Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryEzra 1

EZRA INTRODUCTION [Following is the introduction to both Ezra and Nehemiah, for they are parts of one whole.] 1. Title. In Hebrew Bible manuscripts Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as one volume, like the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, until A.D. 1448, when the Vulgate division into two volumes was introduced into a Hebrew manuscript for the first time. Originally, the united book was called “Ezra.” But in the LXX this was divided in two parts called 2 and 3 Esdras, prefaced by the Apocryphal 1 Esdras, which contains excerpts from the two canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jerome was the first to give the two canonical books the names “Ezra” and “Nehemiah,” names which they retain to the present day. He designated 1 Esdras of the LXX as 3 Esdras and classed it as an Apocryphal book. 2. Authorship. Ezra and Nehemiah form the historical and literary continuation of the books of Chronicles, and a study of the style and language reveals that they probably had the same author. Jewish tradition (the Talmud) names Ezra as the chief author (Baba Bathra 15a) and Nehemiah as the one who completed the work. Although the double book Ezra-Nehemiah does not claim to have been written in its entirety by Ezra, there is nothing in it which could not have been written by him. The author used official material of Zerubbabel’s time and his own, and also reports probably written by Nehemiah. The change in pronouns from the 1st person to the 3d person singular is no proof of a multiple authorship within the sections dealing with Ezra’s (3d person: chs. 7:1–26; 8:35, 36; 10:1–44; 1st person: chs. 7:27 to 8:34; 9:1–15) and Nehemiah’s work (1st person: chs. 1:1 to 7:73; 12:27 to 13:31; 3d person: chs. 8:1 to 12:26. Such changes appear also in ancient non-Biblical literature (see on Ezra 7:28). Since the various lists of priests and Levites presented in Nehemiah 12 terminate about 400 B.C. (see on Neh. 12:10, 11, 22), the book seems to have been written at about that time, the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was a scribe (Ezra 7:6), and was anxious to acquaint his people with the sacred writings (see Neh. 8:1–8). It would have been strange indeed for such a man not to make provision for preserving for the guidance and edification of posterity an accurate account of the wonderful events of his time. It is therefore entirely appropriate to consider Ezra the inspired author of the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. In writing, he was guided in making selections from available public records, such as decrees (see Ezra 1:2–4; Ezra 6:6–12; etc.), letters (see Ezra 4:11–16; 5:7–17; etc.), lists (see Ezra 2:1–67; etc.), and other source materials. The fact that two sections of Ezra are written in Aramaic (chs. 4:8 to 6:18; 7:12–26) has been used in the past as evidence for a much later authorship than the time of Ezra. This argument was proposed at a time when there was only fragmentary knowledge of the spread and use of Aramaic in the Persian Empire. Since the discovery of numerous Aramaic documents from different parts of the Persian kingdom and of many Aramaic Jewish documents from Egypt, from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, this argument is no longer valid. There is remarkably great similarity between the Aramaic of these documents and the Aramaic parts of Ezra. Aramaic had become the official language of the Persian Empire, and was used for the publication of decrees and directives, as well as for correspondence and for economic and legal documents. Hence, lettered men like Ezra

were bilingual and could use both their mother tongue and Aramaic in speaking and writing. In fact, the use of Aramaic spread so widely that any man who could read was expected to know Aramaic; thus the author of Ezra could expect his readers to be able to understand his Aramaic sections. This accounts for the fact that he did not deem it necessary to translate into Hebrew the Aramaic source materials he used. Concerning contemporary Aramaic documents, see pp. 79–83. 3. Historical Setting. Aside from Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah are the only historical books of the postexilic period, and are of great importance for a reconstruction of the history of postexilic Jewry. However, they do not record the history of the people of God in unbroken sequence for the period covered by the two books, but only certain parts of it. There are large gaps for which little information is available. Ezra records, first of all, the return of the Jews from exile under the guidance of Zerubbabel, the reorganization of the sacrificial service, and the beginning of the rebuilding of the Temple. All these events took place within about two years, early in the reign of Cyrus. During the next 13 years the work progressed slowly against opposition. Then appears an account of the resumption of the building of the Temple and its completion and dedication under Darius I. Of the next nearly 60 years Ezra leaves no record. Then, in 457 B.C., Ezra was sent back to Judea by King Artaxerxes, with far- reaching authority to reorganize the nation’s administration according to Mosaic law. He tells of his return and some of his reforms, but again breaks the thread of continuity for more than ten years, when Nehemiah appears on the scene of action as governor, and reports his activities in the book which bears his name. All the events described in Ezra and Nehemiah took place during the first half of the period of the Persian Empire, which lasted from 539 B.C., when Babylon fell to the victorious forces of Cyrus, until, with the death of Darius III in 331 B.C., the empire ceased to exist and was succeeded by that of Alexander the Great. The history of postexilic Jewry begins “in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia” (Ezra 1:1). The Persian Empire stretched from the desert wastes of Iran in the east to the coast of Asia Minor in the west, and from the Armenian highlands in the north to the border of Egypt in the south. Cyrus, its founder, was a prudent and humane monarch. In harmony with his policy of appeasing nations subjugated by Babylon, he resettled them in their old homes and restored their places of worship. In accord with this generous policy, the Jews were allowed to return to their old homeland and rebuild their Temple. For the most part, the kings of Persia attempted to rule their empire with equity and consideration. Their officials were admonished to practice honesty and to work in the interests of the peoples whom they governed. The monotheistic religion of Zoroaster, the state religion at least from Darius I on, stood on a much higher level than that of the polytheistic and idolatrous predecessors of the Persians, the people of Babylonia. When Cyrus took Babylon he became acquainted with the aged Daniel, trusted counselor of the great Nebuchadnezzar of a former era, and learned to appreciate his advice. Through Daniel, Cyrus must have become acquainted with Isaiah’s prophecies concerning him and his appointed role in behalf of God’s people (Isa. 44:21 to 45:13), and granted their restoration (PK 557). The great work of pacifying his far-flung empire in its years of infancy required the king’s full attention. He lost his life in a campaign against unruly eastern tribes after a reign of about nine years, counted from the fall of Babylon.

Returning to Judea, the Jews found hostile neighbors, and were continually harassed by the Samaritans, a people of mixed racial and religious origins. Because Cyrus was busy unifying his far-flung empire, these enemies succeeded in hindering the Jews and causing them untold trouble that slowed the work of rebuilding the Temple. Cyrus’ eldest son, Cambyses, reigned for less than eight years. His greatest achievement was the conquest of Egypt. That he was favorably disposed toward the Jews is known from a Jewish document found in Egypt, but we have no evidence that he actively assisted the Jews in rebuilding their Temple. The short reign of the false Smerdis proved a great setback for the Jews. Under this king, described by Darius as a destroyer of temples, the work at Jerusalem was stopped. The stoppage may have been partly due to Samaritan enemies, for new foundations had to be laid as soon as stable conditions under the strong government of Darius I permitted resumption of the work. The era of Darius the Great was marked by prosperity and order. The Jews, like other nations, benefited from his wise and strong rule. Under the spiritual leadership of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, they finished the Temple and dedicated it in the sixth regnal year of Darius, 515 B.C. An era of unrest began, however, when late in his reign Darius decided to invade Greece. From that time on the empire experienced repeated reverses in Greece, Egypt, and elsewhere that disturbed the internal peace and stability of the empire. The next two kings, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, were weaklings, opportunists, and unstable in character, and owed their throne to the strong hand of powerful counselors. Disastrous campaigns in Greece and rebellions in Egypt and other parts of the empire caused great unrest and led to vacillating domestic and foreign policies. It was during a serious rebellion in Egypt (463–454 B.C.) that Ezra received major concessions for the Jews, whose good will Artaxerxes needed in this crucial period, since Judea lay athwart the highway to Egypt. Later, when the satrapy to which Judea belonged rebelled (after 450 B.C.), Artaxerxes apparently supported the supposedly loyal Samaritans under the erroneous assumption and fear that the Jews might join the rebellion. Accordingly Artaxerxes authorized the Samaritans to halt the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, which had been in progress for some time. When order in the satrapy was restored, Nehemiah, a trusted Jewish court official, succeeded in obtaining a royal appointment as governor of Judea, and completed the rebuilding of the city wall. This he did under continuing threats of violence. He served as governor for two terms, and proved to be an able organizer and religious leader. He laid a comparatively solid political, social, and moral foundation that proved of great value in the turbulent times that followed. 4. Theme. Ezra and Nehemiah are historical source books which record the outworking of the divine plan in the restoration of the Jews, whereby they were afforded another opportunity to cooperate with the eternal purposes and prove their right to exist as a nation. This record shows, furthermore, how the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah were fulfilled, and provides invaluable source material by which other prophecies, those of Dan. 8 and 9, can securely be anchored to the facts of history. Ezra and Nehemiah illustrate, by a series of instructive examples, how a few people can do great things for God when led by God-fearing, sincere, unselfish, but fearless and determined leaders. These books contain much that edifies and that strengthens faith in the unfailing leadership of God.

5. Outline. I. The Decree of Cyrus and the Return Under Zerubbabel, Ezra 1:1 to 4:5, 24. A. The decree of Cyrus, 1:1–11. 1. A copy of the decree, 1:1–4. 2. The Jews respond to the call, 1:5, 6. 3. Cyrus restores the sacred Temple vessels, 1:7–11. B. The list of returning exiles, 2:1–67. 1. The leaders, 2:1, 2. 2. The laity, 2:3–35. 3. The Temple personnel, 2:36–63. 4. The total number of the congregation, 2:64. 5. The servants, entertainers, and beasts of burden, 2:65–67. C. Resumption of the daily offering; laying the foundation of the Temple, 2:68 to 3:13. 1. Gifts for the new Temple, 2:68, 69. 2. Settlement of the returned exiles, 2:70. 3. Rebuilding of the altar and resumption of the daily sacrifices, 3:1–6. 4. Contracts made for materials, and with workmen, 3:7. 5. Laying of the foundation of the new Temple, 3:8–13. D. Building carried on under difficulties until it is stopped, 4:1–5, 24. 1. The Samaritans offer assistance and are rejected, 4:1–3. 2. Efforts of enemies to hinder the work, 4:4, 5. II. Attempts to Harm the Jews During the Early Years of Ahasuerus, Ezra 4:6. III. Artaxerxes Stops the Building of the Wall of Jerusalem, Ezra 4:7–23. A. Letter of Bishlam of Samaria to Artaxerxes, 4:7–16. B. Reply of Artaxerxes, permitting the Samaritans to stop the work, 4:17–22. C. Samaritans stop the work by force, 4:23. IV. Resumption and Completion of the Building of the Temple in the Time of Darius I, Ezra 5:1 to 6:22. A. Haggai and Zechariah bring about a resumption of the work on the Temple, 5:1, 2. B. Tatnai’s visit to Jerusalem, 5:3–17. 1. Tatnai’s visit and talk with the elders, 5:3–5. 2. Tatnai’s letter to Darius, 5:6–17. C. The decree of Darius, 6:1–12. 1. The decree of Cyrus found at Achmetha, 6:1, 2. 2. A copy of the decree of Cyrus, 6:3–5. 3. Darius’ instructions to Tatnai, 6:6–12. D. The Temple finished and dedicated, 6:13–22. 1. Tatnai aids the Jews, 6:13. 2. The new Temple completed, 6:14, 15. 3. The dedication of the new Temple, 6:16–18. 4. Celebration of the Passover, 6:19–22. V. The Decree of Artaxerxes I and the Return Under Ezra, Ezra 7:1 to 10:44. A. The decree of Artaxerxes, 7:1–28. 1. Ezra’s genealogy, 7:1–5. 2. A brief account of the return, 7:6–10. 3. A copy of the decree, 7:11–26.

4. Ezra’s expression of gratitude, 7:27, 28. B. The return from Babylon, 8:1–36. 1. A list of the returning exiles, 8:1–14. 2. The assembling at Ahava and the solicitation of Levites, 8:15–20. 3. Preparations for the journey at Ahava, 8:21–30. 4. Arrival at Jerusalem and delivery of gifts, 8:31–36. C. Ezra’s reforms, 9:1 to 10:44. 1. Ezra’s distress over foreign marriages in Judea, and his prayer, 9:1–15. 2. Leaders and people willingly divorce the foreign wives, 10:1–17. 3. List of the transgressors, 10:18–44. VI. Nehemiah’s First Term as Governor of Judea, Neh. 1:1 to 12:47. A. Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem, 1:1 to 2:11. 1. Nehemiah receives word of conditions at Jerusalem, 1:1–4. 2. Nehemiah’s prayer, 1:5–11. 3. Artaxerxes grants Nehemiah’s request to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its walls, 2:1–8. 4. Nehemiah’s arrival; first indications of difficulties, 2:9–11. B. The rebuilding of the walls, 2:12 to 6:19. 1. Nehemiah’s inspection of the wall at night, 2:12–16. 2. An appeal for action encounters approval and objection, 2:17–20. 3. The distribution of 42 building groups, 3:1–32. 4. Various unsuccessful attempts to halt Nehemiah’s work, 4:1–23. 5. Social reforms carried out during Nehemiah’s first period of governorship, 5:1–19. 6. Further attempts to stop the building; completion of the wall, 6:1–19. C. Nehemiah plans to repopulate Jerusalem, 7:1–73. 1. Organization of the city police, 7:1–3. 2. Nehemiah plans a census preparatory to repopulating Jerusalem, 7:4, 5. 3. List of returned exiles of Zerubbabel’s time serves as basis for the new census, 7:6–73. D. Religious reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, 8:1 to 10:39. 1. Reading of the law at a great national gathering, 8:1–13. 2. Celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, 8:14–18. 3. A day of solemn repentance and confession, 9:1–38. 4. A list of those who signed the covenant, 10:1–28. 5. The contents of the covenant of reform, 10:29–39. E. The repopulation of Jerusalem carried out, 11:1–36. 1. List of those who dwelt at Jerusalem, 11:1–19. 2. List of cities of the province of Judea, 11:20–36. F. A list of the Temple personnel, 12:1–26. 1. Priests and Levites of the time of Zerubbabel, 12:1–9. 2. Genealogy of the high priests, 12:10, 11. 3. Priests of the time of Joiakim, 12:12–21. 4. Levites of the time of Eliashib, 12:22–26. G. The dedication of the wall, 12:27–43. H. The appointment of treasurers, 12:44–47. VII. Nehemiah’s Second Term as Governor of Judea, Neh. 13:1–31. A. Separation of Jews from foreigners, 13:1–3. B. The removal of Tobiah from the Temple, 13:4–9.

C. Regathering of the Levites and reform in tithing and in the keeping of the Sabbath, 13:10–22. D. Reform regarding foreign wives, 13:23–29. E. Concluding statement, 13:30, 31.

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.

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

Nichol, F. D. (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible with exegetical and expository comment. Commentary Reference Series (Ezr 1:1). Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

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.

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 ’asher 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 ’asher 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Shamash–abal–usur.

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. ’agarṭelim, “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.

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.”

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).