Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 1:2
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah.
2. The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth ] R.V. all the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of heaven, given me. More correctly, (1) bringing out the emphasis implied by the position of the words in the original; (2) showing more accurately the usage of the Divine name.
The acknowledgment that all earthly sway is derived from Heavenly authority forms the basis of the decree. ‘All the kingdoms of the earth’, the universality of the mission, with which Cyrus is divinely entrusted, justifies his action in dealing with the fortunes of a part.
The Lord God of heaven ] literally ‘Jahveh (i.e. Jehovah), the God of heaven’. This use of the sacred name of the God of the Jews in the decree of Cyrus gives occasion to the question, whether Cyrus knew, and, if he knew, believed in and worshipped the God of the Jews.
Commentators generally used to hold this view. This was not unnatural. For (1) they considered these verses to reproduce verbatim the decree of Cyrus: (2) they very generally supposed that Cyrus, being a Persian, was also a monotheist, who favoured the Jews on account of their monotheism, and saw in Jahveh a local representation of the One God that he adored: (3) they accepted and reproduced the statement of Josephus that Cyrus, having seen in Isaiah the Jewish prophecies relating to himself, recognised their fulfilment, and worshipped and believed in Jahveh: (4) they derived support for their view from analogous utterances of allegiance to the God of the Jews recorded of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:2-37; Dan 6:25-28.
But (1) it is evident that the edict in these verses is recorded in the words of the Hebrew translator and presented in its Jewish form. (2) Recent discoveries have shown that Cyrus was no monotheist. His own inscriptions testify to his having been a polytheist to the last. He acted as High Priest towards the great deities of Babylon. He constantly styles himself and his son Cambyses the worshippers of Nebo and Merodach. (3) The policy of the victorious monarch was to include among the lesser divinities of his Pantheon the gods of the subjugated countries, and to secure the favour of those who presided over different territories. The deities of whom he avowed himself the servant were ( a) those of his own land, who had protected him in his career of victory, ( b) those of the conquered kingdoms who had transferred to him their favour, and had thus permitted him to be victorious.
Whether Josephus’ story that Cyrus had seen the prophecies of Isaiah is correct or not we cannot say. There is nothing in it intrinsically impossible. On the other hand, it was a very probable hypothesis to suggest itself to the mind of a Jew by which to account for Cyrus’ benevolent action towards his race (see note on Ezr 1:4).
When Cyrus here, in his edict, made use of a Divine name, he ( a) either referred to one of the great gods whom he especially worshipped, e.g. Merodach, Nebo, Bel, for which the Hebrew version has reverently substituted the name of Jahveh: ( b) or actually referred by name to Jahveh, as the god of the people, in whose favour the edict was promulgated.
The author of the book presupposes the acquaintance of heathen people with the popular use of the sacred Name which the Jew of later days was forbidden to pronounce.
God of heaven ] A title, found also in Darius’ letter, chap. Ezr 6:9-10, and in Artaxerxes’ letter, Ezr 7:12; Ezr 7:21; Ezr 7:23. It is found in the Jewish reply reported in Tattenai’s letter Ezr 5:12. In Nehemiah it occurs Ezr 1:4-5, Ezr 2:4; Ezr 2:20; cf. Psa 136:26; Dan 2:18-19; Dan 2:44. Like the similar phrase ‘the God of heaven and earth’ (Ezr 5:11) the title implies boundless sovereignty. For ‘Heaven’ combined the ideas of infinite space, cf. 1Ki 8:27; Jer 31:37, the forces of nature, cf. Psa 19:1, and the dwelling-place of Spiritual beings (cf. Isa 66:1; 1Ki 8:30; Psa 2:4; Psa 115:3.)
given me ] An expression of pious humility on the part of Cyrus in acknowledgment of the fact that he had won by his sword, and not inherited, the kingdoms of his empire.
he ] Very emphatic in the original (cf. LXX. . Vulgate ipse).
hath charged me ] The Divine mission which Cyrus probably unconsciously discharged is described in Isa 44:24-28; Isa 45:1-13. The view that he was shown these prophecies and was influenced by reading them has been already referred to. Some have also supposed that Cyrus was actuated by statements of Daniel as to his duty towards the chosen people. For neither view is there any historical evidence.
a house ] i.e. a Temple.
at Jerusalem which is in Judah ] with geographical detail, Judah being a small and obscure province, unknown probably in many quarters of the great Persian Empire.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Lord God of heaven – Or, Yahweh, the God of heaven. In the original Persian, the document probably ran – Ormazd, the God of heaven. The Hebrew transcript took Yahweh as the equivalent of Ormazd. The Persian notion of a single Supreme Being – Ahura-Mazda, the much-knowing, or much-bestowing Spirit – did, in fact, approach nearly to the Jewish conception of Yahweh.
Hath given me all the kingdoms … – There is a similar formula at the commencement of the great majority of Persian inscriptions.
He hath charged me to build him an house – It is a reasonable conjecture that, on the capture of Babylon, Cyrus was brought into contact with Daniel, who drew his attention to the prophecy of Isaiah Isa 44:28; and that Cyrus accepted this prophecy as a charge to rebuild the temple.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. The Lord God of heaven] It is not unworthy of remark, that in all the books written prior to the captivity, Jehovah is called The Lord of Hosts; but in all the books written after the captivity, as 2 Chronicles, Ezra Nehemiah, and Daniel, he is styled The God of Heaven. The words however have the same meaning.
All the kingdoms of the earth. At this time the empire of the Medo-Persians was very extensive: according to ancient writers, Cyrus, at this time, reigned over the Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Armenians, Syrians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Lydians Phoenicians, Babylonians, Bactrians, Indians, Saci, Cilicians, Paphlagonians, Moriandrians, and many others. His empire extended on the EAST, to the Red Sea; on the NORTH, to the Euxine Sea; on the WEST, to the island of Cyprus and Egypt; and on the SOUTH, to Ethiopia.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All the kingdoms of the earth, to wit, in those parts of the world; all that vast empire formerly under the Assyrians and Babylonians. The gift of which he ascribes to the great God, either by virtue of those common notions which were in the minds of the heathens, who though they worshipped idols, yet many of them did acknowledge a true and supreme God; or by that clear and express prophecy of Isaiah concerning him, Isa 44:28; 45:1,13, so long before he was born; which prophecy the Jews had doubtlessly showed him, which also carried a great evidence with it, especially to him, who was so highly gratified and encouraged by it; or by a special illumination which God vouchsafed to him, as he did to Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and some others of the heathen princes.
He hath charged me; either by his prophets, Isaiah formerly, or Daniel now; or by an inward suggestion to his mind.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. The Lord God of heaven hath givenme all the kingdoms of the earthThough this is in the Orientalstyle of hyperbole (see also Da4:1), it was literally true that the Persian empire was thegreatest ruling power in the world at that time.
he hath charged me to buildhim an house at JerusalemThe phraseology of this proclamation,independently of the express testimony of JOSEPHUS,affords indisputable evidence that Cyrus had seen (probably throughmeans of Daniel, his venerable prime minister and favorite) thoseprophecies in which, two hundred years before he was born, his name,his victorious career, and the important services he should render tothe Jews were distinctly foretold (Isa 44:28;Isa 46:1-4). The existenceof predictions so remarkable led him to acknowledge that all hiskingdoms were gifts bestowed on him by “the Lord God of heaven,”and prompted him to fulfil the duty which had been laid upon him longbefore his birth. This was the source and origin of the great favorhe showed to the Jews. The proclamation, though issued “in thefirst year of Cyrus” [Ezr 1:1],did not take effect till the year following.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia,…. Of whom, and this edict of his, Isaiah prophesied two hundred years before he was born,
Isa 44:28
the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; many he had conquered before he took Babylon, and then the whole Babylonian monarchy fell into his hands. Herodotus l says, he ruled over all Asia; Xenophon m reckons up many nations that were under his government, Medes and Hyrcanians, Syrians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, both the Phrygians, Carians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Bactrians, Indians, Cilicians, Sacae or Scythians, Paphlagonians, Megadinians, and many other nations, the Greeks inhabiting Asia, and the Cyprians, and Egyptians; and elsewhere he says n, the borders of his kingdom were, to the east the Red sea, to the north the Euxine Pontus, to the west Cyprus and Egypt, and to the south Ethiopia. And the possession of these kingdoms Cyrus ascribes, not to his own martial courage and skill, but to the providence and disposal of the God of heaven, which he seems to have had some notion of:
and he hath charged me to build an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah; in the prophecy of Isaiah, which, according to Josephus o, he had seen and read, and believed it to be a charge upon him, and a command unto him to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem; however, to give leave for the rebuilding of it, and to encourage to it, and assist in it; an Arabic writer says p, that Cyrus married a sister of Zerubbabel, and that it was at her request that the Jews had leave to return; which is merely fabulous.
l Clio, sive, l. 1. c. 130. So Sallust, Bell. Catalin. p. 2. m Cyropaedia, l. 1. in principio. n L. 8. c. 48. o Antiqu. l. 11. c. 1. sect. 1, 2. p Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. Dyn. 5. p. 82.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2. Thus saith Cyrus “There are probably few things more surprising to the intelligent student of Scripture than the religious tone of the proclamations which are assigned in Ezra to Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Compare Ezr 6:8-10; Ezr 7:12; Ezr 7:23. Two things are especially remarkable in these passages first, the strongly marked religious character, very unusual in heathen documents; and, secondly, the distinctness with which they assert the unity of God, and thence identify the God of the Persians with the God of the Jews. Both these points receive abundant illustration from the Persian cuneiform inscriptions, in which the recognition of a single supreme God Ormazd and the clear and constant ascription to him of the direction of all mundane affairs, are leading features. In all the Persian monuments of any length, the monarch makes the acknowledgment that ‘Ormazd has bestowed on him his empire.’ Every success that is gained is ‘by the grace of Ormazd.’ The name of Ormazd occurs in almost every other paragraph of the Behistun inscription. No public monuments with such a pervading religious spirit have ever been discovered among the records of any heathen nation as those of the Persian kings; and through them all, down to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, the name of Ormazd stands alone and unapproachable as that of the Supreme Lord of earth and heaven.” RAWLINSON, Hist. Evid., p. 147.
The same distinguished writer says in another work: “The conquest of Babylon by Persia was practically, if not a death-blow, at least a severe wound, to that sensuous idol-worship which had for more than twenty centuries been the almost universal religion in the countries between the Mediterranean and the Zagros mountain range. That religion never recovered itself was never reinstated. It survived, a longer or shorter time, in places. To a slight extent it corrupted Zoroastrianism; but, on the whole, from the date of the fall of Babylon it declined. ‘Bel bowed down, Nebo stooped,’ (Isa 46:1😉 ‘Merodach was broken in pieces;’ judgment was done upon the Babylonian graven images, (Jer 50:2; Jer 51:52😉 and the system of which they formed a necessary part having once fallen from its proud pre-eminence, gradually decayed and vanished.
“Parallel with the decline of the old Semitic idolatry was the advance of its direct antithesis, pure spiritual monotheism. The same blow which laid the Babylonian religion in the dust struck off the fetters from Judaism. Purified and refined by the precious discipline of adversity, the Jewish system which Cyrus, feeling towards it a natural sympathy, protected, upheld, and replaced in its proper locality, advanced from this time in influence and importance, leavening little by little the foul mass of superstition and impurity which came in contact with it. Proselytism grew more common. The Jews spread themselves wider. The return from the captivity, which Cyrus authorized almost immediately after the capture of Babylon, is the starting-point from which we may trace a gradual enlightenment of the heathen world by the dissemination of Jewish beliefs and practices; such dissemination being greatly helped by the high estimation in which the Jewish system was held by the civil authority, both while the empire of the Persians lasted, and when power passed to the Macedonians.” Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii, p. 385.
Lord God of heaven The writer uses Jehovah, “LORD,” instead of Ormazd, in this edict. A common formula in the Persian inscriptions is, “The great God Ormazd, who gave both earth and heaven to mankind.”
Given me all the kingdoms In the Behistun inscription, Darius says, “Ormazd granted me the empire. By the grace of Ormazd I hold this empire.”
Charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem Bertheau thinks that our author entirely recast Cyrus’s edict from his own theocratic standpoint. The king’s proclamation probably contained abundant references to Ormazd as the God by whose grace and direction he received and administered the kingdom, and our historian, acknowledging no other God than Jehovah, translated the edict in the form we now have it, substituting Jehovah for Ormazd, and otherwise altering it to suit his own religious ideas. This supposition may be partly true. Cyrus did not issue his proclamation in the Hebrew language, and, probably after the manner of the Persian inscriptions, he used the name of Ormazd and not Jehovah, and in these respects our author may have modified the phraseology in his translation; but, granting even this, it is not only possible, but highly probable, that, as Josephus and the older expositors hold, Cyrus had been shown Isaiah’s prophecies, where Jehovah says of Cyrus, “He shall say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Isa 44:28. Nor is it in the least improbable that Daniel, who stood high in the court of Babylon under Darius and Cyrus, (Dan 6:2; Dan 6:28,) advised Cyrus of Isaiah’s prophecies, and also had something to do with the drawing up of this proclamation. The king regarded these prophecies as a divine charge to build the temple.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ver. 2. The Lord God of heaven It is observable, that God, in the former books, is called the Lord of hosts; but in the last of Chronicles, in this, in Nehemiah, and Daniel 1.e. in the books written after the captivity, he is styled the God of heaven, and not Lord of hosts, though they are both used in the same sense.
REFLECTIONS.The seventy years of captivity now drew to their period; and the drooping hope of God’s captive people began to revive, on the conquest of their oppressors by Cyrus, so long before prophesied of by name to be their deliverer: nor did he disappoint their expectations; for, no sooner had he subdued the Babylonish empire, than he issued out an edict for the restoration of the Jewish people. He was convinced, as appears by the proclamation, of the glory of Israel’s God, attributed his great successes to his blessing, and diligently sought to correspond with his orders. The Lord stirred up his spirit; he looked upon himself as obliged to build his temple, according to the prophetic word; and therefore, while he gives a general leave to the Jews to return, he enjoins his subjects everywhere to assist them; that they who were poor might be furnished with necessaries for their journey, and a comfortable settlement when they came into their own land. And hereto especially the richer Jews, who chose to continue still in Babylon, were called to contribute; and, if they went not themselves, to help their brethren, and send their free-will offerings to Jerusalem. Note; (1.) Not one jot or tittle of God’s word can fail; though the accomplishment of his promises seems long, it is sure at the appointed time. (2.) When the length of our sufferings is near making us despair of their termination, God causes light to rise up in the darkness, and there is hope in the end. (3.) The greatest kings are under the divine government; God has access to the spirits of men, and can incline them to serve his purposes. (4.) Whatever good desire is stirred up in our hearts, we must acknowledge it to be the gift of God. (5.) God is the disposer of the kingdoms of the world: they are truly wise and great who see his hand in their prosperity, and desire to advance his glory in the station to which he has exalted them. (6.) They who have a love for the temple, will gladly open their hand in liberal contribution for the furtherance of so good a work.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
I think it is probable that some of the Lord’s hidden ones might have painted out to Cyrus what the Lord’s prophet Isaiah had predicted concerning him. But that Cyrus knew nothing of the Lord in a way of grace, though the Lord stirred up his mind to those acts of clemency, seems decided, Isa 45:4-5 . And it is possible from the awful end of Belshazzar, who died in the very act of profaning the holy vessels of the temple, that Cyrus sent away those sacred things from a dread and fear.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah.
Ver. 2. The Lord God of heaven hath given me ] This good language Cyrus might well learn of Daniel, who flourished under his reign, Dan 5:28 , and probably acquainted him with the prophecies that went before of him, Isa 44:28 ; Isa 45:1 . Jaddeus, the high priest, did the like, many years after, to Alexander the Great; who not only thereupon spared the Jews, but highly honoured them, as Josephus relateth. Here, then, we see this potentate of the earth giveth unto the Lord the glory due unto his name, Psa 29:1-2 , acknowledging him the blessed and only potentate, 1Ti 6:16 . One that both is in the heavens, and also doeth whatsoever he pleaseth, both in heaven and in earth, Psa 115:3 ; Psa 135:6 . The God of heaven, saith he, hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth. This was far better than that of Alexander the Great, whom, when Lysippus had pictured looking up to heaven with this posy, Iupiter asserui terrain mihi, tu assere ccelum, &c., Alexander was so delighted with it, that he proclaimed that none should take his picture but Lysippus (Plin. lib. 6, cap. 16).
All the kingdoms of the earth
And he hath charged me
To build him an house at Jerusalem
Jerusalem, which is in Judah
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 1:2-4
2Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him! Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel; He is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4Every survivor, at whatever place he may live, let the men of that place support him with silver and gold, with goods and cattle, together with a freewill offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.’
Ezr 1:2 The LORD See Special Topic: Names for Deity .
The LORD, the God of Heaven This title for the universal God of creation was first used by Abraham in Gen 24:3; Gen 24:7 and later by Jonah (Ezr 1:9). It was a Persian title used of the Zoroastrian, good high-god, Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd), but in this context it was obviously influenced by Jewish usages referring to YHWH. This proclamation is Jewish, but I believe that this can be explained by (1) the prophesies of Isaiah shown to Cyrus by Daniel and (2) Jewish consultation in writing this edict concerning YHWH.
has given me all of the kingdoms of the earth The VERB (BDB 678, KB 733) is a Qal PERFECT. From the Cyrus Cylinder (ANET p. 315-16), it is known that Cyrus used religion as a political tool to instill loyalty of that people group. The thing he did for the Jews in the name of their God, he did for all the exiled peoples in the names of their gods. Cyrus’ personal beliefs are not the issue.
Marduk is the high-god of the Babylonian pantheon, also called Bel (lord). He was the patron god of the city of Babylon. Cyrus consolidated his reign over the ancient Near East by appeasing each and every people group.
The reason Cyrus took the capital of Babylon without a fight was because the last neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, became infatuated with the moon god, Zin, who was worshiped in Ur and Haran. His mother was Zin’s high priestess at Tema. Nabonidus was absent from Babylon for over ten years on military campaigns near Tema (i.e., Egypt). The priests of Marduk at Babylon saw Cyrus as a liberator and faithful follower of Marduk.
He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem This VERB (BDB 823, KB 955, Qal PERFECT) is used regularly of God appointing someone to a divine task (cf. Num 27:16; 2Ch 23:14).
Cyrus’ understanding of a divine task may have come from his knowledge of Isaiah’s prophecies (cf. Isa 41:2; Isa 41:25; Isa 44:28 to Isa 45:7, Isa 45:12-13; Isa 46:11; Isa 48:15).
Ezr 1:3 whoever Cyrus allowed any and all Jews to return. History tells us about 50,000 did. The question is how many were left in Babylon? Did the majority of Jews return? Ancient records show that large numbers of Jewish people remained in many cities of Babylon. The ones who returned were the most zealous for their ancestral faith!
may his God be with him This is the first of three Qal JUSSIVES:
1. May his God be with him (BDB 224, KB 243)
2. Let him go up to Jerusalem (BDB 748, KB 828)
3. Rebuild the house of the LORD (BDB 124, KB 139)
This phrase may give a hint as to (1) how difficult it was to leave a settled lifestyle and travel a long and dangerous route to Judah or (2) the character of Cyrus himself, to whom all ancient historians refer in gracious, positive ways.
the house of the LORD This phrase refers to the temple of YHWH on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem.
He is the God who is in Jerusalem The ancient Near Eastern people believed that every nation had a god and that god was limited to the national boundaries. This concept is seen in the story of Naaman, the Syrian general wanting soil from Israel on which to worship YHWH (cf. 2Ki 5:17). The Jews were surprised that YHWH left the temple and traveled east to be with the Jewish exiles in Babylon (cf. Eze 10:18; Eze 11:23-25).
Cyrus, in Ezr 1:2, proclaims YHWH as the God of all the earth, but his comment in Ezr 1:3 shows he still saw Him as Israel’s deity only!
This phrase could be a parenthesis (He is God!) which is in Jerusalem, cf. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, p. 469). By dividing the phrase this way, it emphasizes monotheism!
Ezr 1:4 every survivor In this context God chooses only some (those with a faithful zeal) of the remnant (survivors of the Exile) to return to Judah. As we have seen before in this chapter, themes from Israel’s past recur (Ezr 1:6). God is reducing the numbers so that He can show His power, provision, and care (e.g., Gideon, Judges 6-7).
SPECIAL TOPIC: The Faithful Remnant
at whatever place he may live All the Jewish people were allowed by Cyrus’ edict in 538 B.C. to return home, those who were exiled by Assyria (722 B.C.) and those who were exiled by Babylon (605, 596, 586, 582 B.C.). We know from history that many of the southern tribes of Judah returned (Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and most of Levi), but only a few from the northern tribes of Israel, which had been exiled to Media.
edia.
let the men of that place support him The support for the return trip was supplied by neighbors and kin. These same ones, along with the Persian treasury, helped rebuild the temple.
There is a parallel between the Egyptians of the Exodus giving gold and silver and treasure to the departing Jews to help them build their tabernacle (cf. Exo 12:35-36). Isaiah depicts the return from exile as a new exodus (e.g., Isa 41:17-18; Isa 43:14-17; Isa 48:20-21).
This fits the prediction of Hag 2:7-8 that God will allow and motivate the nations to supply His temple’s needs!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
God of heaven. See note on 2Ch 36:23. Appropriate in the mouth of Cyrus, and in contrast with all heathen inscriptions.
hath given me. The son of Astyages (the venerable king = Ahasuerus) and Esther. Trained by Mordecai and Nehemiah, he was brought up in the knowledge of God and His Word.
charged me to build. Compare Isa 44:24-28; Isa 45:1-6, Isa 45:13.
an house. This proclamation put first, as it is the great subject treated of by Ezra.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Lord God: 1Ki 8:27, 2Ch 2:12, Isa 66:1, Jer 10:11, Dan 2:21, Dan 2:28, Dan 5:23
hath given: Jer 27:6, Jer 27:7, Dan 2:37, Dan 2:38, Dan 4:25, Dan 4:32, Dan 5:19-21
all the kingdoms: According to the testimony of ancient writers, Cyrus, at this time, reigned over the Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Syrians, Assyrians, Indians, etc., and all lesser Asia.
he hath charged: Isa 44:26-28, Isa 45:1, Isa 45:12, Isa 45:13
Reciprocal: Gen 24:7 – Lord Deu 2:24 – behold Ezr 5:8 – the great God Ezr 5:15 – let the house Est 1:3 – of Persia Psa 145:6 – And men Isa 14:17 – opened not the house of his prisoners Isa 40:9 – General Isa 41:2 – gave Isa 41:25 – shall he call Isa 41:27 – I will give Isa 44:8 – ye are Isa 45:3 – that thou Isa 45:5 – I girded thee Isa 46:11 – the man Isa 49:23 – kings Jer 25:12 – when Jer 27:5 – and have Jer 29:10 – after Jer 50:9 – I will raise Dan 6:25 – king Dan 6:28 – and in Dan 8:3 – one Dan 10:1 – Cyrus Jon 1:9 – the God Mic 4:10 – there shalt Rev 16:11 – the God
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 1:2. The Lord God of heaven It is observable, says Mr. Locke, that God, in the former books, is called the Lord of hosts, but in the last of Chronicles, in this, in Nehemiah, and Daniel, that is, in the books written after the captivity, he is styled the God of heaven, and not Lord of hosts, though the sense of both expressions is the same. Probably those who showed or interpreted to Cyrus the prophecy of Isaiah concerning himself, acquainted him that the God, whose prophet Isaiah was, was worshipped by the Jews, not as the God of their particular country merely, but as the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. And Cyrus, though it is likely he did not entirely forsake the religion of his country, yet might acknowledge and revere Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, as the true and great God. For, though the Jews were strictly commanded to worship one God, and not to admit another into fellowship with him, yet many in the heathen nations, while they worshipped idols, acknowledged a true and supreme God, and often worshipped the gods of other countries in common with their own. Hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth All in those parts of the world; all those large dominions which the Assyrians and Babylonians had possessed: the eastern kings were wont, as they are still, to speak magnificently of their dominions. The gift of these Cyrus ascribes to the great God, through the above-mentioned prophecy of Isaiah concerning him, which must have carried a great evidence with it, especially to him who was so highly encouraged by it; or through some special illumination which God had vouchsafed to him, as he had to Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and some other heathen princes. And he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem So he might conclude from the prophecy just referred to, (Isa 45:13,) where God says of Cyrus, He shall build my city, of which the temple was a principal part, and more plainly from Isa 44:28, He shall say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me {d} all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah.
(d) For he was chief monarch and had many nations under his dominion, which this heathen king confesses to have received from the living God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
THE ROYAL EDICT
Ezr 1:2-4; Ezr 1:7-11
IT has been asserted that the Scripture version of the edict of Cyrus cannot be an exact rendering of the original, because it ascribes to the Great King some knowledge of the God of the Jews, and even some faith in Him. For this reason it has been suggested that either the chronicler or some previous writer who translated the decree out of the Persian language, in which of course it must have been first issued, inserted the word Jehovah in place of the name of Ormazd or some other god worshipped by Cyrus, and shaped the phrases generally so as to commend them to Jewish sympathies. Are we driven to this position? We have seen that when Cyrus got possession of Babylon he had no scruple in claiming the indigenous divinity Merodach as his god. Is it not then entirely in accordance with his eclectic habit of mind-not to mention his diplomatic art in humouring the prejudices of his subjects-that he should draw up a decree in which he designed to show favour to an exceptionally religious people in language that would be congenial to them? Like most men of higher intelligence even among polytheistic races, Cyrus may have believed in one supreme Deity, who, he may have supposed, was worshipped under different names by different nations. The final clause of Ezr 1:3 is misleading, as it stands in the Authorised Version; and the Revisers, with their habitual caution, have only so far improved upon it as to permit the preferable rendering to appear in the margin, where we have generally to look for the opinions of the more scholarly as well as the more courageous critics. Yet even the Authorised Version renders the same words correctly in the very next verse. There is no occasion to print the clause, “He is the God,” as a parenthesis, so as to make Cyrus inform the world that Jehovah is the one real divinity. The more probable rendering in idea is also the more simple one in construction. Removing the superfluous brackets, we read right on: “He is the God which is in Jerusalem”-i.e., we have an indication who “Jehovah” is for the information of strangers to the Jews who may read the edict. With this understanding let us examine the leading items of the decree. It was proclaimed by the mouth of kings messengers, and it was also preserved in writing, so that possibly the original inscription may be recovered from among the burnt clay records that lie buried in the ruins of Persian cities. The edict is addressed to the whole empire. Cyrus announces to all his subjects his intention to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. Then he specialises the aim of the decree by granting a license to the Jews to go up to Jerusalem and undertake this work. It is a perfectly free offer to all Jews in exile without exception. “Who is there among you” – i.e., among all the subjects of the empire-“of all His” (Jehovahs) “people, his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem,” etc. In particular we may observe the following points:-
First, Cyrus begins by acknowledging that “the God of Heaven”-whom he identifies with the Hebrew “Jehovah,” in our version of the edict-has given him his dominions. It is possible to treat this introductory sentence as a superficial formula; but there is no reason for so ungenerous an estimate of it. If we accept the words in their honest intention, we must see in them a recognition of the hand of God in the setting up of kingdoms. Two opposite kinds of experience awaken in men a conviction of Gods presence in their lives-great calamities and great successes. The influence of the latter experience is not so often acknowledged as that of the former, but probably it is equally effective, at least in extreme instances. There is something awful in the success of a world-conqueror. When the man is a destroyer, spreading havoc and misery, like Attila, he regards himself as a “Scourge of God”; and when he is a vulgar impersonation of selfish greed like Napoleon, he thinks he is swept on by a mighty tide of destiny. In both instances the results are too stupendous to be attributed to purely human energy. But in the case of Cyrus, an enlightened and noble-minded hero is bringing liberty and favour to the victims of a degraded tyranny, so that he is hailed by some of them as the Anointed King raised up by their God, and therefore it is not unnatural that he should ascribe his brilliant destiny to a Divine influence.
Secondly, Cyrus actually asserts that God has charged him to build Him a temple at Jerusalem. Again, this may be the language of princely courtesy; but the noble spirit which breathes through the decree encourages us to take a higher view of it, and to refrain from reading minimising comments between the lines. It is probable that those eager, patriotic Jews who had got the ear of Cyrus-or he would never have issued such a decree as this – may have urged their suit by showing him predictions like that of Isa 44:28, in which God describes Himself as One “that saith of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure; even saying of Jerusalem, Let her be built; and, Let the foundations of the temple be laid.” Possibly Cyrus is here alluding to that very utterance, although, as we have seen, Josephus is incorrect in inserting a reference to Hebrew prophecy in the very words of the decree, and in suggesting that the fulfilment of prophecy was the chief end Cyrus had in view.
It is a historical fact that Cyrus did help to build the temple; he supplied funds from the public treasury for that object. We can understand his motives for doing so. If he desired the favour of the God of the Jews, he would naturally aid in restoring His shrine. Nabonidas had fallen, it was thought, through neglecting the worship of the gods. Cyrus seems to have been anxious to avoid this mistake, and to have given attention to the cultivation of their favour. If, as seems likely, some of the Jews had impressed his mind with the greatness of Jehovah, he might have desired to promote the building of the temple at Jerusalem with exceptional assiduity.
In the next place, Cyrus gives the captive Jews leave to go up to Jerusalem. The edict is purely permissive. There is to be no expulsion of Jews from Babylon. Those exiles who did not choose to avail themselves of the boon so eagerly coveted by the patriotic few were allowed to remain unmolested in peace and prosperity. The restoration was voluntary. This free character of the movement would give it a vigour quite out of proportion to the numbers of those who took part in it, and would, at the same time, ensure a certain elevation of tone and spirit. It is an image of the Divine restoration of souls, which is confined to those who accept it of their own free will.
Further, the object of the return, as it is distinctly specified, is simply to rebuild the temple, not-at all events in the first instance-to build up and fortify a city on the ruins of Jerusalem; much less does it imply a complete restoration of Palestine to the Jews, with a wholesale expulsion of its present inhabitants from their farms and vineyards. Cyrus does not seem to have contemplated any such revolution. The end in view was neither social nor political, but purely religious. That more would come out of it, that the returning exiles must have houses to live in and must protect those houses from the brigandage of the Bedouin, and that they must have fields producing food to support them and their families, are inevitable consequences. Here is the germ and nucleus of a national restoration. Still it remains true that the immediate object-the only object named in the decree-is the rebuilding of the temple. Thus we see from the first that the idea which characterises the restoration is religious. The exiles return as a Church. The goal of their pilgrimage is a holy site. The one work they are to aim at achieving is to further the worship of their God.
Lastly, the inhabitants of the towns in which the Jews have been settled are directed to make contributions towards the work. It is not quite clear whether these “Benevolences” are to be entirely voluntary. A royal exhortation generally assumes something of the character of a command. Probably rich men were requisitioned to assist in providing the gold and silver and other stores, together with the beasts of burden which would be needed for the great expedition. This was to supplement what Cyrus calls “the free-will offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem”-i.e., either the gifts of the Jews who remained in Babylon, or possibly his own contribution from the funds of the state. We are reminded of the Hebrews spoiling the Egyptians at the Exodus. The prophet Haggai saw in this a promise of future supplies, when the wealth of foreign nations would be poured into the temple treasury in donations of larger dimensions from the heathen. “For thus saith the Lord of hosts,” he writes, “Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and the desirable things of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.” {Hag 2:6-8}
The assumed willingness of their neighbours to contribute at a hint from the king suggests that the exiles were not altogether unpopular. On the other hand, it is quite possible that, under the oppression of Nabonidas, they had suffered much wrong from these neighbours. A public persecution always entails a large amount of private cruelty, because the victims are not protected by the law from the greed and petty spite of those who are mean enough to take advantage of their helpless condition. Thus it may be that Cyrus was aiming at a just return in his recommendation to his subjects to aid the Jews.
Such was the decree. Now let us look at the execution of it.
In the first place, there was a ready response on the part of some of the Jews, seen especially in the conduct of their leaders, who “rose up,” bestirring themselves to prepare for the expedition, like expectant watchers released from their weary waiting and set free for action. The social leaders are mentioned first, which is a clear indication that the theocracy, so characteristic of the coming age, was not yet the recognised order. A little later the clergy will be placed before the laity, but at present the laity are still named before the clergy. The order is domestic. The leaders are the heads of great families-“the chief of the fathers.” For such people to be named first is also an indication that the movement did not originate in the humbler classes. Evidently a certain aristocratic spirit permeated it. The wealthy merchants may have been loath to leave their centres of commerce, but the nobility of blood and family were at the head of the crusade. We have not yet reached the age of the democracy. It is clear, further, that there was some organisation among the exiles. They were not a mere crowd of refugees. The leaders were of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. We shall have to consider the relation of the Ten Tribes to the restoration later on; here it may be enough to observe in passing that representatives of the Southern Kingdom take the lead in a return to Jerusalem, the capital of that kingdom. Next come the ecclesiastical leaders, the priests and Levites. Already we find these two orders named separately-an important fact in relation to the development of Judaism that will meet us again, with some hints here and there to throw light upon the meaning of it.
There is another side to this response. It was by no means the case that the whole of the exiles rose up in answer to the edict of Cyrus; only those leaders and only those people responded “whose spirit God had raised.” The privilege was offered to all the Jews, but it was not accepted by all. We cannot but be impressed by the religious faith and the inspired insight of our historian in this matter. He saw that Cyrus issued his edict because the Lord had stirred up his spirit; now he attributes the prompting to make use of the proffered liberty to a similar Divine influence. Thus the return was a movement of heaven-sent impulses throughout. Ezekiels vision of the dry bones showed the deplorable condition of the Northern Kingdom in his day-stripped bare, shattered to fragments, scattered abroad. The condition of Judah was only second to this ghastly national ruin. But now to Judah there had come the breath of the Divine Spirit which Ezekiel saw promised for Israel, and a living army was rising up in new energy. Here we may discover the deeper, the more vital source of the return. Without this the edict of Cyrus would have perished as a dead letter. Even as it was, only those people who felt the breath of the Divine afflatus rose up for the arduous undertaking. So today there is no return to the heavenly Jerusalem and no rebuilding the fallen temple of human nature except in the power of the Spirit of God. Regeneration always goes hand in hand with redemption-the work of the Spirit with the work of the Christ. In the particular case before us, the special effect of the Divine influence is “to raise the spirit”-i.e., to infuse life, to rouse to activity and hope and high endeavour. A people thus equipped is fit for any expedition of toil or peril. Like Gideons little, sifted army, the small band of inspired men who rose up to accept the decree of Cyrus carried within their breasts a superhuman power, and therefore a promise of ultimate success. The aim with which they set out confirmed the religious character of the whole enterprise. They accepted the limitation and they gladly adopted the one definite purpose suggested in the edict of Cyrus. They proceeded “to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.” This was their only confessed aim. It would have been impossible for patriots such as these Jews were not to feel some national hopes and dreams stirring within them; still we have no reason to believe that the returning exiles were not loyal to the spirit of the decree of the Great King. The religious aim was the real occasion of the expedition. So much the more need was there to go in the Spirit and strength of God. Only they whose spirit God has raised are fit to build Gods temple, because work for God must be done in the Spirit of God.
Secondly, the resident neighbours fell in with the recommendation of the king ungrudgingly, and gave rich contributions for the expedition. They could not go themselves, but they could have a share in the work by means of their gifts-as the home church can share in the foreign mission she supports. The acceptance of these bounties by the Jews does not well accord with their subsequent conduct when they refused the aid of their Samaritan neighbours in the actual work of building the temple. It has an ugly look, as though they were willing to take help from all sources excepting where any concessions in return would be expected on the part of those who were befriending them. However, it is just to remember that the aid was invited and offered by Cyrus, not solicited by the Jews.
Thirdly, the execution of the decree appears to have been honestly and effectively promoted by its author. In accordance with his generous encouragement of the Jews to rebuild their temple, Cyrus restored the sacred vessels that had been carried off by Nebuchadnezzar on the occasion of the first Chaldaean raid on Jerusalem, and deposited in a temple at Babylon nearly seventy years before the time of the return. No doubt these things were regarded as of more importance than other spoils of war. It would be supposed that the patron god of the conquered people was humiliated when the instruments of his worship were offered to Bel or Nebo. Perhaps it was thought that some charm attaching to them would bring luck to the city in which they were guarded. When Nabonidas was seized with frantic terror at the approach of the Persian hosts, he brought the idols of the surrounding nations to Babylon for his protection. The reference to the temple vessels, and the careful and detailed enumeration of them, without the mention of any image, is a clear proof that, although before the captivity the majority of the Jews may have consisted of idolaters, there was no idol in the temple at Jerusalem. Had there been one there Nebuchadnezzar would most certainly have carried it off as the greatest trophy of victory. In default of images, he had to make the most of the gold and silver plate used in the sacrificial ceremonies.
Viewed in this connection, the restitution of the stolen vessels by Cyrus appears to be more than an act of generosity or justice. A certain religious import belongs to it. It put an end to an ancient insult offered by Babylon to the God of Israel; and it might be taken as an act of homage offered to Jehovah by Cyrus. Yet it was only a restitution, a return of what was Gods before, and so a type of every gift man makes to God.
It has been noticed that the total number of the vessels restored does not agree with the sum of the numbers of the several kinds of vessels. The total is 5400; but an addition of the list of the vessels only amounts to 2499. Perhaps the less valuable articles are omitted from the detailed account; or possibly there is some error of transcription, and if so the question is, in which direction shall we find it? It may be that the total was too large. On the other hand, in 1 Esdras nearly the same high total is given-viz., 5469 – and there the details are made to agree with it by an evidently artificial manipulation of the numbers. {RAPC 1Es 2:14} This gives some probability to the view that the total is correct, and that the error must be in the numbers of the several items. The practical importance of these considerations is that they lead us to a high estimate of the immense wealth of the Old Temple treasures. Thus they suggest the reflection that much devotion and generosity had been shown in collecting such stores of gold and silver in previous ages. They help us to picture the sumptuous ritual of the first temple, with the “barbaric splendour” of a rich display of the precious metals. Therefore they show that the generosity of Cyrus in restoring so great a hoard was genuine and considerable. It might have been urged that after the treasures had been lying for two generations in a heathen temple the original owners had lost all claim upon them. It might have been said that they had been contaminated by this long residence among the abominations of Babylonian idolatry. The restoration of them swept away all such ideas. What was once Gods belongs to Him by right forever. His property is inalienable; His claims never lapse with time, never fail through change.
It is not without significance that the treasurer who handed over their temple-property to the Jews was named “Mithredath”-a word that means “given by Mithra,” or “devoted to Mithra.” This suggests that the Persian sun-god was honoured among the servants of Cyrus, and yet that one who by name at least was especially associated with this divinity was constrained to honour the God of Israel. Next to Judaism and Christianity, the worship of Mithra showed the greatest vitality of all religions in Western Asia, and later even in Europe. So vigorous was it as recently as the commencement of the Christian era, that M. Renan has remarked, that if the Roman world had not become Christian it would have become Mithrastic. In those regions where the dazzling radiance and burning heat of the sun are felt as they are not even imagined in our chill, gloomy climate, it was naturally supposed that if any visible God existed He must be found in the great fiery centre of the worlds light and life. Our own day has seen the scientific development of the idea that the suns force is the source of all the energy of nature. In the homage paid by one of the ancient followers of Mithra, the sun-god, to the God of Israel, may we not see an image of the recognition of the claims of the Supreme by our priests of the sun-Kepler, Newton, Faraday? Men must be more blind than the slaves of Mithra if they cannot recognise an awful, invisible energy behind and above the forces of the solar system-nay more, a living Spirit-God!