Chapter 1

1 The proclamation of Cyrus for the building of the temple. 5 The people provide for the return. 7 Cyrus restoreth the vessels of the temple to Sheshbazzar.

1. The first year. The city of Babylon fell to Persian arms on Tishri 16 (Oct. 12), 539 b.c. (see p. 55), and Cyrus himself entered the city on Marcheshvan 3 (Oct. 29) of the same year. However, it was not until the next New Year’s Day, Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 b.c., that the first Babylonian regnal year began. All documents previous to this day were dated in his “accession year” (see Vol. II, p. 138). The Jews, on the other hand, counted the regnal years of Persian rulers according to their own calendar. By the Jewish civil calendar the first full year from the fall of Babylon extended from the autumn of 538 to the autumn of 537 b.c. For further information on the problem, see pp. 96, 97. On the rulership of “Darius the Mede,” see p. 95, also Additional Note on Daniel 6.

The edict of Cyrus for the return of the Jews seems to have been issued in the former capital city of the Medes, Ecbatana (Achmetha), which became one of the summer residences of the Persian kings. A copy of the decree found in the archives of Ecbatana some years later (Ezra 6:2) implies that Cyrus was there sometime during his first year. Evidence from the contemporary archives of the banking firm of “Egibi & Sons” in the city of Babylon indicates that Cyrus was in Ecbatana in or preceding the month of September, 537 b.c., which fell toward the close of the first full Jewish calendar year after the fall of Babylon.

Cyrus. This is the Latinized Greek form of the Hebrew Koresh, which is closer to its Persian (Kurush) and Babylonian (Kurash) equivalents.

Jeremiah. Reference is made here to the two prophecies of Jeremiah found in chs. 25:11, 12; 29:10, prophecies which had convinced Daniel that the time of return and restoration had come (Dan. 9:2). Since the Babylonian captivity had begun in 605 b.c. (see on Dan. 1:1), the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecies were due to expire in 536, according to inclusive reckoning (see Vol. II, p. 136). Therefore if the decree of Cyrus was issued in the summer or autumn of 537, and the Jews probably returned to their homeland in the spring of the following year, 536, this would fulfill the prophecies of Jeremiah (see pp. 96, 97).

Stirred up the spirit. As in years past God had influenced heathen rulers (Gen. 20:3; Dan. 2:28; etc.) to carry out His purposes, He now worked on the heart of Cyrus to fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah concerning this monarch, prophecies that had been made more than 150 years earlier (Isa. 44:28; 45:1–4, 13).

A proclamation. The decree was publicly proclaimed throughout the various satrapies of the empire, from the borders of India in the east to the Aegean Sea in the west, and from the Caucasus in the north to the Persian Gulf and the border of Egypt in the south.

In writing. The decree was sent out in written form and deposited for permanent reference in an archive (see ch. 6:1, 2). Writing had probably been introduced into Persia but recently, for archeological evidence shows that Persian records were kept beginning with the reign of Cyrus. The proclamation was presumably issued in the official Persian language, perhaps also in Babylonian, and probably in Aramaic, which was understood throughout the empire. The Behistun inscription of Darius I (see Vol. I, pp. 98, 110, 111; Vol. III, p. 57) consists of similar inscriptions in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian. A copy has also been found in Aramaic.

2. Thus saith Cyrus. An official formula for introducing a royal proclamation, similar to those used in other royal decrees. For example, the Behistun inscription (Aramaic version, col. iii, l. 37) reads, “Thus says king Darius.”

King of Persia. Compare the ordinary formula in Persian inscriptions, “I am …, the great king, the king of kings, the king of Persia.”

The Lord God of heaven. Exactly the same title is found in an Aramaic petition made by Jews of the Nile island of Elephantine to a Persian governor (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30, lines 27, 28), while in the reply of the Persian official to the petitioners, only the words “God of heaven” are used (ibid., No. 32, lines 3, 4). Jewish monotheism may have appealed to Cyrus if he was a Zoroastrian; he may have equated Yahweh with his own god Ahura-Mazda.

Hath given me. Cyrus felt that he was an appointee of heaven, and that as such he had a divine commission to fulfill. In the famous inscription on the clay barrel of Cyrus, now in the British Museum, the king says, “He [the Babylonian god Marduk] scanned and looked [through] all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead him [in the annual procession]. He pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declaring him to be the ruler of all the world.” These words, written for the Babylonians, are so similar to those used in the proclamation on behalf of the Jews that they, in combination with the other typical official terms used, constitute strong proof of the authenticity of the decree. The only difference consists in the names of the gods. In Babylonian proclamations the name of the Babylonian god Marduk was naturally used, while in one written for the Jews the name of their God was employed.

He hath charged me. The word “he” is emphatic. This emphasis is also found in the ancient Greek and Latin translations of the text. Obviously, Cyrus makes reference to Isa. 44:28. Josephus (Antiquities xi. 1) claims that this passage was shown to Cyrus soon after Babylon’s fall, and it is only natural to consider Daniel as the one who informed the king concerning the predictions of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylonia and his part in the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s Temple (see PK 557). In the aforementioned clay barrel inscription Cyrus claims to have repatriated many foreign gods the Babylonians had transported to their capital, and rebuilt many sanctuaries that had been in ruins. In view of the fact that the authorization for the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem came in the first year of his reign, it is probable that the wisdom of such a policy (see PK 571, 572) led Cyrus to do the same for other subject peoples and their gods. Thus the king’s action with respect to the Jews and their Temple was completely in agreement with what eventually became a general policy of pleasing the nations that had suffered at the cruel hands of the Babylonians, in order to gain their good will and loyal support as citizens of the new Persian Empire.

House. Heb. bayith, “house,” used of either a human dwelling or of one devoted to God. Bayith may therefore appropriately be translated “temple” here.

In Judah. That this phrase is added here, and again in the following verse, reflects the official character of the document, which would be expected to indicate the precise geographical location of the Temple to be rebuilt.

3. Of all his people. The permit to return was not limited to the exiles of Judah and Benjamin, the descendants of the subjects of the former kingdom of Judah taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar. It included all people who counted “the Lord God of heaven” (v. 2) as their God, particularly descendants of the ten tribes of the former northern kingdom of Israel, transplanted to various provinces of the Assyrian Empire in the 8th century b.c. According to 1 Chron. 9:3 members of at least some of the northern tribes were then living in Jerusalem.

His God be with him. The kindness of Cyrus, praised by many classical authors (Aeschylus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Diodorus, Cicero, and others), is reflected in these words. Cyrus’ greatness lay in his tolerance of, and greatheartedness toward, subject peoples. The influence of Daniel and the Isaiah prediction concerning him no doubt had much to do with the formation of his imperial policies (see PK 557).

He is the God. Commentators and Bible translators are divided in regard to the meaning of this clause and the one following it. Some have taken it to be an admission by Cyrus that Jehovah is the only true God, and have compared it to a similar confession by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 6:26). Others connect it with the following clause and read, “He is the God who is in Jerusalem.” This would make Cyrus consider Jehovah as merely a local deity.

By treating “he is the God” as a parenthetical expression and translating Хasher as “which,” the thought is conveyed that the clause, “which is in Jerusalem” refers back to the word “temple.” The Hebrew, however, clearly reads, “he is the God which is in Jerusalem,” as do also the LXX, the Vulgate, and other ancient versions. If parentheses are to be used at all, they must enclose the entire statement as a unit. Furthermore, the word Хasher may be translated either “which” or “who,” as required by the context.

It may be that, like Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:47; 3:28; 4:37) and Darius (Dan. 6:26), Cyrus had come to recognize the true God (see PK 557); but the Hebrew text, at least as we have it today, does not permit the words of Ezra 1:3 to be construed as proof of this. A document has been found in which Cyrus, in addressing himself to the Babylonians, speaks of their god Marduk in precisely the same terms he here uses of the God of the Jews. However, see PK 557.

4. Whosoever remaineth. That is, Jews who chose to remain in exile (see PK 559). Those who were successfully established in business enterprises of one kind or another would be most likely to remain. It was only right that they should assist their returning brethren with large contributions.

The freewill offering. Permission was granted the Jews to collect financial contributions from their heathen friends for the Temple to be built in Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that the public pronouncement of Cyrus’ decree contains this appeal to the citizens of the empire without mentioning the fact that Cyrus had made provision for the rebuilding of the Temple from public funds, as is stated in the copy of the decree deposited in the government archives at Ecbatana (see on ch. 6:2). The reason is obvious. Had the proclamation mentioned the royal subsidy, few people would have felt impressed to give to the enterprise themselves. Without knowing that the government was paying part of the cost, many heathen who were friendly disposed toward the Jews may have been more willing to make private contributions.

5. Chief of the fathers. These were the hereditary heads of families, whose authority was recognized (see on Ex. 3:16). Although the permit to return had been so worded as to include all believers in Jehovah, only the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, are specifically mentioned. Members of other tribes, if any, must have been in the minority.

Whose spirit God had raised. Only a comparative minority of the exiles returned. Even many of the clans of Judah and Benjamin chose to remain in the land of their adoption. Many had come to honor and wealth in Babylonia, as cuneiform records reveal, and were unwilling to forsake all they had acquired by hard labor through the years in exchange for an uncertain future in desolate Judea. It is for this reason that later on efforts were again made to lead back to Judea others who had remained behind in the initial return movement (see Ezra 7:7; Zech. 6:10). The first company willing to risk all for their country and for their God was composed of patriots and zealots; perhaps also of some who had nothing to lose by the move and who could only improve their lot by returning to their former homeland. Those who remained behind may have justified their decision by quoting Jeremiah’s admonition of more than half a century earlier, to build houses, plant fields, found families, and take an active interest in the welfare of their land of exile (Jer. 29:4–7). Those who declined to return to Palestine formed the nucleus of the strong and influential Jewish communities that existed in Babylonia throughout its successive history until very recent times.

7. The vessels. All vessels listed are of gold and silver. Since many Temple objects taken by Nebuchadnezzar were of bronze (2 Kings 25:14; see on Ex. 25:3), Cyrus evidently restored only those that had been dedicated to Babylonian deities and thus preserved since their arrival from Jerusalem more than half a century earlier. It seems that objects not made of precious metals had not been preserved.

This generous act on the part of Cyrus was not an isolated case. The king relates in the inscription of the afore-mentioned clay barrel in the British Museum (see on v. 2), that he returned to their rightful places many cult objects previously plundered by the Babylonians.

8. Mithredath. A Persian name that also appears as Mitradati in a cuneiform document of the time of Artaxerxes I.

Treasurer. Heb. gizbar, “treasurer,” found only here and in ch. 7:21. Gizbar is a Persian loan word found also in Babylonia in the form, ganzabaru. The use of this and other words of Persian origin in the book of Ezra indicates that the original document was written in the time of the Persian Empire, probably by a contemporary of the events described.

Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. Sheshbazzar, called “governor” in ch. 5:14, is identified by many scholars with Zerubbabel (see chs. 3:8; 5:16; EGW, RH, March 28, 1907). He is called a “prince of Judah,” a dignity that Zerubbabel, as a grandson of King Jehoiachin, also possessed (1 Chron. 3:17–19). It was not unusual for Jewish nobles in exile to bear two names (see Dan. 1:7). The name Sheshbazzar is thought to be from the Babylonian ShamashРabalРusur.

9. Thirty. It will be noted that the itemized list of Temple utensils given in vs. 9, 10 adds up to 2,499 rather than 5,400, the figure given in v. 11. It is possible that the itemized list is only partial, and that it was not intended by Ezra to add up to the total given. However, the last item on the list appears to include all other utensils not already listed, and should, presumably, make up the difference between the total of the preceding items and the grand total of all of them. All the ancient Hebrew MSS and versions agree with the figures as given in the KJV. It is worthy of note, however, that a parallel passage in the Apocryphal book of 1 Esdras (ch. 2:13, 14) avoids this seeming discrepancy by listing 1,000 “golden cups” instead of the 30 given here, and 2,410 “vials … of silver” instead of only 410, as in v. 10. Otherwise the figures are the same. The grand total as given in 1 Esdras 2:14 is 5,469, the sum of the figures for the various items as given there. Some have suggested that the figures in 1 Esdras were deliberately altered to avoid the seeming discrepancy in Ezra 1:9–11. All that can be said is that evidence is insufficient to provide a definite solution to the problem.

Charges. Heb. Хagartelim, “baskets,” a word of uncertain meaning. The LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac offer the translation “basin,” which has been adopted by various modern versions.

Knives. Heb. machalaph, a word found only here in the OT and of uncertain meaning. The context suggests that some sort of vessel is meant.

10. Basons. Heb. kaphor, “bowl,” or “bason,” as also in Ezra 8:27 and 1 Chron. 28:17. The related Akkadian word kaparu also means “bowl.”

11. All the vessels. See on v. 7. Probably many of these “vessels” were among those that Belshazzar profaned at the feast the night Babylon fell (Dan. 5:3). The irreverent use of these sacred utensils and the defiant spirit that prompted such an act gave visible evidence of the fact that Babylon would no longer respond to divine messages of guidance and that it would refuse to release the Jewish captives in order that they might return to their homeland as God planned that they should (Dan. 5:1–4, 21–23). Accordingly, the kingdom passed to a nation that would cooperate with the divine plan (vs. 25–31).

Ellen G. White comments

1–4PK 558

2, 3 TM 203

5     PK 599

5–11PK 559