Bible Commentaries

I. The Return of the Jews from Babylonunder Cyrus. Restoration of the Templeand of the Worship of God at Jerusalem - Ezra 1:1

When the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity had elapsed, KingCyrus, by an edict published in the first year of his rule over Babylon,gave permission to all the Jews in his whole realm to return to their nativeland, and called upon them to rebuild the temple of God at Jerusalem. Theexecution of this royal and gracious decree by the Jews forms the subjectof the first part of this book - Ezra 1:1-11 and 2 treating of the return of aconsiderable number of families of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, under theconduct of Zerubbabel the prince and Joshua the high priest, to Jerusalemand Judaea; the remaining chapters, Ezra 3-6, of the restoration of the worshipof God, and of the rebuilding of the temple.

In the first year of his rule over Babylon, Cyrus king of Persiaproclaimed throughout his whole kingdom, both by voice and writing, thatthe God of heaven had commanded him to build His temple at Jerusalem,and called upon the Jews living in exile to return to Jerusalem, and to buildthere the house of the God of Israel. At the same time, he exhorted all hissubjects to facilitate by gifts the journey of the Jews dwelling in theirmidst, and to assist by free-will offerings the building of the temple (Ezra 1:1-4). In consequence of this royal decree, those Jews whose spirit God hadraised up prepared for their return, and received from their neighbours giftsand free-will offerings (Ezra 1:5 and Ezra 1:6). Cyrus, moreover, delivered toSheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, the vessels of the temple whichNebuchadnezzar had brought from Jerusalem to Babylon.

Ezra 1:1

The edict of Cyrus. - Ezra 1:1 The opening word, “and in the firstyear,” etc., is to be explained by the circumstance that what is hererecorded forms also, in 2 Chronicles 36:22 and 2 Chronicles 36:23, the conclusion of thehistory of the kingdom of Judah at its destruction by the Chaldeans, and istransferred thence to the beginning of the history of the restoration of theJews by Cyrus. כּורשׁ is the Hebraized form of the ancientPersian Kurus, as Κῦρος , Cyrus, is called upon the monuments, and isperhaps connected with the Indian title Kuru; see Delitzsch on Isaiah 44:28. The first year of Cyrus is the first year of his rule over Babylon and theBabylonian empire.

(Note: Duplex fuit initium, Cyri Persarum regis; prius Persicum, idque antiquius, posterius Babylonicum. de quo Hesdras; quia dum Cyrus in Perside tantum regnaret, regnum ejus ad Judaeos, qui in Babylonia erant, nihil adtinuit- Cleric. ad Esr. 1:1.)

פּרס - in the better editions, such as that of Norzi and J. H. Mich., with Pathach under ר, and only pointed פּרס with a graver pause, as with Silluk, 4:3, in the cuneiform inscriptions Pâraça - signifies in biblical phraseology the Persian empire; comp. Daniel 5:28; Daniel 6:9, etc. לכלות, that the word of Jahve might come to an end. כּלה, to be completed, 2 Chronicles 29:34. The word of the Lord is completed when its fulfilment takes place; hence in the Vulg. ut compleretur, i.e., למלּאות, 2 Chronicles 36:21. Here, however, כּלות is more appropriate, because the notion of the lapse or termination of the seventy years predominates. The statement of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:11, etc., Jeremiah 29:10; comp. 2 Chronicles 36:21) concerning the desolation and servitude of Judah is here intended. These seventy years commenced with the first taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and other youths of the seed-royal were carried to Babylon (Daniel 1:1-2) in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim; see the explanation of Daniel 1:1. This year was the year 606 b.c.; hence the seventy years terminate in 536 b.c., the first year of the sole rule of Cyrus over the Babylonian empire. Then “Jahve stirred up the spirit of Coresh,” i.e., moved him, made him willing; comp. with this expression, 1 Chronicles 5:26 and Haggai 1:14. ויּעבר־קול, “he caused a voice to go forth,” i.e., he proclaimed by heralds; comp. Exodus 36:6; 2 Chronicles 30:5, etc. With this is zeugmatically combined the subsequent בּמכתּב וגם, so that the general notion of proclaiming has to be taken from יעבר קול, and supplied beforethese words. The sense is: he proclaimed throughout his whole realm by heralds, and also by written edicts.

Ezra 1:2

The proclamation - “Jahve the God of heaven hath given me all thekingdoms of the earth; and He hath charged me to build Him an house atJerusalem, which is in Judah” - corresponds with the edicts of the greatkings of Persia preserved in the cuneiform inscriptions, inasmuch as these,too, usually begin with the acknowledgment that they owe their power tothe god Ahuramazdâ (Ormuzd), the creator of heaven and earth.

(Note: Comp. e.g., the inscription of Elvend in three languages,explained in Joach. Ménant, Exposé des éléments de la grammaireassyrienne, Paris 1868, p. 302, whose Aryan text begins thus: Deusmagnus Auramazdâ, qui maximus deorum, qui hanc terram creavit, quihoc coelum creavit, qui homines creavit, qui potentiam (?) dedithominibus, qui Xerxem regem fecit, etc. An inscription of Xerxesbegins in a similar manner, according to Lassen, in Die altperisischenKeilinschriften, Bonn 1836, p. 172.)

In this edict, however, Cyrus expressly calls the God of heaven by HisIsraelitish name Jahve, and speaks of a commission from this God to buildHim a temple at Jerusalem. Hence it is manifest that Cyrus consciouslyentered into the purposes of Jahve, and sought, as far as he was concerned,to fulfil them. Bertheau thinks, on the contrary, that it is impossible todismiss the conjecture that our historian, guided by an uncertain tradition,and induced by his own historical prepossessions, remodelled the edict ofCyrus. There is, however, no sufficient foundation for such a conjecture. Ifthe first part of the book of Ezra is founded upon contemporary recordsof the events, this forbids an à priori assertion that the matter of theproclamation of Cyrus rests upon an uncertain tradition, and, on thecontrary, presupposes that the historian had accurate knowledge of itscontents. Hence, even if the thoroughly Israelitish stamp presented bythese verses can afford no support to the view that they faithfully reportthe contents of the royal edict, it certainly offers as little proof for theopinion that the Israelite historian remodelled the edict of Cyrus after anuncertain tradition, and from historical prepossessions. Even Bertheau finds the fact that Cyrus should have publicly made knownby a written edict the permission given to the Jews to depart, probable initself, and corroborated by the reference to such an edict in Ezra 5:17 andEzra 6:3. This edict of Cyrus, which was deposited in the house of the rolls inthe fortress of Achmetha, and still existed there in the reign of DariusHystaspis, contained, however, not merely the permission for the returnof the Jews to their native land, but, according to Ezra 6:3, the command ofCyrus to build the house of God at Jerusalem; and Bertheau himselfremarks on Ezra 6:3, etc.: “There is no reason to doubt the correctness ofthe statement that Cyrus, at the time he gave permission for the re-settlement of the community, also commanded the expenses of rebuildingthe temple to be defrayed from the public treasury.” To say this, however,is to admit the historical accuracy of the actual contents of the edict, sinceit is hence manifest that Cyrus, of his own free will, not only granted tothe Jews permission to return to the land of their fathers, but alsocommanded the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. Although, then, thisedict was composed, not in Hebrew, but in the current language of therealm, and is reproduced in this book only in a Hebrew translation, andalthough the occurrence of the name Jahve therein is not corroborated byEzra 6:3, yet these two circumstances by no means justify Bertheau'sconclusion, that “if Cyrus in this edict called the universal dominion ofwhich he boasted a gift of the god whom he worshipped as the creator ofheaven and earth, the Israelite translator, who could not designate this godby his Persian name, and who was persuaded that the God of Israel hadgiven the kingdom to Cyrus, must have bestowed upon the supreme God,whom Cyrus mocked, the name of Jahve, the God of heaven. When, then,it might further have been said in the document, that Cyrus had resolved,not without the consent of the supreme God, to provide for the rebuildingof the temple at Jerusalem, - and such a reference to the supreme God mightwell occur in the announcement of a royal resolution in a decree of Cyrus, - the Israelite translator could not again but conclude that Cyrus referred toJahve, and that Jahve had commanded him to provide for the building ofthe temple.”For if Cyrus found himself impelled to the resolution of building a templeto the God of heaven in Jerusalem, i.e., of causing the temple destroyed byNebuchadnezzar to be rebuilt, he must have been acquainted with thisGod, have conceived a high respect for Him, and have honoured Him asthe God of heaven. It was not possible that he should arrive at such aresolution by faith in Ahuramazdâ, but only by means of facts which hadinspired him with reverence for the God of Israel. It is this considerationwhich bestows upon the statement of Josephus, Antt. xi. 1. 1, - that Cyruswas, by means of the predictions of Isaiah, Isaiah 41:25., Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1., whohad prophesied of him by name 200 years before, brought to theconviction that the God of the Jews was the Most High God, and was onthis account impelled to this resolution, - so high a degree of probability thatwe cannot but esteem its essence as historical.

For when we consider the position held by Daniel at the court of Dariusthe Mede, the father-in-law of Cyrus, - that he was there elevated to therank of one of the three presidents set over the 120 satraps of the realm,placed in the closest relation with the king, and highly esteemed by him(Dan 6), - we are perfectly justified in adopting the opinion that Cyrus hadbeen made acquainted with the God of the Jews, and with the propheciesof Isaiah concerning Coresh, by Daniel.

(Note: Hence not only ancient expositors, but also in very recenttimes Pressel (Herzog's Realencycl. iii. p. 232), and A. Koehler,Haggai, p. 9, etc., defend the statement of Josephus, l.c., ταῖτ ̓ (viz.,the previously quoted prophecy, Isaiah 44:28) οὖν ἀναγνόντα καὶ θαυμάσαντα τὸ θεῖον ὁρμή τις ἔλαβε καὶ φιλοτιμία ποιῆσαι τὰ γεγραμμένα , as historically authentic. Pressel remarks, “that HolyScripture shows what it was that made so favourable an impressionupon Cyrus, by relating the rôle played by Daniel at the overthrow ofthe Babylonian monarchy, Daniel 5:28, Daniel 5:30. What wonder was it that thefulfiller of this prediction should have felt himself attracted towardsthe prophet who uttered it, and should willingly restore the vesselswhich Belshazzar had that night committed the sin of polluting?” etc. The remark of Bertheau, on the contrary, “that history knows of noCyrus who consciously and voluntarily honours Jahve the God ofIsrael, and consciously and voluntarily receives and executes thecommands of this God,” is one of the arbitrary dicta of neologicalcriticism.)

Granting, then, that the edict of Cyrus may have been composed in thecurrent language of the realm, and not rendered word for word in Hebrewby the biblical author of the present narrative, its essential contents arenevertheless faithfully reproduced; and there are not sufficient groundseven for the view that the God who had inspired Cyrus with thisresolution was in the royal edict designated only as the God of heaven, andnot expressly called Jahve. Why may not Cyrus have designated the Godof heaven, to whom as the God of the Jews he had resolved to build atemple in Jerusalem, also by His name Jahve? According to polytheisticnotions, the worship of this God might be combined with the worship ofAhuramazdâ as the supreme God of the Persians. - On וגו עלי פּקד,J. H. Mich. well remarks: Mandavit mihi, nimirum dudum ante per Jesajam Isaiah 44:24-28, Isaiah 45:1-13, forte etiam per Danielem, qui annum hunc Cyri primum vivendo attigit (Daniel 1:21; Daniel 7:1) et Susis in Perside vixit Daniel 8:2 (in saying which, he only infers too much from the lastpassage; see on Daniel 8:2).

Ezra 1:3

In conformity with the command of God, Cyrus not only invitesthe Jews to return to Jerusalem, and to rebuild the temple, but alsorequires all his subjects to assist the returning Jews, and to give free-willofferings for the temple. מי בכם, who among youof all his people, refers to all those subjects of his realm to whom thedecree was to be made known; and all the people of Jahve is the wholenation of Israel, and not Judah only, although, according to Ezra 1:5, it wasmainly those only who belonged to Judah that availed themselves of thisroyal permission. עמּו אלהיו יהי, his God bewith him, is a wish for a blessing: comp. Joshua 1:17; 1 Esdras 2:5, åwhile in 2 Chronicles 36:23 we find, on the other hand, יהוה forיהי. This wish is followed by the summons to go up to Jerusalem and tobuild the temple, the reason for which is then expressed by the sentence,”He is the God which is in Jerusalem.”

Ezra 1:4

וגו וכל־הנּשׁאר are all belonging to the people of God inthe provinces of Babylon, all the captives still living: comp. Nehemiah 1:2.;Hagg. Ezra 2:3. These words stand first in an absolute sense, and וגו מכּל־מּקמות belongs to what follows: In all places where he (i.e.,each man) sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with gold, etc. Themen of his place are the non-Israelite inhabitants of the place. נשּׂא, to assist, like 1 Kings 9:1. רכוּשׁ specified, besides gold,silver, and cattle, means moveable, various kinds. עם־הנּדבה, with,besides the free-will offering, i.e., as well as the same, and is thereforesupplied in Ezra 1:6 by על לבד. Free-will offerings for thetemple might also be gold, silver, and vessels: comp. Ezra 8:28; Exodus 35:21.

In consequence of this royal summons, the heads of the houses of Judahand Benjamin, of the priests and Levites, - in short, all whose spirit Godstirred up, - rose to go up to build the house of God. The ל inלכל serves to comprise the remaining persons, and may therefore be renderedby, in short, or namely; comp. Ewald, §310, a. The relative sentence thendepends upon כּל without אשׁר. The thought is: All theJews were called upon to return, but those only obeyed the call whomGod made willing to build the temple at Jerusalem, i.e., whom the religiouscraving of their hearts impelled thereto. For, as Josephus says, Antt. xi. 1: πολλοὶ κατέμειναν ἐν τῇ Βαβυλῶνι τὰ κτήματα καταλιπεῖν οὐ θέλοντες .

Ezra 1:6

All their surrounders assisted them with gifts. The surroundersare the people of the places where Jews were making preparations forreturning; chiefly, therefore, their heathen neighbours (Ezra 1:4), but also thoseJews who remained in Babylon. חזּקוּ בידיהם is notidentical in meaning with יד חזּק, to strengthen, e.g., Jeremiah 23:14; Nehemiah 2:18; but with החזיק בּיד, the Piel herestanding instead of the elsewhere usual Hiphil: to grasp by the hand, i.e.,to assist; comp. Leviticus 25:34. על לבד, separated to, besides;elsewhere joined with מן, Exodus 12:37, etc. התנדּב connected with כּל without אשׁר, as the verbum fin. in Ezra 1:5; 1 Chronicles 29:3, and elsewhere. האלהים לבית must,according to Ezra 1:4, be supplied mentally; comp. Ezra 2:68; Ezra 3:5; 1 Chronicles 29:9, 1 Chronicles 29:17.

King Cyrus, moreover, caused those sacred vessels of the temple whichhad been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to be brought forth, anddelivered them by the hand of his treasurer to Sheshbazzar, the prince ofJudah, for the use of the house of God which was about to be built. הוציא, to fetch out from the royal treasury. The “vessels of thehouse of Jahve” are the gold and silver vessels of the temple whichNebuchadnezzar, at the first taking of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim,carried away to Babylon, and lodged in the treasure-house of his god (2 Chronicles 36:7 and Daniel 1:2). For those which he took at its second conquestwere broken up (2 Kings 24:13); and the other gold and silver goodswhich, as well as the large brazen implements, were taken at the thirdconquest, and the destruction of the temple (2 Kings 25:14.; Jeremiah 52:18.),would hardly have been preserved by the Chaldeans, but rather made useof as valuable booty.

Ezra 1:8

Cyrus delivered these vessels יד על, into the handof the treasurer, to whose care they were entrusted; i.e., placed them underhis inspection, that they might be faithfully restored. ממרדת isMithridates. נּזבּר, answering to the Zend gazabara, means treasurer(see comm. on Dan. p. 514, note 4). This officer counted them out to theprince of Judah Sheshbazzar, undoubtedly the Chaldee name ofZerubbabel. For, according to Ezra 5:14, Ezra 5:16, שׁשׁבּצּר was thegovernor (פּחה) placed by Cyrus over the new community inJudah and Jerusalem, and who, according to Ezra 1:11 of the present chapter,returned to Jerusalem at the head of those who departed from Babylon;while we are informed (Ezra 2:2; Ezra 3:1, Ezra 3:8, and Ezra 4:3; Ezra 5:2) that Zerubbabel wasnot only at the head of the returning Jews, but also presided as secularruler over the settlement of the community in Judah and Jerusalem. Theidentity of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, which has been objected to bySchrader and Nöldeke, is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison of Ezra 5:16 with Ezra 3:8, etc., Ezra 5:2: for in Ezra 5:16 Sheshbazzar is named as he who laid thefoundation of the new temple in Jerusalem; and this, according to Ezra 5:2 andEzra 3:8, was done by Zerubbabel. The view, too, that Zerubbabel, besides thishis Hebrew name, had, as the official of the Persian king, also a Chaldeename, is in complete analogy with the case of Daniel and his threecompanions, who, on being taken into the service of the Babylonian king,received Chaldee names (Daniel 1:7). Zerubbabel, moreover, seems, even before his appointment of פּחה to the Jewish community in Judah, to have held some office ineither the Babylonian or Persian Court or State; for Cyrus would hardlyhave entrusted this office to any private individual among the Jews. Themeaning of the word שׁשׁבּצּר is not yet ascertained: in thelxx it is written Σασαβασάρ , Óáâá÷áóáand Σαναβάσσαρος ; 1 Esdras has Σαμανασσάρ , or, according to better MSS, Σαναβασσάρ ; and Josephus, l.c., Ἀβασσάρ .

Ezra 1:9-10

The enumeration of the vessels: 1. אגרטלים of gold 30, andof silver 1000. The word occurs only here, and is translated in theSeptuagint ψυκτῆρες ; in 1 Esdr. 2:11, σπονδεῖα . The Talmudicexplanation of Aben Ezra, “vessels for collecting the blood of the sacrificedlambs,” is derived from אגר, to collect, and טלה, a lamb, but iscertainly untenable. עגרטל is probably connected with Arab. (qarṭallah), the rabbinical קרטיל, the Syriac (karṭālā'), the Greek κάρταλλος or κάρταλος , a basket (according to Suidas), κάρταλος having no etymology inGreek; but can hardly be derived, as by Meier, hebr. Wurzelwörterbuch, p. 683, from the Syriac (‛rṭl), (nudavit), to make bare, the Arabic (‛arṭala), to makeempty, to hollow, with the sense of hollow basins. 2. מחלפים 29. This word also occurs only here. The Sept. has παρηλλαγμένα (interpreting etymologically after חלף), 1 Esdr. θυΐ́σκαι , the Vulg. cultri, sacrificial knives, according tothe rabbinical interpretation, which is based upon חלף, in the sense of topierce, to cut through (Judges 5:26; Job 20:24). This meaning is, however,certainly incorrect, being based linguistically upon a mere conjecture, andnot even offering an appropriate sense, since we do not expect to findknives between vessels and dishes. Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 88), from theanalogy of מחלפות (Judges 16:13, Judges 16:19), plaits, supposes vesselsornamented with plaited or net work; and Bertheau, vessels bored after themanner of a grating for censing, closed fire-pans with holes and slits. All is,however, uncertain. 3. כּפורים, goblets (goblets with covers; comp. 1 Chronicles 15:18) of gold, 30; and of silver, 410. The word משׁנים isobscure; connected with כּסף כּפורי כּס it can only meangoblets of a second order (comp. 1 Chronicles 15:18). Such an addition appears, however, superfluous; the notion of a secondorder or class being already involved in their being of silver, whencompared with the golden goblets. Hence Bertheau supposes משׁנים to be a numeral corrupted by a false reading; and the more so,because the sum-total given in Ezra 1:11 seems to require a larger number than410. These reasons, however, are not insuperable. The notion of a secondorder of vessels need not lie in their being composed of a less valuablemetal, but may also be used to define the sort of implement; and thedifference between the separate numbers and the sum-total is not perfectlyreconciled by altering משׁנים into אלפים, 2000. 4. 1000other vessels or implements.

“All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and fourhundred.” But only 30 + 1000 אנרטלים, 29 מחלפים, 30 + 410 coveredgoblets, and 1000 other vessels are enumerated, making together 2499. Thesame numbers are found in the lxx. Ancient interpreters reconciled thedifference by the supposition that in the separate statements only thelarger and more valuable vessels are specified, while in the sum-total thegreater and lesser are reckoned together. This reconciliation of thediscrepancy is, however, evidently arbitrary, and cannot be justified by areference to 2 Chronicles 36:18, where the taking away of the greater and lesservessels of the temple at the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of. In Ezra 1:11 it is indisputably intended to give the sum-total according to theenumeration of the separate numbers. The difference between the twostatements has certainly arisen from errors in the numbers, for thecorrection of which the means are indeed wanting. The error may besupposed to exist in the sum-total, where, instead of 5400, perhaps 2500should be read, which sum may have been named in round numbers insteadof 2499.

(Note: Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 88) and Bertheau think they find in 1Esdr. 2:12, 13, a basis for ascertaining the correct number. In thispassage 1000 golden and 1000 silver σπονδεῖα , 29 silver θυΐ́σκαι , 30golden and 2410 silver φιάλαι , and 1000 other vessels, areenumerated (1000 + 10000 + 29 + 30 + 2410 + 1000 = 5469); whilethe total is said to be 5469. But 1000 golden σπονδεῖα bear noproportion to 1000 silver, still less do 30 golden φιάλαι to 2410silver. Hence Bertheau is of opinion that the more definite statement30, of the Hebrew text, is to be regarded as original, instead of thefirst 1000; that, on the other hand, instead of the 30 goldenכּפורים, 1000 originally stood in the text, making the total 5469. Ewald thinks that we must read 1030 instead of 1000 golden אגרטלים ( σπονδεῖα ), and make the total 5499. In opposition to theseconjectures, we prefer abiding by the Hebrew text; for the numbers of1 Esdras are evidently the result of an artificial, yet unskilfulreconciliation of the discrepancy. It cannot be inferred, from the factthat Ezra subsequently, at his return to Jerusalem, brought with him20 golden כּפורים, that the number of 30 such כּפורים given inthis passage is too small.)

הגּולה העלות עם, at the bringing up of thecarried away, i.e., when they were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem. The infinitive Niphal העלות, with a passive signification,occurs also Jeremiah 37:11.