Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ezra 6:1 - 6:1

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ezra 6:1 - 6:1


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The decision of Darius. - Ezr 6:1-5. At the command of Darius, search was made in the archives of the royal treasury; and in the fortress of Achmetha in Media, was found the roll in which was recorded the edict published by Cyrus, concerning the building of the temple at Jerusalem.

Ezr 6:1

Search was made in the house of the books where also the treasures were deposited in Babylon. מְהַחֲתִין, partic. Aphel of נְחָת; see Ezr 5:15.

Ezr 6:2-4

“And there was found at Achmetha, in the fortress that is in the land of Media, a roll; and thus was it recorded therein.” In Babylon itself the document sought for was not found; though, probably the search there made, led to the discovery of a statement that documents pertaining to the time of Cyrus were preserved in the fortress of Achmetha, where the record in question was subsequently discovered. אַחְמְתָא, the capital of Great Media - τὰ Εκβάτανα, Judith 1:1, 14, or Ἀγβάτανα (Herod. i. 98) - built by Dejokes, was the summer residence of the Persian and Parthian kings, and situate in the neighbourhood of the modern Hamadan. Achmetha is probably the Old-Median or Old-Persian pronunciation of the name, the letters אחם on Sassanidian coins being explained as denoting this city (Mordtmann in the Zeitschrift der deutsch morgenl. Gesellschaft, viii. p. 14). The citadel of Ecbatana probably contained also the royal palace and the official buildings. For בְּגַוַּהּ is found in some MSS and editions בְּגַוָּהּ; but Norzi and J. H. Mich. have Pathach under ו as the better authorized reading. דִּכְרֹונָה, stat. emph. of דִּכְרֹון, memorandum, ὑπόμνημα, a record of anything memorable. The contents of this document follow, Ezr 6:3-5. First, the proclamation of King Cyrus in the first year of his reign: “The house of God at Jerusalem, let this house be built as a place where sacrifices are offered.” The meaning of the words following is doubtful. We translate מְסֹובְלִין וְאֻשֹּׁוחִי: and let them raise up its foundations, i.e., its foundations are to be again raised up, restored. אֻשִּׁין, foundations (Ezr 4:12); מְסֹובְלִין, part. Poel of סְבַל, to carry, to raise (not to be raised). סְבַל often stands for the Hebrew נָשָׂא, to carry, to raise up, to erect; compare the Samaritan translation of Gen 13:10 : וסבל את עגין, he lifted up his eyes. סוֹבֵל אֻשִּׁין analogous with מֹוסְדֵי ד קֹומֵם, Isa 58:12, and signifies to erect buildings upon the foundations.

(Note: The Vulgate, following a rabbinical explanation, has ponant fundamenta supportantia, which is here unsuitable. The conjecture of Bertheau, who labours, by all sorts of critical combinations of the letters in the words מְסֹובְלִין וְאֻשֹּׁוחִי, to produce the text תמנים מאה אמין אשוהי, “its foundation length 180 cubits,” is as needless as it is mistaken. The interpretation of the words in the lxx, καὶ ἔθηκεν ἔπαρμα, and Pseudo-Ezra 6, διὰ πυρός ἐνδελεχους, are nothing else than unmeaning suppositions.)

Expositors are divided as to the dimensions of the new temple, “its height 60 cubits, and its breadth 60 cubits,” Antiq. xi. 4. 6; while Solomon's temple was but 30 cubits high, and, without the side-buildings, only 20 cubits broad. We nevertheless consider the statements correct, and the text incorrupt, and explain the absence of the measure of length simply by the fact that, as far as length was concerned, the old and new temples were of equal dimensions. Solomon's temple, measured externally, inclusive of the porch and the additional building at the hinder part, was about 100 cubits long (see the ground plan in my bibl. Archaeol. Table II. fig. 1). To correspond with this length, the new temple was, according to the desire of Cyrus, to be both higher and broader, viz., 60 cubits high, and as many wide, - measurements which certainly apply to external dimensions. Zerubbabel's temple, concerning the structure of which we have no further particulars, was externally of this height and breadth. This may be inferred from the speech of King Herod in Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. 1, in which this tyrant, who desired to be famous for the magnificence of his buildings, endeavoured to gain the favour of the people for the rebuilding of the temple, which he was contemplating, by the remark that the temple built by their forefathers, on their return from the Babylonian captivity, was 60 cubits too low, - Solomon's temple having been double that height (sc. according to the height given in 2Ch 3:4, 120 cubits) - and from the fact that Herod made his temple 100 or 120 cubits high. Hence the temple of Zerubbabel, measured externally, must have been 60 cubits high; and consequently we need not diminish the breadth of 60 cubits, also given in this verse, by alterations of the text, because Herod's temple was likewise of this width, but must understand the given dimensions to relate to external height and breadth. For in Herod's temple the holy places were but 60 cubits high and 20 wide; the holy place, 40 cubits long, 20 wide, and 60 high; the holy of holies, 20 cubits long, 20 wide, and 60 high. And we may assume that the dimensions of Zerubbabel's temple preserved the same proportions, with perhaps the modification, that the internal height did not amount to 60 cubits, - an upper storey being placed above the holy place and the holy of holies, as in Herod's temple; which would make the internal height of these places amount to only about 30 or 40 cubits.

(Note: While we acknowledge it possible that the holy and most holy places, measured within, may have been only 40 cubits high, we cannot admit the objection of H. Merz, in Herzog's Realencycl. xv. p. 513, that 20 cubits of internal breadth is an inconceivable proportion to 60 cubits, this being the actual proportion in Herod's temple, as Merz himself states, p. 516, without finding it in this instance ”inconceivable.”)

In like manner must the 60 cubits of breadth be so divided, that the 5 cubits internal breadth of the side-buildings of Solomon's temple must be enlarged to 10, which, allowing 5 cubits of thickness for the walls, would make the entire building 60 cubits wide (5 + 10 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 10 + 5).

(Note: The conjecture of Merz in his above-cited article, and of Bertheau, that the dimensions of Zerubbabel's temple were double those of Solomon's, - viz. the holy and most holy places 40 cubits high and 40 wide, the upper chambers 20 cubits high, the side-chambers each 10 cubits high, and the whole building 120 cubits long, - must be rejected as erroneous, by the consideration that Herod's temple was only the length of Solomon's, viz., 100 cubits, of which the holy of holies took up 20, the holy place 40, the porch 10, the additional building behind 10, and the four walls 20. For Herod would by no means have diminished the length of his building 20, or properly 40 cubits. We also see, from the above-named dimensions, that the 60 cubits broad cannot be understood of internal breadth.)

The statement in Ezr 6:4, “three layers of great stones, and a layer of new timber,” is obscure. נִדְבָּךְ means row, layer, and stands in the Targums for the Hebrew טוּר, “used of a layer of bricks;” see Gesen. Thes. p. 311, and Levy, chald. Wörterbuch, ii. p. 93. גְּלָל אֶבֶן, stone of rolling, one that is rolled and cannot be carried, i.e., a great building stone. חֲדַת, novus, as an epithet to אָע, is remarkable, it being self-evident that new wood is generally used for a new building. The lxx translates εἷς, reading the word חֲדָה (Ezr 6:3). This statement involuntarily recalls the notice, 1Ki 6:36, that Solomon built the inner court, אֲרָזִים כְּרֻתֹת וְטוּר גָזִית טוּרֵי שְׁלשָׁה; hence Merz expresses the supposition that “this is certainly a fragment, forming the conclusion of the whole design of the building, which, like that in 1Ki 6:36, ends with the porch and the walls of the fore-court,” Thus much only is certain, that the words are not to be understood, as by Fritzsche on 1 Esdr. 6:25, as stating that the temple walls were built of “three layers of large stones, upon which was one layer of beams,” and therefore were not massive; such kind of building never being practised in the East in old times. “And let the expenses be given out of the king's house.” This is more precisely stated in Ezr 6:8 of the royal revenues on this side the river. נִפְקָא the expense (from נְפַק, Aphel, to expend), therefore the cost of building.

Ezr 6:5

“And also let the vessels ... be restored, and brought again to the temple at Jerusalem, to their place, and (thou) shalt place them in the house of God.” On the matter of this verse, comp. Ezr 1:7 and Ezr 5:14. The sing. יְהַךְ (comp. Ezr 5:5) is distributive: it (each vessel) to its place. וְתַחֵת (comp. אֲחֵת Ezr 5:15) cannot, according to the sense, be third pers. fem. (neutr.), but only second pers. imperf. Aphel: thou shalt place. None but Sheshbazzar can be addressed (Ezr 5:15), though he is not named in Ezr 6:3. The historian is evidently not giving the contents of the document word for word, but only its essential matter; hence he infers the address to Sheshbazzar from the answer of the Jewish elders (Ezr 5:15). Perhaps it was also remarked in the document, that Coresh caused the sacred vessels to be delivered to Sheshbazzar (Ezr 1:8).

Ezr 6:6-12

Acting upon the discovered edict, Darius warned the governor and royal officials on this side the Euphrates, not to hinder the building of the house of God at Jerusalem. On the contrary, they were to promote it by furnishing what was necessary for the work, and paying the expenses of the building out of the royal revenues to the elders of the Jews (Ezr 6:6-8). They were also to provide for the worship of God in this temple such animals as the priests should require for sacrifice (Ezr 6:9, Ezr 6:10), under pain of severe punishment for transgressing this command as also for any injury done to the temple (Ezr 6:11, Ezr 6:12). This decree was undoubtedly communicated to the governor in the form of a written answer to his inquiries (Ezr 6:13). Without, however, expressly stating this to be the case, as Ezr 6:1 and Ezr 4:17 would lead us to expect, the historian gives us in Ezr 6:6. the actual contents of the royal edict, and that in the form of a direct injunction to the governor and his associates on this side the river: “Now Tatnai, governor, ... be ye far from thence.” The suffix וּכְנָוָֽתְהֹון, and their associates, is indeed unsuitable to the form of an address, of which Tatnai and Shethar-Boznai are the subjects; the narrator, however, in using it, had in mind the title or introduction of the royal letter. On this matter, comp. Ezr 5:6. רָחַק and רְחֵיק, to be far from, figuratively to keep from anything, e.g., from good, Psa 53:2. מִן־תַּמָּה, from thence, from Jerusalem; in other words, trouble yourselves no longer, as, according to Ezr 5:3, you have done about what is being done there.

Ezr 6:7

“Let the work of the house of God alone.” שְׁבַק with an accusative, to leave anything, to let it go on without hindrance. “Let the Pechah of the Jews (Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel) and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place.” The לְ to לְשָׂבֵי introduces a second subject with special emphasis: And as far as regards the elders of the Jews, i.e., the Pechah, and especially the elders.

Ezr 6:8

“And a decree is (hereby) made by me, what ye shall do to these elders of the Jews, i.e., how you shall behave towards them (עִם עֲבַד = עִם עָשָׂה, Gen 24:12.), to build this house, i.e., that this house may be built: namely, (ו expl.) of the royal moneys, of the custom (מִדָּה, see remarks on Ezr 4:13) on this side the river, let expenses (the cost of building) be punctually given to these men, that there be no hindrance.” לְבַטָּלָא דִּי־לָא, that there be no cessation or leisure from work, i.e., that the work is not to be discontinued. On the construction of the לָא with the following infinitive, comp. Dan 6:9. The Vulgate renders the sense correctly by ne impediatur opus.

Ezr 6:9

“And what is needful, both young bullocks and rams and lambs, for the burnt-offerings of the God of leaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests at Jerusalem (i.e., as the priests shall require for the service of God), let it be given them day by day without fail.” מָה is joined with the plur. fem. of the partic. חַשְׁחָן, and is defined by the enumeration which follows. מְשַׁח, properly the anointing, then oil as the means of anointing. On לֶהֱוֵא and לֶהֱוֹן, see remarks on Ezr 4:12. שָׁלוּ דִּי־לָא, that there be no failure.

Ezr 6:10

The end the king had in view in all this follows: “That they (the priests) may offer sacrifices well-pleasing to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons.” נִיחֹוחִין (comp. Dan 2:46) are sacrifices agreeable to God, נִיחֹוחִין רֵיחַ (Lev 1:9, Lev 1:13, and elsewhere), i.e., sacrifices pleasing to God. Cyrus had commanded the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, because he acknowledged the God of Israel to be the God of heaven, who had given him the kingdoms of the earth (Ezr 1:2). Darius was treading in his footsteps by also owning the God of the Jews as the God of heaven, and desiring that the blessing of this God might rest upon himself and his dynasty. Such an acknowledgment it was possible for the Persian kings to make without a renunciation of their polytheism. They could honour Jahve as a mighty, nay, as the mightiest God of heaven, without being unfaithful to the gods of their fathers; while the Jews could also, in the interest of their own welfare, pray and offer sacrifices in the temple of the Lord for the life of the king to whom God had caused them to be subject (comp. Jer 29:7). Accordingly we find that in after times sacrifices were regularly offered for the king on appointed days: comp. 1 Macc. 7:33, 12:11; 2 Macc. 3:35, 13:23; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 2. 5, and elsewhere.

Ezr 6:11

To inculcate obedience to his command, Darius threatens to punish its transgression with death: “If any one alters this command, let a beam be torn from his house, and let him be fastened hanging thereon.” To alter a command means to transgress or abolish it. אָע, a piece of wood, a beam. זְקִיף, raised on high, is in Syriac the usual word for crucified, and is to be so understood here. מְחָא, to strike, with עַל, strike upon, fasten to, nail to. This kind of capital punishment was customary among the Assyrians (Diod. Sic. ii. 1), the ancient Persians, and many other nations, but seems to have been executed in different manners among different people. Among the Assyrians it generally consisted in the impalement of the delinquent upon a sharp strong wooden post; comp. Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 355, and Nineveh and its Remains, p. 379, with the illustration fig. 58. According to Herod. iii. 159, Darius impaled as many as 3000 Babylonians after the capture of their city (ἀνεσκολόπισε). Crucifixion proper, however, i.e., nailing to a cross, also occurred among the Persians; it was, however, practised by nailing the body of the criminal to a cross after decapitation; see the passages from Herodotus in Brissonii de regio Persarum princip. l. ii. c. 215. “And let his house be made a dunghill.” See remarks on Dan 2:5 and 2Ki 10:27.

Ezr 6:12

Finally, Darius adds the threat: “The God who has caused His name to dwell there, destroy every king and (every) people that shall stretch forth the hand to alter (this command), to destroy this house of God at Jerusalem.” The expression, “the God who has caused His name to dwell there,” is indeed specifically Israelitish (comp. Deu 12:11; Deu 14:23; Jer 7:12; Neh 1:9), and therefore undoubtedly originated with the Jewish historian; but the matter itself, the wish that God Himself would destroy him who should injure His temple, recalls the close of the inscription of Bisitun, wherein the judgments of Ahuramazda are imprecated upon him who should dare to injure the image and inscription, and his blessing invoked upon him who should respect them (Berth.).