Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 1:7
Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods;
7. Also Cyrus the king ] i.e. the Jews were assisted not only by private individuals their neighbours, but by the example of the king himself.
the vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth &c.] This refers especially to the capture of Jerusalem in 598, when Jehoiachin, his household and 10,000 of the better classes were carried off to Babylon. 2Ki 24:13 ‘And he (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar) carried out thence (i.e. from Jerusalem) all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord’. It may be noticed that in the original the expression ‘carried out’ in the passage just cited and so translated in A.V. and R.V. is identical with the ‘brought forth’ in this verse.
At the final destruction of Jerusalem (586) eleven or twelve years later, by Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s general, the remainder of the valuables contained in the house of the Lord were ‘taken away’ to Babylon, 2Ki 25:14-15.
The passage in Dan 1:1-2, which attributes to the third year (606) of Jehoiakim’s reign a siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the capture of Jehoiakim, and the removal to Babylon of some of the sacred vessels, is chronologically incorrect. (1) The victory of Carchemish on the Euphrates was not won by Nebuchadnezzar till the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605). (2) According to 2Ki 24:1 Jehoiakim, who had been tributary to the king of Egypt, did not become tributary to Nebuchadnezzar until after that battle, and, having remained so for three years only, then rebelled. This rebellion led to Nebuchadnezzar’s siege and capture of Jerusalem in Jehoiachin’s brief reign of three months. All that can be said is that we have in Dan 1:1-2, a certain chronological error, but that it is conceivable that when Nebuchadnezzar ‘came up’ (2Ki 24:1) and Jehoiakim submitted, a siege may have preceded capitulation, and a carrying off to Babylon both of prisoners and of some vessels of the Lord may have taken place in 602 or 601. Of this we have no certain confirmation, and it is more probable that the passage in Dan 1:1 may be a heading containing inaccurate historical statements or late tradition prefixed by a scribe to the narrative of Daniel.
in the house of his gods ] So A.V. and R.V. The original is ‘in the house of his Elohim’. ‘Elohim’ may be rendered either as ‘God’ or ‘gods’ according as the context requires. The student will observe that in Dan 1:2 the same phrase ‘the house of his Elohim’ is rendered both by A.V. and R.V. ‘the house of his god’. Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist. But had the stress here rested upon the plurality of his gods, we should have expected ‘in the houses of his gods’. The rendering ‘in the house of his god’ appears preferable, both on account of the singular ‘house’ and, especially, on account of Nebuchadnezzar’s devotion to one god, Merodach, to whom he paid greater honour than to any of the other deities of the Babylonian pantheon. The Temple of E-sagila in honour of Merodach was restored by Nebuchadnezzar with unrivalled splendour. The passage in 2Ch 36:7 ‘Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his temple at Babylon’, helps to confirm the rendering ‘in the house of his god’. The other passages relating to the sacred vessels are Jer 27:16; Jer 28:6; Jer 52:18; Dan 5:23; Bar 1:8 .
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The house of his gods – Rather, of his god Dan 1:2, i. e., Merodach, his lord (see 2Ch 36:7 note).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Ezr 1:7-11
Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the Lord.
The restoration of the sacred vessels
I. The preservation of the sacred vessels (Ezr 1:7-8). These are the vessels which are mentioned in 2Ch 36:7 and Dan 1:2. In the providence of God most of these vessels were remarkably preserved, to be in due time restored to their original place and uses. Learn: Since God is so careful of the mere vessels consecrated to His service, may we not rest assured that He will much more preserve His consecrated people?
II. The numeration of the sacred vessels. This numbering indicates–
1. The reverent care of Cyrus for these sacred vessels.
2. The grave responsibility of Sheshbazzar for these sacred vessels.
Learn: That persons, places, and things which are devoted to religious uses should be reverently regarded by us.
III. The restoration of the sacred vessels (verse 11).
1. This was a fulfilment of prophecy (Jer 27:22).
2. This is an illustration of the restoration of perverted things to their true uses.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the great restorer of the violated order and the broken harmony of the universe of God. (William Jones.)
The restitution of the stolen vessels
This 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. (Walter F. Adeney, M. D.)
Mithredath
It is not without significance that the treasurer who handed over their temple prosperity 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 the homage paid by Mithredath 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? (Walter F. Adeney, M. D.)
A restoration of misappropriated property
There was a great restoration of misappropriated property. What a restoration there will one day be. What have men taken away from Gods Church? Nearly everything they could lay hands on. They have taken away gold, art, music, miracles, inspiration, rationalism, morality, science, and they have left God a very bare house. When the period of spiritual revival has come, and the holy issue is wrought out in all its meaning, all these things will be brought back again. Art will come with her brush and pencil, and say, I will beautify the house of Gods revelation. Music will bring back her harp and her instrument of ten strings, and her cymbals and organs, and say, Make me a handmaid in Gods house, for all I have and am must belong to Him; and Reason–exiled, expatriated Reason shall return, saying They have kept me in vile servitude; admit me to my Fathers house. And Science will come and pray; and Morality will say, They have been trying to divorce me from theology, from right religious motive and impulse, and I have died like a flower that has been plucked; restore me to my vital relations, and I will once more bloom in the house of God. (J. Parker, D. D)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 7. The king brought forth the vessels] See on Ezr 1:9-11.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Object. These are said to have been cut in pieces, 2Ki 24:13; how then are they here returned?
Answ. That Hebrew word used 2Ki 24:13, signifies not so properly to
cut in pieces as to
cut off, as from the use of the word, Deu 25:12; 2Sa 4:12; 2Ki 18:16; Jer 9:26. And these vessels, when they were taken away from the temple, might very well be said to be cut off from it, because they had for so long time been so constantly, and as it were inseparably, united to it, and kept in it. In like manner,
the meat-offering and drink-offering are said to be cut off from the house of the Lord, Joe 1:9. And it is very improbable that they should deface and cut in pieces these magnificent vessels, which they could so easily transport whole to Babylon. Although, if some of the larger of them had been cut into two or more parts, yet the parts of them might be delivered to the Jews, who could, without great difficulty, restore them to their former unity and form.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. Cyrus . . . brought forth thevessels of the house of the LordThough it is said (2Ki24:13) that these were cut in pieces, that would not bedone to the large and magnificent vases; and, if they had beendivided, the parts could be reunited. But it may be doubted whetherthe Hebrew word rendered cut in pieces, does notsignify merely cut off, that is, from further use in thetemple.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Cyrus brought forth the vessels of the house of the Lord,…. Or ordered them to be brought forth:
which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem; out of the temple there, when he took it and burnt it:
and had put them in the house of his gods; in the temple of Belus at Babylon, see 2Ch 36:7, by which means they were providentially preserved.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
King Cyrus, moreover, caused those sacred vessels of the temple which had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to be brought forth, and delivered them by the hand of his treasurer to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, for the use of the house of God which was about to be built. , to fetch out from the royal treasury. The “vessels of the house of Jahve” are the gold and silver vessels of the temple which Nebuchadnezzar, at the first taking of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim, carried away to Babylon, and lodged in the treasure-house of his god ( 2Ch 36:7 and Dan 1:2). For those which he took at its second conquest were broken up (2Ki 24:13); and the other gold and silver goods which, as well as the large brazen implements, were taken at the third conquest, and the destruction of the temple (2Ki 25:14.; Jer 52:18.), would hardly have been preserved by the Chaldeans, but rather made use of as valuable booty.
Ezr 1:8 Cyrus delivered these vessels , into the hand of the treasurer, to whose care they were entrusted; i.e., placed them under his inspection, that they might be faithfully restored. is Mithridates. , answering to the Zend gazabara , means treasurer (see comm. on Dan. p. 514, note 4). This officer counted them out to the prince of Judah Sheshbazzar, undoubtedly the Chaldee name of Zerubbabel. For, according to Ezr 5:14, Ezr 5:16, was the governor ( ) placed by Cyrus over the new community in Judah and Jerusalem, and who, according to Ezr 1:11 of the present chapter, returned to Jerusalem at the head of those who departed from Babylon; while we are informed (Ezr 2:2; Ezr 3:1, Ezr 3:8, and Ezr 4:3; Ezr 5:2) that Zerubbabel was not only at the head of the returning Jews, but also presided as secular ruler over the settlement of the community in Judah and Jerusalem. The identity of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, which has been objected to by Schrader and Nldeke, is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison of Ezr 5:16 with Ezr 3:8, etc., Ezr 5:2: for in Ezr 5:16 Sheshbazzar is named as he who laid the foundation of the new temple in Jerusalem; and this, according to Ezr 5:2 and Ezr 3:8, was done by Zerubbabel. The view, too, that Zerubbabel, besides this his Hebrew name, had, as the official of the Persian king, also a Chaldee name, is in complete analogy with the case of Daniel and his three companions, who, on being taken into the service of the Babylonian king, received Chaldee names (Dan 1:7). Zerubbabel, moreover, seems, even before his appointment of to the Jewish community in Judah, to have held some office in either the Babylonian or Persian Court or State; for Cyrus would hardly have entrusted this office to any private individual among the Jews. The meaning of the word is not yet ascertained: in the lxx it is written , , and ; 1 Esdras has , or, according to better MSS, ; and Josephus, l.c., .
Ezr 1:9-10 The enumeration of the vessels: 1. of gold 30, and of silver 1000. The word occurs only here, and is translated in the Septuagint ; in 1 Esdr. 2:11, . The Talmudic explanation of Aben Ezra, “vessels for collecting the blood of the sacrificed lambs,” is derived from , to collect, and , a lamb, but is certainly untenable. is probably connected with Arab. qartallah , the rabbinical , the Syriac kartala’ , the Greek or , a basket (according to Suidas), having no etymology in Greek; but can hardly be derived, as by Meier, hebr. Wurzelwrterbuch, p. 683, from the Syriac rtl , nudavit , to make bare, the Arabic artala , to make empty, to hollow, with the sense of hollow basins. 2. 29. This word also occurs only here. The Sept. has (interpreting etymologically after ), 1 Esdr. , the Vulg. cultri , sacrificial knives, according to the rabbinical interpretation, which is based upon , in the sense of to pierce, to cut through (Jdg 5:26; Job 20:24). This meaning is, however, certainly incorrect, being based linguistically upon a mere conjecture, and not even offering an appropriate sense, since we do not expect to find knives between vessels and dishes. Ewald ( Gesch. iv. p. 88), from the analogy of (Jdg 16:13, Jdg 16:19), plaits, supposes vessels ornamented with plaited or net work; and Bertheau, vessels bored after the manner of a grating for censing, closed fire-pans with holes and slits. All is, however, uncertain. 3. , goblets (goblets with covers; comp. 1Ch 15:18) of gold, 30; and of silver, 410. The word is obscure; connected with it can only mean goblets of a second order (comp. 1Ch 15:18). Such an addition appears, however, superfluous; the notion of a second order or class being already involved in their being of silver, when compared with the golden goblets. Hence Bertheau supposes to be a numeral corrupted by a false reading; and the more so, because the sum-total given in Ezr 1:11 seems to require a larger number than 410. These reasons, however, are not insuperable. The notion of a second order of vessels need not lie in their being composed of a less valuable metal, but may also be used to define the sort of implement; and the difference between the separate numbers and the sum-total is not perfectly reconciled by altering into , 2000. 4. 1000 other vessels or implements.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
7. The king brought forth the vessels He not only ordered others to give, but set the example by himself giving from the treasures of the kingdom.
Nebuchadnezzar had brought See 2Ki 24:13 ; 2Ch 36:7; Dan 1:2. Some of these vessels had been sacrilegiously used by Belshazzar and his lords on that night of revelry when Babylon was taken, and Belshazzar slain. Dan 5:2-3.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Was not Cyrus a type, in this instance, of the gentile church, concerning whom it was said that they should bring of their abundance to beautify the place of God’s sanctuary. Isa 60:3-14 . And it is remarkable, as if the Lord meant from the earliest days of the church to point out his holy will and pleasure, in making the Jew and Gentile church at length one in Jesus, that in the first wilderness church after the people departed out of Egypt, the church was supplied from the spoils of the Egyptians, Exo 12:35-36 . But I wish the reader to make another observation which those verses suggest, namely, amidst all the impiety and profaneness of the kings of Babylon, in desecrating the holy vessels of the temple, how did the Lord watch over both the people and the temple treasures. Yes! the Lord’s eye was upon them, and according to his own precious word, their memorial was always before him: In my wroth I smote thee, saith the Lord; but in my favor have I had mercy upon thee. Isa 40:10 . How sweet a lesson this to the long and painful exercises of his afflicted ones now. He knows all they feel; hears every groan, and is speaking to them in the same gracious words; I the Lord do keep it. I will water it every moment; lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day. Isa 27:2-3 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 1:7 Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods;
Ver. 7. Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels ] For example to others, et iussit, et gessit, he did himself what he commanded to be done, and so became a living law, a walking statute. So Justinian would not put the vessels of the Temple (taken by Titus, and recovered from Gensericus) into the public treasury, but restored them.
Which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth
And had put them
In the house of his gods
“ O curas hominum! O quantum est in rebus inane! ”
Gods these idols are called here, not because they were so (for there is one God only, said Pythagoras, and other heathens, E , &c.), but because Nebuchadnezzar falsely held them so. Like as elsewhere the gods of Damascus are said to have smitten Ahaz, who therefore sacrificed to them, 2Ch 28:23 , not as if those idols were anything in the world, or could do anything at all to him, Jer 10:5 1Co 8:4 ; but only that he conceited so, and that the devil (who is , as Synesius truly saith) abused his credulity.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
which Nebuchadnezzar had brought. Compare 2Ki 24:13; Ezr 25:14. 2Ch 36:1. Jer 27:18-22; Jer 28:6; Jer 52:18, Jer 52:19. Dan 1:2; Dan 5:2.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Also Cyrus: Ezr 5:14, Ezr 6:5
Nebuchadnezzar: 2Ki 24:13, 2Ki 25:13-16, 2Ch 36:7, 2Ch 36:10, 2Ch 36:18, Jer 27:21, Jer 27:22, Jer 28:3-6, Dan 1:2, Dan 5:2, Dan 5:3, Dan 5:23
Reciprocal: Jdg 17:5 – an house of gods 2Ch 4:19 – all the vessels Ezr 8:28 – the vessels Ezr 9:9 – in the sight Isa 52:11 – be Jer 50:2 – her idols Jer 51:44 – I will bring Dan 10:1 – Cyrus
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Preparations for the return 1:7-11
Sometimes warring armies in the ancient Near East carried images of their gods into battle to help secure victory (cf. 2Sa 5:21; 1Ch 14:12). When one army defeated the other, the victors would take the images of their defeated foes captive, and lock them up, to testify to the impotence of those gods.
"To displace the authority of a city, it was normal practice for a conquering power to carry off the emblems of deity (cf. Jer 48:7)." [Note: William J. Dumbrell, "The Theological Intention of Ezra-Nehemiah," Reformed Theological Review 45:3 (September-December 1986):65.]
Since the Israelites had no images of Yahweh, Nebuchadnezzar took the temple utensils in their place. [Note: Kidner, p. 34.] Cyrus released these utensils so the returning Jews could take them back to Jerusalem (cf. Dan 5:1-4).
"The return of the temple vessels (Ezr 1:7) reverses this and empowers Jerusalem once more in Persian eyes to become the city of Yahweh. Doubtless in this task Cyrus saw himself in typical Achaemenid fashion, as the representative and thus the ’servant’ of Yahweh." [Note: Dumbrell, p. 65.]
"Achaemenid" refers to the dynasty of Persian rulers who were in power from the seventh through the fourth centuries B.C. Achaemenes, who ruled from about 700 to 675 B.C., founded this royal dynasty.
There is no evidence that the Babylonians took the ark of the covenant to Babylon, or that the returning Jews brought it with them back to the Promised Land. Most scholars speculate that the Babylonians broke it up when they sacked the temple. Josephus wrote that the ark was not in the holy of holies in the second temple. [Note: Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5:5:5.] Edersheim wrote that it was empty except for a rock, called the Foundation Stone, that, according to tradition, previously covered the mouth of the pit on which the world was founded. [Note: Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:245-46.]
Sheshbazzar was evidently the uncle of Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:17-19). Another less likely view is that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were the same individual (cf. Ezr 1:8; Ezr 3:8-10; Ezr 5:14). [Note: See John C. Whitcomb, "Ezra," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 428.] He seems to have been the leader and governor when the first group of captives returned. [Note: Breneman, p. 47; David J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, p. 41.] Shenazzar was a variation of the name Sheshbazzar. [Note: Bright, p. 343.] The writer named both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel as having had a part in the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 5:16; Hag 1:1; Hag 1:12; Zec 4:9). It seems most probable that Zerubbabel succeeded his uncle as the chief man in the restoration leadership, since Zerubbabel became the governor of Judah (Hag 1:1; Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2; Hag 2:21). These were, therefore, not two names for the same man (cf. 1Es 6:18).
The inventory of temple articles here (Ezr 1:9-11) poses a problem. Ezr 1:9-10 give the following quantities.
|
Gold dishes |
30 |
|
Silver dishes |
1,000 |
|
Others |
29 |
|
Gold bowls |
30 |
|
Silver bowls |
410 |
|
Other articles |
1,000 |
|
Total |
2,499 |
However, Ezr 1:11 says the total was 5,400. Perhaps the writer counted only the larger [Note: Yamauchi, "Ezra-Nehemiah," p. 604.] or most important [Note: Breneman, p. 73.] vessels, and the 5,400 figure represents the grand total including many lesser vessels.
"The closing words of the chapter, from Babylon to Jerusalem, mark one of the turning points of history." [Note: Kidner, p. 35.]
"Throughout chap. 1 the author’s purpose was clearly to show the small postexilic Jewish community their legitimate continuity with the preexilic community and with God’s plan of redemption. Therefore he used motifs from the exodus; he emphasized God’s providence; he mentioned Judah, Benjamin, priests, and Levites; and he explained that even the former articles from the temple had been returned." [Note: Breneman, p. 73. See also P. R. Ackroyd, "The Temple Vessels-A Continuity Theme," Vetus Testamentum Supplement 23 (1972):166-81.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
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!