In fact, we may regard him as the real founder of the Persian Empire. Cyrus, though his family was of Persian origin, was originally a king of Elam, and he had to conquer Persia before he could rule over it, but Darius was a prince of the Persian royal house. Unlike Cyrus, he was at least a monotheist, if not a thoroughgoing Zoroastrian. The inscription on his tomb at Naksh-i-Rustem attributes all that he has achieved to the favour of Ormazd.
“When Ormazd saw this earth filled with revolt and civil war, then did he entrust it to me. He made me king, and I am king. By the grace of Ormazd I have restored the earth.”
“All that I have done I have done through the grace of Ormazd. Ormazd brought help to me until I had completed my work. May Ormazd protect from evil me and my house and this land. Therefore I pray unto Ormazd, May Ormazd grant this to me.”
“O Man! May the command of Ormazd not be despised by thee, leave not the path of right, sin not”
Such language implies a high religious conception of life. Although it is a mistake to suppose that the Jews had borrowed anything of importance from Zoroastrianism during the captivity or in the time of Cyrus-inasmuch as that religion was then scarcely known in Babylon-when it began to make itself felt there, its similarity to Judaism could not fail to strike the attention of observant men. It taught the existence of one supreme God-though it coordinated the principles of good and evil in His being, as two subsidiary existences, in a manner not allowed by Judaism-and it encouraged prayer. It also insisted on the dreadful evil of sin and urged men to strive after purity, with an earnestness that witnessed to the blending of morality with religion to an extent unknown elsewhere except among the Jews. Thus, if Darius were a Zoroastrian, he would have two powerful links of sympathy with the Jews in opposition to the corrupt idolatry of the heathen-the spiritual monotheism and the earnest morality that were common to the two religions. And in any case it is not altogether surprising to learn that when he read the letter of the people who described themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth,” the worshipper of Ormazd should have sympathised with them rather than with their semi-pagan opponents. Moreover, Darius must have known something of Judaism from the Jews of Babylon. Then, he was restoring the temples of Ormazd which his predecessor had destroyed. But the Jews were engaged in a very similar work; therefore the king, in his antipathy to the idolaters, would give no sanction to a heathenish opposition to the building of the temple at Jerusalem by a people who believed in One Spiritual God.
Darius was credited with a generous disposition, which would incline him to a kindly treatment of his subjects. Of course we must interpret this according to the manners of the times. For example, in his edict about the temple-building he gives orders that any one of his subjects who hinders the work is to be impaled on a beam from his own house, the site of which is to be used for a refuse heap. {Ezr 6:11} Darius also invokes the God of the Jews to destroy any foreign king or people who should attempt to alter or destroy the temple at Jerusalem. The savagery of his menace is in harmony with his conduct when, according to Herodotus, he impaled three thousand men at Babylon after he had recaptured the city. Those were cruel times-Herodotus tells us that the besieged Babylonians had previously strangled their own wives when they were running short of provisions. The imprecation with which the edict closes may be matched by one on the inscription of Darius at Behistum, where the Great King invokes the curse of Ormazd on any persons who should injure the tablet. The ancient despotic world-rulers had no conception of the modern virtue of humanitarianism. It is sickening to picture to ourselves their methods of government. The enormous misery involved is beyond calculation. Still we may believe that the worst threats were not always carried out; we may make some allowance for Oriental extravagance of language. And yet, after all has been said, the conclusion of the edict of Darius presents to us a kind of state support for religion which no one would defend in the present day. In accepting the help of the Persian sovereign the Jews could not altogether dissociate themselves from his way of government. Nevertheless it is fair to remember that they had not asked for his support. They had simply desired to be left unmolested.
Tattenai loyally executed the decree of Darius; the temple-building proceeded without further hindrance, and the work was completed about four years after its recommencement at the instigation of the prophet Haggai. Then came the joyous ceremony of the dedication. All the returned exiles took part in it. They are named collectively “the children of Israel” – another indication that the restored Jews were regarded by the chronicler as the representatives of the whole united nation as this had existed under David and Solomon before the great schism. Similarly there are twelve he-goats for the sin-offering-for the twelve tribes. {Ezr 6:17} Several classes of Israelites are enumerated, -first the clergy in their two orders, the priests and the Levites, always kept distinct in Ezra; next the laity, who are described as “the children of the captivity.” The limitation of this phrase is significant. In the dedication of the temple the Israelites of the land who were mixed up with the heathen people are not included. Only the returned exiles had built the temple; only they were associated in the dedication of it. Here is a strictly guarded Church. Access to it is through the one door of-an unimpeachable genealogical record. Happily the narrowness of this arrangement is soon to be broken through. In the meanwhile it is to be observed that it is just the people who have endured the hardship of separation from their beloved Jerusalem to whom the privilege of rejoicing in the completion of the new temple is given. The tame existence that cannot fathom the depths of misery is incapable of soaring to the heights of bliss. The joy of the harvest is for those who have sown in tears.
The work was finished, and yet its very completion was a new commencement. The temple was now dedicated-literally “initiated”-for the future service of God.
This dedication is an instance of the highest use of mans work. The fruit of years of toil and sacrifice is given to God. Whatever theories we may have about the consecration of a building-and surely every building that is put to a sacred use is in a sense a sacred building-there can be no question as to the rightness of dedication. This is just the surrender to God of what was built for Him out of the resources that he had supplied. A dedication service is a solemn act of transfer by which a building is given over to the use of God. We may save it from narrowness if we do not limit it to places of public assembly. The home where the family altar is set up. where day by day prayer is offered, and where the common round of domestic duties is elevated and consecrated by being faithfully discharged as in the sight of God, is a true sanctuary; it too, like the Jerusalem temple, has its “Holy of Holies.” Therefore when a family enters a new house, or when two young lives cross the threshold of what is to be henceforth their “home,” there is as true a ground for a solemn act of dedication as in the opening of a great temple. A prophet declared that “Holiness to the Lord” was to characterise the very vessels of household use in Jerusalem. {Zec 14:21} It may lift some of the burden of drudgery which presses on people who are compelled to spend their time in common house-toil, for them to perceive that they may become priests and priestesses ministering at the altar even in their daily work. In the same spirit truly devout men of business will dedicate their shops, their factories, their offices, the tools of their work, and the enterprises in which they engage, so that all may be regarded as belonging to God, and only to be used as His will dictates. Behind every such act of dedication there must be a prior act of self-consecration, without which the gift of any mere thing to God is but an insult to the Father who only seeks the hearts of His children. Nay, without this a real gift of any kind is impossible. But the people who have first given their own selves to the Lord are prepared for all other acts of surrender.
According to the custom of their ritual, the Jews signalised the dedication of the temple by the offering of sacrifices. Even with the help of the kings bounty these were few in number compared with the lavish holocausts that were offered in the ceremony of dedicating Solomons temple. {1Ki 8:63} Here, in the external aspect of things, the melancholy archaeologists might have found another cause for lamentation. But we are not told that any such people appeared on the present occasion. The Jews were not so foolish as to believe that the value of a religious movement could be ascertained by the study of architectural dimensions. Is it less misleading to attempt to estimate the spiritual prosperity of a Church by casting up the items of its balance-sheet, or tabulating the numbers of its congregations?
Looking more closely into the chroniclers description of the sacrifices, we see that these were principally of two distinct kinds. {Ezr 6:17} There were some animals for burnt-offerings, which signified complete dedication, and pledged their offerers to it. Then there were other animals for sin-offerings. Thus even in the joyous dedication of the temple the sin, of Israel could not be forgotten. The increasing importance of sacrifices for sin is one of the most marked features of the Hebrew ritual in its later stages of development. It shows that in the course of ages the national consciousness of sin was intensified. At the same time it makes it clear that the inexplicable conviction that without shedding of blood there could be no remission of sins was also deepened. Whether the sacrifice was regarded as a gift pleasing and propitiating an offended God, or as a substitute bearing the death-penalty of sin, or as a sacred life, bestowing, by means of its blood, new life on sinners who had forfeited their own lives, in any case, and however it was interpreted, it was felt that blood must be shed if the sinner was to be freed from guilt. Throughout the ages this awful thought was more and more vividly presented, and the mystery which the conscience of many refused to abandon continued, until there was a great revelation of the true meaning of sacrifice for sin in the one efficacious atonement of Christ.
A subsidiary point to be noticed here is that there were just twelve he-goats sacrificed for the twelve tribes of Israel. These were national sin-offerings, and not sacrifices for individual sinners. Under special circumstances the individual could bring his own private offering. But in this great temple function only national sins were considered. The nation had suffered as a whole for its collective sin; in a corresponding way it had its collective expiation of sin. There are always national sins which need a broad public treatment, apart from the particular acts of wickedness committed by separate men.
All this is said by the chronicler to have taken place in accordance with The Law-“As it is written in the book of Moses.” {Ezr 6:18} Here, as in the case of the similar statement of the chronicler in connection with the sacrifices offered when the great altar of burnt-offerings was set up, {Ezr 3:2} we must remember, in the first place, that we have to do with the reflections of an author writing in a subsequent age, to whom the whole Pentateuch was a familiar book. But then it is also clear that before Ezra had startled the Jews by reading The Law in its later revelation there must have been some earlier form of it, not only in Deuteronomy, but also in a priestly collection of ordinances. It is a curious fact that no full directions on the division of the courses of the priests and Levites is now to be found in the Pentateuch. On this occasion the services must have been arranged on the model of the traditional priestly law. They were not left to the caprice of the hour. There was order; there was continuity; there was obedience.
The chronicler concludes this period of his history by adding a paragraph on the first observance of the Passover among the returned Jews. The national religion is now re-established, and therefore the greatest festival of the year can be enjoyed. One of the characteristics of this festival is made especially prominent in the present observance of it. The significance of the unleavened bread is pointedly noticed. All leaven is to be banished from the houses during the week of the Passover. All impurity must also be banished from the people. The priests and Levites perform the ceremonial purifications and get themselves legally clean. The franchise is enlarged, and the limitations of genealogy with which we started are dispensed with. A new class of Israelites receives a brotherly welcome in this time of general purification. In distinction from the returned captives, there are now the Israelites who “had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord.” Jehovah is pointedly described as “the God of Israel”-i.e., the God of all sections of Israel. {Ezr 6:21} These people cannot be proselytes from heathenism-there could be few if any such in exclusive times. They might consist of Jews who had been living in Palestine all through the captivity, Israelites also left in the Northern Kingdom, and scattered members of the ten tribes from various regions. All such are welcome on condition of a severe process of social purging. They must break off from their heathen associations. We may suspect a spirit of Jewish animosity in the ugly phrase “the filthiness of the heathen.” But it was only too true that both the Canaanite and the Babylonian habits of life were disgustingly immoral. The same horrible characteristic is found among most of the heathen today. These degraded people are not simply benighted in theological error, they are corrupted by horrible vices. Missionary work is more than the propagation of Christian theology, it is the purging of Augean stables. St. Paul reminds us that we must put away the old leaven of sinful habits in order to partake of the Christian Passover, {1Co 5:7} and St. James that one feature of the religious service which, is acceptable to God is to keep oneself unspotted from the world. {Jam 1:27} Though unfortunately with the externalism of the Jews their purification too often became a mere ceremony, and their separation an ungracious race exclusiveness, still, at the root of it, the Passover idea here brought before us is profoundly true. It is the thought that we cannot take part in a sacred feast of Divine gladness except on condition of renouncing sin. The joy of the Lord is the beatific vision of saints, the blessedness of the pure in heart who see God. On this condition, for the people who were thus separate, the festival was a scene of great gladness. The chronicler calls attention to three things that were in the mind of the Jews, inspiring their praises throughout. {Ezr 6:22} The first is that God was the source of their joy-“the Lord had made them joyful.” There is joy in religion, and this joy springs from God. The second is that God had brought about the successful end of their labours by directly influencing the Great King. He had “turned the heart of the king of Assyria”-a title for Darius that speaks for the authenticity of the narrative, for it represents an old form of speech for the ruler of the districts that had once belonged to the king of Assyria. The third fact is that God had been the source of strength to the Jews, so that they had been able to complete their work. The result of the Divine aid was “to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.” Among His own people joy and strength from God, in the great world a providential direction of the mind of the king-this was what faith now perceived, and the perception of so wonderful a Divine activity made the Passover a festival of boundless gladness. Wherever that ancient Hebrew faith is experienced in conjunction with the Passover spirit of separation from the leaven of sin religion always is a well of joy.