Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord. Ezra 1 The discipline of the captivity Sermons by Monday Club. The captivity is clearly represented as God's judgment upon His people for their sins, but it was a judgment so tempered with mercy that it brought them much of blessing in the way of spiritual development. Their trials became a means, in various ways, of spiritual discipline. Losing the temple with its solemn ritual they found that God was a spirit and could be worshipped anywhere; at Jerusalem they had been able to hear His voice in the holy ordinances, but now they were dependent upon the revealed Word; hence diligent attention was paid to the preservation and transcription of the sacred writings, a service which prepared the way for the arrangement, not long after, by Ezra of the Old Testament canon. All such good impulses helped to work out a gradual but sure deliverance from their old sin of idolatry. In Judea the service of idols had become strangely confused with the service of Jehovah. It was thought by many not so very wrong to worship images if at the same time they worshipped God. The evils which assail us now are different in form, but are working along the same line; we have other idols, but the same snare. Natural history has an interesting chapter called "Mimicries of Nature," the description of certain creatures which have, in a wonderful degree, the appearance of vegetable life and are able thereby to seize more surely upon their unsuspecting prey. It illustrates the peril that surrounds us on many sides in the moral world; evil takes the shape of good; pleasures that seem harmless hide the sting of death, etc. Through such subtle temptations among the Jews idolatry became almost universal. But when they came to Chaldea they saw idolatry in all its naked deformity; it was not confused with true worship, it stood alone. They saw how it denied and despised Jehovah, and it filled them with horror. If idolatry bore such fruit their course was clear; they would have nothing to do with it. Not likely there were some whose religion in Judea had not been very pronounced who in Chaldea were among the foremost champions of Jehovah. In any Christian community there are good citizens who take no sides in the conflict between Christianity and unbelief. But imagine one of them suddenly removed to a community where infidelity prevails, where Christian worship is prohibited, where the Bible is dishonoured, where the prevailing sentiment is that of defiant atheism — how long would it be before he would be found standing out resolutely among the friends of Christ? In a recent revival multitudes signed this simple covenant: "I am trying to live a Christian life, and am willing to be counted on that side." An impulse like this must have come to many of the Jews in Babylon. The contempt heaped upon their religion strengthened their constancy, and they refused to "sing the Lord's song in a strange land." It is not meant that their harps were kept silent through all those years; but they would never sing the songs of Zion for anybody's sport; they would die first. Their spirit recalls the drummer-boy in the Irish Rebellion of 1798 who, being ordered by some rebels who had captured him to play for their entertainment, laid his instrument on the ground and leaped into it, tearing the parchment to shreds, and exclaiming," God forbid that the king's drum should be beaten for rebels!" whereupon they spiked him to death. ( Sermons by Monday Club. ) Returning from the captivity D. J. Burrell, D. D. God rules. His throne is the centre of history. His sovereignty is the key of all the mysteries in providence and grace. We look behind and speak of history; before and speak of prophecy; but He looks neither behind nor before. Yesterday and to-morrow are alike to Him. One glance sweeps the whole horizon. Does ii seem wonderful that Cyrus should have been called and commissioned two centuries before his birth? We forget that telling and foretelling are the same with God. The map of eternity and the universe has always been spread out before Him. I. THE CAPTIVITY. It was in the year 604 B.C. that Nebuchadnezzar reduced Jerusalem and returned with his first deportation of captives. The date is important because it furnishes the prime factor in all calculations respecting the deliverance from Babylon. The captivity was for an appointed time, seventy years. There was a special reason why it should be precisely seventy years. The Lord had required of Israel the observance of every seventh year as a season of Sabbatic rest; for a period of four hundred and ninety years this injunction had been practically ignored. Seventy Sabbatic years have been desecrated, seventy years of Babylonish" chastisement shall expiate the sin. So true is retribution. "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. But the captivity was not mere retribution, it was discipline. Its purpose was not so much to punish as to reform. Bearing a filial relation to God, the chosen people experienced the children's portion of chastisement ( Hebrews 12:6-11 ). The Jews had a mission. God had called them from among the nations to take charge of His oracles. Monotheism must be kept until Christ. For this Abram was chosen out of Ur of the Chaldees. However superior to other tribes and nations in many particulars, they had not been loyal to their trust. They needed chastening. God had no alternative but to inflict it. Hence the captivity. Nor was the discipline vain. It will be profitable to note some of the lessons which they learned in captivity. 1. They were cured of idolatry. They had previously been unable to resist the imposing rites and ceremonies of their pagan neighbours. Familiarity with the abominations of the Babylonish gods nauseated them. They longed for the living God, saying, "When shall we return and appear before God?" 2. They con-calved a new devotion to the Lord's sanctuary. Its holy ordinances had once been a weariness; but now they were homesick for Zion. The institution of the synagogue is traced to this period. 3. They learned the value of the Scriptures ( Nehemiah 8 .) 4. The stock of Israel was culled and improved. Only the choicest and best joined the restoration. 5. They were greatly knit together during the captivity. "One touch of nature make the whole world kin." A common sorrow will erase the enmity of years. Pain is a mighty solvent. The Jews of to-day scattered abroad over the earth are a living witness to the unifying power of adversity. 6. The heart and intellect of the nation were broadened. This widening of vision is manifest in all their subsequent history. Thus it appears that the captivity was an essential part of the Divine plan. II. THE PROCLAMATION OF CYRUS. This also was in pursuance of the Divine plan. The clock struck at precisely the right moment. Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 604 B.C. The proclamation was issued 586 B.C., leaving time for the beginning of the second temple in May of the year 534 B.C. The intervening period was just seventy years. Jehovah stirred up the spirit of Cyprus. How? 1. By the voice of His Spirit in the inner man. 2. Probably Daniel brought the matter to his attention. He may have read to him the prophecy of Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 29:10 ) and the prophecies of Isaiah ( Isaiah 44:24-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-4 ). 3. It may have shaped itself in his mind as a suggestion of policy, 4. Or possibly there was a religious motive. He was a monotheist. He may have received the message and commission from Jehovah as from his own Ormuzd. III. THE RETURN TO JERUSALEM. It was a voluntary movement. None were compelled to go. All were encouraged. They set forth prayerful and hopeful. In the 126th Psalm we have one of the songs of this pilgrimage. ( D. J. Burrell, D. D. ) The exile ended W. Clarkson, B. A. We may safely conclude from the events stated in this and the following chapters — I. THAT THE LONG EXILE OF THE JEWS HAD DONE ITS APPOINTED WORK. God sent them into captivity partly to punish and partly to purify them. They had now been sufficiently chastened and they had been cleansed from their iniquity. 1. We may argue from the fact of the Jews commending themselves so much as they did to Cyrus that their lives were estimable and honourable. 2. We know that after the captivity in Babylon they left idolatry behind them for ever. Trouble will sometimes teach us what nothing else will. The Church and the school may have failed to lead us into the kingdom of Christ, but the sadness of orphanage or the loneliness of the first absence from home may lead us to find a refuge in "the God of all comfort," in the unfailing Friend of the human heart. II. THAT GOD ACTS WITH GENTLE POWER ON THE MINDS OF MEN. 1. On those of His own people. He "raised the spirit" of many of the Jews (ver. 6). He caused them to feel deeply how excellent a thing it would be to repeople the city of Jerusalem and to rebuild the temple of God. He kindled in their hearts the fires of patriotism and of piety. He lifted them up above unworthy and unmanly fears. He made them brave and strong. 2. On those outside the Church. He girded Cyrus though that king knew Him not ( Isaiah 65:5 ). It was by His all-wise direction that Greece prepared her thought and her language, and Rome her highways for the gospel in "the fulness of time." Therefore —(1) Let us ask of God that He will inspire us in our time of need. We may have before us some difficult task at school, some trying ordeal to pass through, some new sphere to enter upon, and we may shrink from going forward, but if we ask of God He will "raise our spirit" and make us equal to the effort.(2) Let us intercede with God for others; they may appear to be quite outside all holy influences, but they are not without the reach of that mighty Hand that can enlighten the darkest mind and soften the hardest heart and renew the most obdurate and stubborn will. III. THAT AT THE CALL OF GOD WE SHOULD BE READY TO UNDERTAKE ARDUOUS OR DANGEROUS WORK. It was a long journey and a perilous one to Jerusalem. 1. It was uncertain what they would find when they reached the city of their fathers; no such tidings came to them as now come daily to our countrymen in England who are emigrating to America; they went forth not knowing what would await them. Moreover, they left behind them some home, kindred, occupation, property. Where God clearly calls us we need not be daunted by danger or by difficulty. He who summons us will clear the way, and will sustain us under every trial. IV. THAT THOSE WHO CANNOT RENDER THE GREATER ARE WELCOME TO OFFER THE SMALLER SERVICE. Of those who declined to return there would be some who might have gone but would not, either because they were too timid or because they had attachments which they were unwilling to break away from. Others there were that would have gone but could not, either because they were too aged or infirm, or because they had ties which they felt it would be wrong to sunder. Of the latter there were many who, as they could not do the best possible, did the best practical thing. They could not swell the number of the returning, but they could strengthen the hand of those who went (ver. 6). We may be unable to serve Christ by missionary or ministerial or evangelistic labours, but we can strengthen the hands and cheer the hearts of those who can. We can give them gold or silver or pence. We can speak the inspiring word. We can pray for them and let them know that we are praying. We can write to those who are absent or send them that which others have written. V. THAT WHEN WE OBEY THE VOICE OF OUR MASTER WE DO MORE THAN WE KNOW. The Jews who returned from Babylon no doubt believed that they were acting as patriots and were serving their country; but they could have had no conception of all that would grow out of their courageous conduct. We never know what will be the long and large result of a true and brave course. Carey did not foresee the fruits of his self-denying seal, nor Wesley of his "more abundant labours," nor Livingstone of his travels and his lonely death. It is a cheering and inspiring thought that our present faithfulness may be a living seed from which a large harvest of blessing may spring. VI. THAT THERE IS A BETTER RESTORATION than that of precious vessels to the house of God. It was a kindly act of Cyrus (see vers. 7-11), and the Jews rejoiced greatly when they saw those ancient and hallowed vessels beneath the roof of the new temple which they built. But there is a deeper joy in heaven, and there well may be on earth, when a human heart that has been taken away from the service of Christ is brought back again and is included among the spiritual treasures of the kingdom of God. ( W. Clarkson, B. A. ) The captivity of evil A. J. Morris. Sin may be conceived of as an object, but also as a power — as something to which our actions are directed, but also as something from which our actions proceed. Sin is an internal principle, and he who "commits sin," who lives in it, obeys it in this sense — obeys it as a force. The whole and constant tendency and bias of the soul is a despotic rule. It is more than an external authority or verbal law. It has a more vigorous and relentless rule. It is more besetting; has a more constant presence and constraining power; it acts directly on the will; it controls and stimulates volition. That is a great bondage that overbears the will, which brings it against itself into subjection, which ignores and defies its active choice, but that is a greater far which corrupts and perverts it. There is no slavery like that in which the very seat and source of freedom is held captive. It is the salt losing its savour; it is the light leading astray; it is the king and leader falling in battle. ( A. J. Morris. ) The return from the captivity J. Mackenzie, D. D. The return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon is not only a proof of the Divine authority of the Scriptures, considered as the accomplishment of a prophecy, but it is an additional proof of it in this light, that it affords a strong internal presumption that the history which Daniel gives of the manifestations of Divine power in Chaldea, during the residence of the Jews in that country, were true. That we may place this argument in a stronger light, let us consider the full importance of the measure which Cyrus now adopted, and of the benefit which he conferred upon the Jews. The practice of slavery among the ancient nations is well known. The slaves were, in that period, one great branch of property. The slaves cultivated the land, did the household business, exercised the necessary trades, and, in general, performed all that labour in which the mass of the people are now employed. The slaves, therefore, formed one great portion of private property, and of the national stock. The slaves arose chiefly, among ancient nations, from the captives taken in war. This was the great fund from which they were supplied, and constituted a very considerable branch of the profits which accrued to the conquerors in the ancient wars. They estimated the profits of the war, not more by the extent of territory which they gained than by the number of slaves whom they captured. From this view we will be enabled to conceive how very difficult it must have been in ancient times for men who were once reduced to slavery to regain their liberty. The interests of the State, as well as the rights and properties of individuals, were all against them. Where there were so many interests to be consulted, so many properties to be separated, and so many private rights to be resumed, we may conclude that the liberating of the slaves, among the ancient nations, must have been a very arduous State measure. This accounts perfectly for the difficulty which the Jewish nation found in their attempt to emigrate from Egypt. Private persons have sometimes given a slave his liberty as a reward for some distinguished service; but it was impossible, under the ancient manners, for any considerable body of men to be set free without some cause which was very extraordinary. In the edict of Cyrus, then, and the return of the Jews from Babylon, we have a very uncommon piece of history presented to us. That conqueror, among the other valuable property of the vanquished empire, found a whole nation of slaves. This, according to the ideas of these times, was an immense acquisition. It was, in fact, an immense property, the value of which, to a political prince like Cyrus, must have been fully known. Yet we find this politic and wise prince giving liberty at once to this whole nation, and sending them back, after seventy years' captivity, into their own country. It is this extraordinary circumstance which Isaiah describes, and of the value of which he appears fully sensible, when he says, in his prophecy of Cyrus, "He shall build My city, and he shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward." Nor was this a sudden resolution. It was not adopted in the moment of victory, nor meant to exhibit a momentary triumph over the vanquished, The Jews remained in the same state in which they had lived under the Chaldeans during one entire reign of the new empire. I say, then, that this transaction affords a strong proof of the credit in which the Jewish nation then were in Babylon, and that the history which Daniel gives of the manifestations of Divine power which were made, during that period, and by the agency of that nation, in the province of Chaldea, were true. The transaction proves itself. There are no data here necessary, but to believe that the nation of the Jews were in Babylon, and that they returned from it. Their return proves the history. It supposes all that is related, and cannot otherwise be accounted for. It is affirmed that, in this period, the God of the Hebrews wan acknowledged throughout the extensive provinces of Chaldea and Persia. At last the body of the Jews, whom the people they lived with regarded as a sacred nation, obtain their liberty, and are restored to their country. This is the history which is presented to us by their own writers; and the actual return of the Jews from their captivity, and resettlement in their own country, in opposition to so many complicated rights, in opposition to so many great interests, and in opposition to the universal practice of mankind in that period, suppose this history, and are a full proof of its authenticity. ( J. Mackenzie, D. D. ) The first year of Cyrus Walter F. Adeney, M. A. After making himself master of Persia and building up an empire in Asia Minor and the north, Cyrus swept down on the plains of Chaldea and captured Babylon in the year B.C. 538. To the Jews this would be the first year of his reign, because it was the first year of his rule over them, just as the year A.D. 1603 is reckoned by Englishmen as the first year of James I., because the king of Scotland then inherited the English throne. ( Walter F. Adeney, M. A. ) Cyrus G. M. Grant, B. D. The valley of the Euphrates was the centre of three out of the five great empires of antiquity — the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian. In the eighth and seventh centuries before Christ the first of these was in its strength, and from its capital, Nineveh, dominated peoples and lands from the Persian Gulf on the south to the Euxine Sea on the north; from Palestine on the west to the Caspian on the east. But among the many subject cities and tribes there was one city and there was one tribe which with special impatience bore the yoke and with special vehemence sought to east it off. The rival city was Babylon, some three hundred miles further south, situated on and watered by the Euphrates, as Nineveh was by the Tigris. In the province of Babylonia one caste or tribe, the Chaldeans, became distinguished for its energy and enterprise and gradually imprinted its character and its name upon the people of the whole province. But despite all efforts to throw off the yoke, the Assyrian grip held fast. Nineveh ruled Babylon; the Assyrian dominated the Chaldean. The rival tribe was that of the Medes, to the east and north of the province of which Nineveh was the centre. Closely allied with and kindred to the Medes was another tribe, destined through Cyrus to give a famous name to history — the Persians. As yet the more civilised Medes have the mastery, and the hardier warriors follow the standard of the Median king; but both perforce acknowledge the supremacy of the lord of Nineveh. Thus it was till nigh the close of the seventh century B.C. A common policy and hatred and the presence of two able leaders then brought Babylonians and Medes into a temporary alliance. The city of the south and the tribes of the east joined hands and forces. Nineveh was besieged and taken, and the Assyrian empire ended. Babylon now entered upon a brief but brilliant career. Hers is the "Golden Empire" of antiquity. Under Nebuchadnezzar she mounted to the very zenith of her greatness. Meanwhile the Median kingdom became consolidated; and still the Median supremacy over the Persians is unchallenged. But about 560 B.C. a youthful hero-prince named Cyrus summoned the archer horsemen of the clans to arms. A long and bloody struggle ensued; in the end, by the aid of the young commander's genius, the conquerors were conquered and the foundations laid of the mighty Persian Empire. Cyrus is one of the most benign figures of history. His name (from the sun, "the sunny one") indicates his nature. When Xenophon sought a sovereign of sagacity and piety to sit as a model for his ideal king he found what he sought in Cyrus. On the downfall of the Medes, he conciliated the good-will of the vanquished by permitting one of their own race to be titular king, whilst the real power of both nations resided in himself. The nominal king reigns but Cyrus rules at Ecbatana. Powerful as he is, his position is one of even greater danger than power. An alliance of three out of the four Great Powers of the day is formed against him. The young lion awaits not the huntsman but prepares to spring. He selects as his first foe Croesus, the king of Lydia. He surprises and storms the city of Sardis, Croesus is taken prisoner, and the Lydian dominion is ended. The Greek cities that fringe the coast of Asia Minor next feel his power and acknowledge his sway. Then he turned his attention to the east, and compelled the Bactrian and Parthian warriors to own him as their master. Cyrus is now free for the great enterprise of his career, the struggle which is to decide whether the Persian or the Chaldean is to rule in Babylon, the seat of the world's empire. He is now brought within the sweep of the Biblical record. There is an ethnological as well as a religious interest attached to this Persian advance upon Babylon. It is the first great collision on which clear light of history falls between two great families of nations, the final result of which was to push back the Semitic races from the front rank of humanity and to place in their stead the Aryan nations who were henceforth to occupy the high places of the field. Aryan and Semitic thus meet in arms before the walls of Babylon. It is most fitting that the advent of the leader of a movement which had such far-reaching results should be inaugurated with so sublime an expectation as that with which Cyrus is hailed by Isaiah. He was the Morning Star of the Aryan races. Persia made way for Greece, and Greece prepared for Rome, and out of Rome has sprung the modern world, and in the modern world the most vigorous branch of the Aryan stock more and more unmistakably rules. On the downfall of Babylon, Cyrus does not immediately take possession of the position he has won. With the same politic end in view as had previously caused him to make a Median Prince precede him at Ecbatana, he now places another of the same nationality upon the vacant throne of Babylon. For two years Darius reigns, then dies; and Cyrus quietly takes possession as the sole ruler of the territories he had inherited and conquered. Henceforth the Persian who rules from Babylon is "The Great King." The edict for the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple was issued 536 B.C. It was the Declaration of the Imperial Policy, and the basis of all that came after. It announced by implication friendship between the empire and the Jews — a friendship to which the Jews remained faithful till, two hundred years afterwards, Alexander the Great erected the Brazen Empire upon the ruins of that of Silver. Cyrus was a man of war to the close, and died in battle, disastrous according to one account, victorious according. to another. ( G. M. Grant, B. D. ) That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled. — The fulfilment of the word of the Lord W. Jones. Here are four things which claim our attention. I. THE REGARD OF GOD FOR HIS WORD. "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled," etc. ( Jeremiah 29:10 ; Numbers 23:19 ). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." "The Word of the Lord endureth for ever." "He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself." We have in this — 1. An assurance that the prophecies and promises of His Word will be fulfilled. "As the architect progressively executes every part of the plan which he has delineated, till the whole design is completed, so God in His providence performs in due order all the prophecies of His Word: a great proportion of His great scheme has already been accomplished, and revolving ages will hasten the performance of all the rest in the appointed periods." 2. An encouragement to trust in Him. "Whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be set on high" ( Psalm 22:4, 5 ; Psalm 18:2 ). II. THE MERCY OF GOD TO HIS PEOPLE. This mercy is seen — 1. In the design and effect of the captivity. "Thus the Divine word of chastisement," says Schultz, "ever goes hand in hand with His word of salvation." 2. In the release from captivity. (1) As to its time. (2) As to its meaning.It was an assurance of the Divine forgiveness of their sins. Their release was also the commencement of many and great blessings. "What a fulness of salvation after the night of misfortune — the entire extent of Messianic redemption." III. THE INFLUENCE OF GOD UPON THE SPIRIT OF MAN. "The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia." 1. The nature of this influence. "This does not mean," says Schultz, "that Cyrus was influenced in the same way as were the prophets, upon whom, with their greater susceptibility, the Spirit of the Lord came; but yet an influence in consequence of which Cyrus made the will of God his own will, and executed it in the things under consideration. God gave him the resolution and the desire to execute His intention." All the good in human life is the result of Divine influence. 2. The subject of this influence: Cyrus king of Persia. "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; He turneth it whithersoever He will." He is now using the powers of the world to promote the interests of His cause. 3. The design of this influence. "The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, that he made a proclamation," etc. In all the inspirations and impressions He imparts to man, His aim is to save and bless him, and to make him an agent in blessing others. IV. THE SUITABLE RESPONSE OF MAN TO THE INFLUENCE OF GOD. "Cyrus made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom," etc. ( W. Jones. ) The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus Inspiration tested J. Parker, D. D The soul of man is the great arbiter. We need not, therefore, bow down before every man or woman who claims inspiration. We listen respectfully to the claim, and say, "What does it amount to? what end would you accomplish? to what purpose does this inspiration you claim point?" and if in answer there should come replies indicative of reform, progress, purification, liberation, enlargement, beneficence, verily the answer will prove the inspiration that is claimed. No man is inspired who wishes to do evil. Disclaim and repudiate, not with sorrow, but with indignation, the inspiration that would seek to curtail liberty, arrest progress, hinder the mission of philanthropy — that would overload the weak, still further impoverish the poor, and shut off from the meanest dwelling any beam of daylight. ( J. Parker, D. D ) Divine communications John Robertson., T. J. Holmes. Last week I was in the office of one of our great Glasgow merchants, and, while we were conversing together, he suddenly asked to be excused for a moment, as there was a summons to speak with another Glasgow firm. Without moving from his seat, without being put about in the slightest, or even turning his head, he lifted from before him the telephone connection. A few minutes passed: not a word did I hear of that conversation except "Goodbye." That was all I heard; but I knew that the man to whom I was talking had been put in possession of a fact which I knew nothing about, and yet all the while I had been in his presence. He had heard, through the special connection that he had, the business and the object of the firm with which he was in communication. Ah me! Sometimes at your side a man gets a communication from Almighty God that you know nothing about, and that is the reason of his activity, and that is the programme that he resolves to carry out at all hazards. He has heard from God; he has been in communication with the Almighty. ( John Robertson. ) Cyrus selected : — It seems strange at first that this man should have been chosen for such commission. God might have employed some one of His own people, Ezekiel, for instance, investing him with supernatural power, as Moses was invested when he delivered the nation from its first captivity in Egypt. But no; He selected rather a pagan king, whose appoint ment had been foretold by Isaiah more than a hundred years before. Often since then God has pursued a like course, employing for His purposes those who were not His professed servants — men of wealth, of learning, of position, of power. He does not count their service as excuse for withholding from Him the trust and obedience which are His due; He does not condone their idolatry; but He permits them to be His helpers, sometimes, it would seem, in order that, brought thus in line with His beneficent designs, they may be persuaded to come heartily into His kingdom. ( T. J. Holmes. ) Divine stirrings in the human soul It is taught that, besides the general moral influences, unconscious and diffused — as it were distilled, like the dew, in silence and darkness — there is an active energy, arousing, filling, impelling the souls of men. It is said that the Spirit of the Lord came upon judges, that it came upon kings, upon prophets, upon apostles — came mightily and stirred them all up. As sudden and mighty winds make trees rock, and wrench them, and even overturn them, so, as by a mighty rushing wind, the Spirit of God has descended on men — on Samuel, on David, on Isaiah, on Paul. It is taught likewise that, while this energy of the Divine mind prepared certain men for emergencies, and prepared them to act official parts, all true Christians, all godly souls, are opening to a quickening influence, if not so mighty, yet of the same general kind — an influence which stimulates, assists, ripens, and so finally sanctifies. Revivals J. Parker, D. D There have been great awakenings in literature. Suddenly a nation has, so to say, sprung to its feet and said, "Let us read!" That is a mere matter of what is called profane history. Ages have passed in which men cared not to read, or write, or think; if there were any books to be opened, as a rule they lay untouched; but quite suddenly there has been what is termed a literary revival. Is such a thing possible? If it is possible to have a literary revival — that is, a revival of the love of learning, the love of reading, the love of writing — why may there not be such a thing as a religious revival, in which men shall say suddenly, but unanimously, "Let us pray"? And when men so moved to pray they shorten the distance between earth and heaven. It would be perhaps most difficult to believe in a religious revival if there had not been analogous revivals — revivals of learning, revivals of art. ( J. Parker, D. D ) That he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom The edict of Cyrus William Jones. I. THE DEVOUT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY. 1. In the bestowment of His favours. 2. In the authority of His commands. II. THE MAGNANIMOUS EMANCIPATIO

Benson Commentary Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Ezra 1:1 . Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia — This is that famous Cyrus who, one hundred and forty years before the temple was destroyed, and two hundred years before he was born, was mentioned by name in the prophecies of Isaiah, as raised up, and appointed by God, for the restoration of his people, Isaiah 44:28 ; Isaiah 45:1 ; Isaiah 45:4 . This remarkable prediction, it is probable, Daniel showed to Cyrus, and that it induced him to give forth the following edict. So Prideaux thinks, with many other learned men. Cyrus, it appears, at his first coming to Babylon, found Daniel there, an old minister of state, famed for his great wisdom over all the East; and hence he not only himself employed him as such, but, upon settling the government, made him first superintendent, or prime minister of state, over all the provinces of the empire. In this station of life Daniel must have been a person of great authority at court, and highly in the esteem of his prince; and, as there could be no doubt but he would use his good offices in behalf of the enlargement of the Jews, so it is not likely he should use them in vain, especially if he showed Cyrus the prophecies just mentioned, which, it is evident from the decree itself, that Cyrus had seen. It must be observed that, strictly speaking, this decree was not given forth in the first year of Cyrus’s reign; for then the Jews were not his subjects; but in the first year after his conquest of Babylon, where the Jews then lived in captivity. That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled — Who foretold that after seventy years the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans should be destroyed, and the people of Judah restored to their own land. This prophecy was first delivered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar; and the same year Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judea, besieged and took Jerusalem, made Jehoiakim his subject and tributary, transported the finest children of the royal family and of the nobility to Babylon, to be bred up there for eunuchs and slaves in his palace, and also carried away the vessels of the house of the Lord and put them in the temple of his god at Babylon. Seventy years from this time will bring us down to the first year of Cyrus, ( 2 Chronicles 36:22 ; Ezra 1:3 ,) when he made his proclamation for the restoration of the Jews, and for the building of the temple at Jerusalem. This computation of the seventy years captivity appears to many to be the truest and most agreeable to Scripture. But, if we fix the commencement of these seventy years at the time when Jerusalem was burned and destroyed, their conclusion will fall about the time when Darius issued his decree for rebuilding the temple, after the work had been suspended and stopped. Or, if we fix their commencement at the time when Nebuzaradan carried away the last remainder of the people, and completed the desolation of the land, their conclusion will fall about the time when the temple was finished and dedicated, and the first passover was solemnized in it. “So that,” as Dean Prideaux says, “taking it which way we will, and at what stage we please, the prophecy of Jeremiah will be fully and exactly accomplished concerning this matter.” It may be said to have been accomplished, indeed, at three different times, and in three different manners, and therefore, possibly, all might have been intended, though the first, without doubt, was the principal subject of the prophecy. The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia — God, who had long before designed him for this work, now suggested these thoughts and intentions to him, and excited him to begin to prosecute them, (for it was not all accomplished in the first year of Cyrus,) which he did, not only by causing his will and pleasure to be proclaimed, but to be put in writing, that none might mistake his meaning. Ezra 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Ezra 1:2 . The Lord God of heaven — It is observable, says Mr. Locke, that God, in the former books, is called the Lord of hosts, but in the last of Chronicles, in this, in Nehemiah, and Daniel, that is, in the books written after the captivity, he is styled the God of heaven, and not Lord of hosts, though the sense of both expressions is the same. Probably those who showed or interpreted to Cyrus the prophecy of Isaiah concerning himself, acquainted him that the God, whose prophet Isaiah was, was worshipped by the Jews, not as the God of their particular country merely, but as the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. And Cyrus, though it is likely he did not entirely forsake the religion of his country, yet might acknowledge and revere Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, as the true and great God. For, though the Jews were strictly commanded to worship one God, and not to admit another into fellowship with him, yet many in the heathen nations, while they worshipped idols, acknowledged a true and supreme God, and often worshipped the gods of other countries in common with their own. Hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth — All in those parts of the world; all those large dominions which the Assyrians and Babylonians had possessed: the eastern kings were wont, as they are still, to speak magnificently of their dominions. The gift of these Cyrus ascribes to the great God, through the above-mentioned prophecy of Isaiah concerning him, which must have carried a great evidence with it, especially to him who was so highly encouraged by it; or through some special illumination which God had vouchsafed to him, as he had to Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and some other heathen princes. And he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem — So he might conclude from the prophecy just referred to, ( Isaiah 45:13 ,) where God says of Cyrus, He shall build my city, of which the temple was a principal part, and more plainly from Isaiah 44:28 , He shall say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Ezra 1:3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem. Ezra 1:3 . Who is there among you of all his people? — Not of the tribe of Judah only, but of Israel also, who were under his government, the Assyrians and Medes, among whom they were scattered, being his subjects. Accordingly Josephus says, that Zerubbabel sent the edict of Cyrus into Media to the rest of the tribes. His God be with him — Let his God help him, as I also shall; and let him go up to Jerusalem — Thus he not only makes a proclamation to them of liberty to go to their own country, but desires them to go, and prays God to be with them, and prosper them in building his house, saying, He is the God, and thereby evidently acknowledging him to be the true, if not also the only God. Ezra 1:4 And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem. Ezra 1:4 . Whosoever remaineth in any place where be sojourneth, &c. — This seems to relate to such as were desirous to go up with their brethren, but were forced to stay behind for want of necessaries to support them in so long a journey. To such he would have a supply of all things needful to be given by the inhabitants of the places where they lived, who could afford it, besides sending by them an offering toward the rebuilding of the temple. Ezra 1:5 Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem. Ezra 1:5 . Then rose up the chief of the fathers, &c. — Eminent and experienced men, from whom it might justly be expected, that, as they were above their brethren in dignity, so they should go before them in duty. Of Judah and Benjamin — And with them some of the other tribes, as appears from 1 Chronicles 9:3 ; but these only are named, because they were most considerable for number and quality. And the priests and Levites — Who, as became them, were among the first that set their faces toward Zion. If any good work is to be done, let ministers take the lead in it. With all whose spirit God had raised, to go up — Whom he had inspired with reverence and love for himself as the God of Israel, and a deep concern for the restoration of his worship at Jerusalem, and with that resolution and fortitude which were requisite to enable them to break through the difficulties and discouragements which were in their way. These were undoubtedly great and many; such as their present penury; the length, and hazards, and expenses of the journey; their being dispersed in several and distant places, which prevented the conjunction of their counsels and actions; the multitude of their enemies; the actual possession of their country by others; the ruinous state of Jerusalem, and the other cities and towns of Judea; and the great backwardness of many of their own brethren to go with them. Add to this, the temptation was strong to some of them to stay in Babylon, being conveniently and comfortably settled there, and having contracted an acquaintance with their neighbours, such as was agreeable and pleasing to them. By these and such like considerations, many were induced to remain where they were, or at least not to go with the first that went. But there were some that broke through these difficulties, and they were those whose spirits God had raised up: whom by his Spirit he had inspired with a generous desire of liberty, and a gracious affection to their own land, the land God had given them, and a desire for the free and public exercise of their religion. Had God left them to themselves, and to the counsels of flesh and blood, they would have stayed in Babylon: but, as he had raised up the spirit of Cyrus to proclaim this liberty, so he raised up their spirits to take the benefit of it, and set their faces toward Zion, as strangers asking the way thither, Jeremiah 50:5 . For, being a new generation, they went out, like their father Abraham, from this land of the Chaldees, not knowing whither they went. Ezra 1:6 And all they that were about them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious things, beside all that was willingly offered. Ezra 1:6 . All that were about them strengthened their hands — Some of them, probably, because they had embraced, or at least favoured, the Jewish religion, concerning which they had been instructed by the Israelites, who had now for a long time dwelt among them; and others, that they might hereby gratify the king, and procure his favour, perceiving him to be friendly to the Jews, and forward and hearty in the work of helping them. Thus God, when he pleases, can incline the hearts of strangers to be kind to his people; yea, make those strengthen their hands, who formerly weakened them. 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; Ezra 1:8 Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. Ezra 1:8 . And numbered them — Caused them to be delivered to the Jews by number; unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah — The captain and governor of these returning Jews, Ezra 2:2 . The sceptre, therefore, was not yet departed from Judah. This person’s name was originally Zerubbabel, but it was common for the great men of Judah, at the time of the captivity, to have two names, one of their own country, which was domestic, and another of the Chaldeans, which was used at court. “Zerubbabel was born at Babylon, and his name, which signifies an exile, or stranger in Babylon, implies the misery of the people of Israel at that time; but Sheshbazzar, which is a compound of two words, signifying fine linen and gold, seems to be a name of better omen, and to denote their future and more flourishing condition. So Bishop Patrick. Dr. Trapp, however, says that Sheshbazzar signifies joy in tribulation. Some are of opinion, that among the sacred things which Cyrus ordered to be restored, the ark of the covenant was one; but it nowhere appears that this ark was carried from Jerusalem to Babylon. They tell us, indeed, that in the second temple sacrifices were offered as in the first, and all solemn days observed, especially the great day of expiation, when the law ordained that the blood should be sprinkled before the mercy-seat, and the mercy-seat, say they, was part of the ark; but besides that the ark, without the Shechinah, (which was then certainly withdrawn,) would have been of no great significance, the Jews universally acknowledge that the ark was one of the five things which were wanting in the second temple.” — Dodd. Ezra 1:9 And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives, Ezra 1:10 Thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. Ezra 1:11 All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, CYRUS Ezra 1:1 THE remarkable words with which the Second Book of Chronicles closes, and which are repeated in the opening verses of the Book of Ezra, afford the most striking instance on record of that peculiar connection between the destinies of the little Hebrew nation and the movements of great World Empires which frequently emerges in history. We cannot altogether set it down to the vanity of their writers, or to the lack of perspective accompanying a contracted, provincial education, that the Jews are represented in the Old Testament as playing a more prominent part on the world’s stage than one to which the size of their territory-little bigger than Wales-or their military prowess would, entitle them. The fact is indisputable. No doubt it is to be attributed in part to the geographical position of Palestine on the highway of the march of armies to and fro between Asia and Africa; but it must spring also in some measure from the unique qualities of the strange people who have given their religion to the most civilised societies of mankind. In the case before us the greatest man of his age, one of the half-dozen Founders of Empires, who constitute a lofty aristocracy even among sovereigns, is manifestly concerning himself very specially with the restoration of one of the smallest of the many subject races that fell into his hands when he seized the garnered spoils of previous conquerors. Whatever we may think of the precise words of his decree as this is now reported to us by a Hebrew scribe, it is unquestionable that he issued some such orders as are contained in it. Cyrus, as it now appears, was originally king of Elam, the modern Khuzistan, not of Persia, although the royal family from which he sprang was of Persian extraction. After making himself master of Persia and building up an empire in Asia Minor and the north, he swept down on to the plains of Chaldaea and captured Babylon in the year B.C. 538. To the Jews this would be the first year of his reign, because it was the first year of his rule over them, just as the year A.D. 1603 is reckoned by Englishmen as the first year of James I, because the king of Scotland then inherited the English throne. In this year the new sovereign, of his own initiative, released the Hebrew exiles, and even assisted them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their ruined temple. Such an astounding act of generosity was contrary to the precedent of other conquerors, who accepted as a matter of course the arrangement of subject races left by their predecessors; and we are naturally curious to discover the motives that prompted it. Like our mythical King Arthur, the Cyrus of legend is credited with a singularly attractive disposition. Herodotus says the Persians regarded him as their "father" and their "shepherd." In Xenophon’s romance he appears as a very kindly character. Cicero calls him the most just, wise, and amiable of rulers. Although it cannot be dignified with the name of history, this universally accepted tradition seems to point to some foundation in fact. It is entirely in accord with the Jewish picture of the Great King. There is some reason for believing that the privilege Cyrus offered to the Jews was one in which other nations shared. On a small, broken clay cylinder, some four inches in diameter, discovered quite recently and now deposited in the British Museum, Cyrus is represented as saying, "I assembled all those nations, and I caused them to go back to their countries." Thus the return of the Jews may be regarded as a part of a general centrifugal movement in the new Empire. Nevertheless, the peculiar favour indicated by the decree issued to the Jews suggests something special in their case, and this must be accounted for before the action of Cyrus can be well understood. Little or no weight can be attached to the statement of Josephus, who inserts in the very language of the decree a reference to the foretelling of the name of Cyrus by "the prophets," as a prime motive for issuing it, and adds that this was known to Cyrus by his reading the Book of Isaiah. Always more or less untrustworthy whenever he touches the relations between his people and foreigners, the Jewish historian is even exceptionally unsatisfactory in his treatment of the Persian Period. It may be, as Ewald asserts, that Josephus is here following some Hellenistic writer; but we know nothing of his authority. There is no reference to this in our one authority, the Book of Ezra; and if it had been true there would have been every reason to publish it. Some Jews at court may have shown Cyrus the prophecies in question; indeed it is most probable that men who wished to please him would have done so. Plato in the "Laws" represents Cyrus as honouring those who knew how to give good advice. But it is scarcely reasonable to suppose, without a particle of evidence, that a great monarch, flushed with victory, would set himself to carry out a prediction purporting to emanate from the Deity of one of the conquered peoples, when that prediction was distinctly in their interests, unless he was first actuated by some other considerations. Until a few years ago it was commonly supposed that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, who was disgusted at the cruel and lustful idolatry of the Babylonians, and that when he discovered a monotheistic people oppressed by vicious heathen polytheists, he claimed religious brotherhood with them, and so came to show them singular favour. Unfortunately for his fame, this fascinating theory has been recently shattered by the discovery of the little cylinder already referred to. Here Cyrus is represented as saying that "the gods" have deserted Nabonidas-the last king of Babylon-because he has neglected their service; and that Merodach, the national divinity of Babylon, has transferred his favour to Cyrus; who now honours him with many praises. An attempt has been made to refute the evidence of this ancient record by attributing the cylinder to some priest of Bel, who, it is said, may have drawn up the inscription without the knowledge of the king, and even in direct opposition to his religious views. A most improbable hypothesis! especially as we have absolutely no grounds for the opinion that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian. The Avesta, the sacred collection of hymns which forms the basis of the Parsee scriptures, came from the far East, close to India, and it was written in a language almost identical with Sanscrit and quite different from the Old Persian of Western Persia. We have no ground for supposing that as yet it had been adopted in the remote southwestern region of Elam, where Cyrus was brought up. That monarch, it would seem, was a liberal-minded syncretist, as ready to make himself at home with the gods of the peoples he conquered as with their territories. Such a man would be astute enough to represent the indigenous divinities as diverting their favour from the fallen and therefore discredited kings he had overthrown, and transferring it to the new victor. We must therefore descend from the highlands of theology in our search for an explanation of the conduct of Cyrus. Can we find this in some department of state policy? We learn from the latter portion of our Book of Isaiah that the Jewish captives suffered persecution under Nabonidas. It is not difficult to guess the cause of the embitterment of this king against them after they had been allowed to live in peace and prosperity under his predecessors. Evidently the policy of Nebuchadnezzar, which may have succeeded with some other races, had broken down in its application to a people with such tough national vitality as that of the Jews. It was found to be impossible to eradicate their patriotism-or rather the patriotism of the faithful nucleus of the nation-impossible to make Jerusalem forgotten by the waters of Babylon. This ancient "Semitic question" was the very reverse of that which now vexes Eastern Europe, because in the case of the Jews at Babylon the troublesome aliens were only desirous of liberty to depart: but it sprang from the same essential cause-the separateness of the Hebrew race. Now things often present themselves in a true light to a newcomer who approaches them with a certain mental detachment, although they may have been grievously misapprehended by those people among whom they have slowly shaped themselves. Cyrus was a man of real genres: and immediately he came upon the scene he must have perceived the mistake of retaining a restless, disaffected population, like a foreign body rankling in the very heart of his empire. Moreover, to allow the Jews to return home would serve a double purpose. While it would free the Euphrates Valley from a constant source of distress, it would plant a grateful, and therefore loyal, people on the western confines of the empire-perhaps, as some have thought, to be used as outworks and a basis of operations in a projected campaign against Egypt. Thus a far-sighted statesman might regard the liberation of the Jews as a stroke of wise policy. But we must not make too much of this. The restored Jews were a mere handful of religious devotees, scarcely able to hold their own against the attacks of neighbouring villages; and while they were permitted to build their temple, nothing was said in the royal rescript about fortifying their city. So feeble a colony could not have been accounted of much strategic importance by such a master of armies as Cyrus. Again, we know from the "Second Isaiah" that, when the Persian war-cloud was hovering on the horizon, the Jewish exiles hailed it as the sign of deliverance from persecution. The invader who brought destruction to Babylon promised relief to her victims; and the lofty strains of the prophet bespeak an inspired perception of the situation which encouraged higher hopes. A second discovery in the buried library of bricks is that of a small flat tablet, also recently unearthed like the cylinder of Cyrus, which records this very section of the history of Babylon. Here it is stated that Cyrus intrigued with a disaffected party within the city. Who would be so likely as the persecuted Jews to play this part? Further, the newly found Babylonian record makes it clear that Herodotus was mistaken in his famous account of the siege of Babylon where he connected it with the coming of Cyrus. He must have misapprehended a report of one of the two sieges under Darius, when the city had revolted and was recaptured by force, for we now know that after a battle fought in the open country Cyrus was received into the city without striking another blow. He would be likely to be in a gracious mood then, and if he knew there were exiles, languishing in captivity, who hailed his advent as that of a deliverer, even apart from the question whether they had previously opened up negotiations with him, he could not but look favourably upon them: so that generosity and perhaps gratitude combined with good policy to govern his conduct. Lastly, although he was not a theological reformer, he seems to have been of a religious character, according to his light, and therefore it is not unnatural to suppose that he may have heartily thrown himself into a movement of which his wisdom approved, and with which all his generous instincts sympathised. Thus, after all, there may be something in the old view, if only we combine it with our newer information. Under the peculiar political circumstances of his day, Cyrus may have been prepared to welcome the prophetic assurance that he was a heaven-sent shepherd, if some of the Jews had shown it him. Even without any such assurance, other conquerors have been only too ready to flatter themselves that they were executing a sacred mission. These considerations do not in the least degree limit the Divine element of the narrative as that is brought forward by the Hebrew historian. On the contrary, they give additional importance to it. The chronicler sees in the decree of Cyrus and its issues an accomplishment of the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah. Literally he says that what happens is in order that the word of the Lord may be brought to an end. It is in the "fulness of the time," as the advent of Christ was later in another relation, { Galatians 4:4 } The writer seems to have in mind the passage-"And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment: and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans: and I will make it desolate forever" { Jeremiah 25:11-12 } as well as another prophecy-"For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place." ( Jeremiah 29:10 ) Now if we do not accept the notion of Josephus that Cyrus was consciously and purposely fulfilling these predictions, we do not in any way diminish the fact that the deliverance came from God. If we are driven to the conclusion that Cyrus was not solely or chiefly actuated by religious motives, or even if we take his action to be purely one of state policy, the ascription of this inferior position to Cyrus only heightens the wonderful glory of God’s overruling providence. Nebuchadnezzar was described as God’s "servant" { Jeremiah 27:6 } because, although he was a bad man, only pursuing his own wicked way, yet, all unknown to him, that way was made to serve God’s purposes. Similarly Cyrus, who is not a bad man, is God’s "Shepherd," when he delivers the suffering flock from the wolf and sends it back to the fold, whether he aims at obeying the will of God or not. It is part of the great revelation of God in history, that He is seen working out His supreme purposes in spite of the ignorance and sometimes even by means of the malice of men. Was not this the case in the supreme event of history, the crucifixion of our Lord? If the cruelty of Nebuchadnezzar and the feebleness of Pilate could serve God, so could the generosity of Cyrus. The question of the chronological exactness of this fulfilment of prophecy troubles some minds that are anxious about Biblical arithmetic. The difficulty is to arrive at the period of seventy years. It would seem that this could only be done by some stretching at both ends of the exile. We must begin with Nebuchadnezzar’s first capture of Jerusalem and the first carrying away of a small body of royal hostages to Babylon in the year B.C. 606. Even then we have only sixty-eight years to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, which happened in B.C. 538. Therefore to get the full seventy years it is proposed to extend the exile till the year B.C. 536, which is the date of the commencement of Cyrus’s sole rule. But there are serious difficulties in these suggestions. In his prediction of the seventy years Jeremiah plainly refers to the complete overthrow of the nation with the strong words, "This whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment." As a matter of fact, the exile only began in earnest with the final siege of Jerusalem, which took place in B.C. 588. Then Cyrus actually began his reign over the Jews in B.C. 538, when he took Babylon, and he issued his edict in his first year. Thus the real exile as a national trouble seems to have occupied fifty years, or, reckoning a year for the issuing and execution of the edict, fifty-one years. Instead of straining at dates, is it not more simple and natural to suppose that Jeremiah gave a round figure to signify a period which would cover the lifetime of his contemporaries, at all events? However this may be, nobody can make a grievance out of the fact that the captivity may not have been quite so lengthy as the previous warnings of it foreshadowed. Tillotson wisely remarked that there is this difference between the Divine promises and the Divine threatenings, that while God pledges His faithfulness to the full extent of the former, He is not equally bound to the perfect accomplishment of the latter. If the question of dates shows a little discrepancy, what does this mean but that God is so merciful as not always to exact the last farthing? Moreover it should be remarked that the point of Jeremiah’s prophecy is not the exact length of the captivity, but the certain termination of it after a long while. The time is fulfilled when the end has come. But the action of Cyrus is not only regarded as the accomplishment of prophecy; it is also attributed to the direct influence of God exercised on the Great King, for we read "the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia," etc. It would indicate the radical scepticism which is too often hidden under the guise of a rigorous regard for correct belief, to maintain that because we now know Cyrus to have been a polytheist his spirit could not have been stirred up by the true God. It is not the teaching of the Bible that God confines His influence on the hearts of men to Jews and Christians. Surely we cannot suppose that the Father of all mankind rigidly refuses to hold any intercourse with the great majority of His children-never whispers them a guiding word in their anxiety and perplexity, never breathes into them a helpful impulse, even in their best moments, when they are earnestly striving to do right. In writing to the Romans St. Paul distinctly argues on the ground that God has revealed Himself to the heathen world, { Romans 1:19 } and in the presence of Cornelius St. Peter as distinctly asserts that God accepts the devout and upright of all nations. { Acts 10:34-35 } Here even in the Old Testament it is recognised that God moves the king of Persia. This affords a singular encouragement for prayer, because it suggests that God has access to those who are far out of our reach; that He quite sets aside the obstruction of intermediaries-secretaries, chamberlains, grand-viziers, and all the entourage of a court; that He goes straight into the audience chamber, making direct for the inmost thoughts and feelings of the man whom He would influence. The wonder of it is that God condescends to do this even with men who know little of Him: but it should be remembered that though He is strange to many men, none of them are strange to Him. The Father knows the children who do not know Him. It may be remarked, finally, on this point, that the special Divine influence now referred to is dynamic rather than illuminating. To stir up the spirit is to move to activity. God not only teaches; He quickens. In the case of Cyrus, the king used his own judgment and acted on his own opinions: yet the impulse which drove him was from God. That was everything. We live in a God-haunted world; why then are we slow to take the first article of our creed in its full meaning? Is it so difficult to believe in God when all history is alive with His presence? Ezra 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. THE ROYAL EDICT Ezra 1:2-4 ; Ezra 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 Ezra 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 king’s 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" (Jehovah’s) "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 God’s 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 Isaiah 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." { Haggai 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. Ezekiel’s 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