I also issue an order
that whoever alters this decree shall have a beam removed from his house, and
he shall be impaled on it and his house confiscated. And may the God who has
caused his name to live there overthrow the king of any people who dares to
defy this and destroy that Temple of God in Jerusalem! I, Darius, have issued
this order. Let it be punctiliously obeyed! (Ezra 6:11-12 |
1985 JPS Tanakh)
11–12 A
curse is pronounced upon anyone who changes the decree of Darius. Verse 11 has
no curse formula, but does state that the punishment for the transgression
would be impalement after a beam is pulled out of the house of the guilty and
planted in the ground. Impalement was a well-known kind of punishment in the
ancient Near East for grave offences. One side 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. Dunghill. The
meaning of this word is uncertain. Brockington wants to derive it from the
Arab, wly, which has inter alia the meaning “the right to
succession to property.” It may mean then “confiscate,” but this is uncertain.
In v. 12 we have a curse formula. The curse formula was
used throughout ancient Near Eastern history to protect what was regarded as
precious, e.g., the sarcophagus of a king. It was also used to protect a
treaty. The overturning of a king meant the overturning of his throne, as we
know from the curse formula.18 In the Bagistan Inscription Darius
invoked the hostility of Ahuramazda against anyone who would destroy the
inscription. Scholars refer to the Deuteronomistic language of v. 12 (lit. “May
the God whose name lives there …”) as proof that this could not have been used
by Darius. As we have already seen, the sacrificial terminology used by Darius
might have been inspired by the Jews. It is possible that we have here the same
phenomenon. In the last part of v. 12 the seriousness of the command of Darius
is again underlined. It must be carried out immediately.(F. Charles Fensham, The
Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 90-91)
11. Any man that alters this command];
“frustrate” (BDB.) is scarcely justifiable; the idea is not to punish the one
who interferes with the execution of the decree, but the one who would venture
to change its terms. Berth. interprets in the sense of “transgress” or
“violate.” The punishment will be twofold; the culprit will be impaled on a
beam or stake pulled from his own house, and the house will be made a ruin. The
impalement was a Semitic method of execution, and, as Sieg. says, to be
distinguished from the Roman crucifixion. Sieg. claims that impalement existed
among the Hebrews, citing Nu. 25:4, 2 S. 21:6, 9. BDB. says correctly that the
method of execution was uncertain. Herod. testifies to the custom among the
Assyrians (iii, 159). The words may be rendered, “let him be lifted
up and stuck upon it” (the beam). The punishment has quite a different turn in
Esd. 6:31, let a beam be pulled from his
own house, and let him be hung thereon, and his property shall become the
king’s. That has a more modern and less Oriental note.—12. This verse has been generally discredited. Esd. has the
original text, if we may judge by inherent fitness, thus: and the Lord, whose name is called there, shall annihilate all kings
and the nation who stretches forth his hand to hinder or to harm that house of
the Lord which is in Jerusalem. The writer has in mind the petty neighbours
of Judah, who had shown marked hostility to the Jews, and who are now warned
that Yahweh himself shall do them harm if they bar the progress of the temple.
As the king had sought the favour of Yahweh for his own house (v. 10), so he
naturally invokes his displeasure upon all who interfere with the restoration
of his cult. (Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [International Critical Commentary; New York:
Scribner, 1913], 146-47)
6:11.
punishment for disobedience. It is common for treaties
and royal decrees to end with a curse or clause threatening punishment for
disobedience to the stipulations of the document. It would be possible to
compare Joshua’s curse on the man who would rebuild Jericho in Joshua 6:26 and
the curse on any prince who replaces the gate constructed by King Azitawada of
Karatepe with this injunction. Such a statement is also found in the epilogue
to the Code of Hammurabi, charging future rulers to provide justice or face a
curse from the gods. The punishment of impalement is depicted in Assyrian
Lachish reliefs and mentioned in a number of royal archives. The practice was
to impale the corpse of the executed victim on a pointed stake in public view.
Impalement is known in Persia, for instance in Amestris’s execution of Inaros
(leader of a Libyan revolt) during the reign of her son, Artaxerxes. The victim
was thus denied proper burial, as the birds and insects devoured the remains.
One curse used by Darius in his inscriptions is: “If you should blot out these
words, may Ahura Mazda slay you and your house be destroyed,” while another
says “What you make, may Ahura Mazda pull down.”
6:12.
curse in the name of local god. Since many of the peoples
of the ancient world believed that gods were localized, that is, tied to
particular places and peoples, it would be appropriate that events within that
divine “jurisdiction” should be handled by the local deity. (Victor Harold
Matthew, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background:
Commentary on the Old Testament [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
2000])
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
