Ezra 1:7

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

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; Cyrus ... brought forth the

Object. These are said to have been cut in pieces, ; how then are they here returned? Answ. That Hebrew word used , signifies not so properly to cut in pieces as to cut off, as from the use of the word, . 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, . 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.

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;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] With profane and sacrilegious hands some of these sacred vessels and utensils of the Temple he had cut in pieces, 2 Kings 24:13, and others he carried away, 2 Chronicles 36:7, whole and entire. This he did out of covetousness (that auri sacra fames) and in scorn of all religion (rather than hatred of the Jewish superstition, or to avenge the quarrel of God’ s covenant), like as for the same reason his successor Cambyses destroyed the Egyptian idols, Isaiah 10:26. And had put them] There was a sweet providence in that; to the end that being there reserved, they might in due time be restored (as here they are) to the house of God at Jerusalem. And although that was a most unfit place to keep them in (for "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" 2 Corinthians 6:16), and Belshazzar most profanely abused them, Daniel 5:2, in that drunken feast of his (hence he is called the festival king, Ezekiel 21:5-6), yet being sanctified again, and dedicated to the true and first owner, the God of Israel, they might lawfully be made use of. Not only things indifferent abused may yet be used in the service of God (as those six waterpots were by our Saviour John 2:6-7, though they had been superstitiously abused for private purification), but also idolatrous things and places. As Gideon took the bullock appointed for Baal and the grove, and offered the bullock with that wood in sacrifice to the Lord, Judges 6:26. The like the Bethshemites did by the Philistines’ cart and kine. The Mount of Olives was shamefully abused to idolatry by Solomon and others, so that it was called the mount of corruption, 2 Kings 23:13, and yet was it our Saviour’ s usual oratory or place of prayer. In the house of his gods] Bel and Nebo, Isaiah 46:1. These were Babylon’ s chief gods. The original of Bel is said to be this: Ninus having made an image of his father Belus, all that came to see it were pardoned for all their offences; whence in time that image came to be worshipped, and then afterwards a multitude more; insomuch as that in Hesiod’ s time the number of heathenish gods was grown to thirty thousand, πριςγαρμυριοιεισιν. And in China at this day some tell us that there are no fewer than a hundred thousand idols. “ O curas hominum! O quantum est in rebus inane!

(5-11) Immediate result of the decree. (5) With all them whose spirit God had raised.—Namely, all is the more exact rendering. The same influence that prompted the decree of Cyrus was necessary to overcome the inertness of the captives: many preferred to remain in Babylon.—The people were enumerated as tribes, families, and fathers’ houses; the second and third orders of classification are not here distinguished from each other. (6) Precious things.—The Hebrew equivalent is a rare word, which, when it occurs, is connected only with the precious metals. Willingly offered.—Although it is not so said, the people of Cyrus were “stirred up” like himself: how much he gave, and how much he valued the worship of the Temple, we shall hereafter see. (7) His gods.—Rather, his god. Merodach, to wit, whom he called “his lord” (Daniel 1:2). From 2 Kings 25:13-17 it appears that much had been taken away which Cyrus had not been able to find. (8) Mithredath.—“Dedicated to Mithra,” the sun god of the Persians, whose worship among the Vedic Indians had thus early reached Persia. Sheshbazzar.—The Chaldee name of Zerubbabel, whose title, however, as Prince of Judah is given him from the Hebrew side. He was the legal heir of Jehoiachin, being the son of Pedaiah (1 Chronicles 3:19), who possibly married the widow of Salathiel or Shealtiel. And the title “Prince of Judah,” or “Prince of the captivity,” was specially given to him in common with a very few others. (9) Chargers and knives.—Rare words in the original, perhaps on the whole best rendered as here. (10) Of a second sort.—Of inferior quality. (11) Five thousand and four hundred.—The total of the several sums should be in round numbers, such as are frequently used, two thousand and five hundred. Obviously, therefore, the writer, whom we must needs suppose to have his own previous numbers before him, here includes vessels not before enumerated as chargers and basons. Bring up.—They were not, as sometimes said, the freewill offering of Cyrus. Sheshbazzar brought these rich vessels “with them of the captivity,” and they were sent as already belonging to God, who vindicated by His judgment on Babylon their desecration at the feast of Belshazzar.

Verse 7. The king brought forth the vessels] See on Ezra 1:9-11.

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. 2 Kings 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, 2 Kings 25:14-15. The passage in Daniel 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 2 Kings 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 Daniel 1:1-2, a certain chronological error, but that it is conceivable that when Nebuchadnezzar ‘came up’ (2 Kings 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 Daniel 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 Daniel 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 house of his gods - Rather, “of his god” Daniel 1:2, i. e., Merodach, “his lord” (see 2 Chronicles 36:7 note).

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 2 Kings 24:13; 2 Chronicles 36:7; Daniel 1:2.