Ezra 1:3

Whois there among you of all his people? his God, &c. R.V. Whosoever there is among you of all his people, his God, &c., rightly translating by the indefinite relative instead of by the interrogative pronoun.

among you The decree is addressed to the inhabitants of the many kingdoms which the Persian Empire included.

of all his people From the context, in which Judah and Jerusalem alone are mentioned, it is clear that the edict referred only to the Southern kingdom whose inhabitants had been -deported" by Nebuchadnezzar. It is not likely that Cyrus would have been acquainted with the circumstances of the -deportation" of the Northern kingdom by Sargon the Assyrian, so many years previously (721 b.c.), even if (which is most unlikely) the identity of the Ten Tribes had been preserved. At the same time there is good reason to suppose that some captives from the Northern tribes, who had preserved their lineage and their national religion, availed themselves of the opportunity which the decree of Cyrus offered them. See on Ezra 2:2. Cf. 1 Chronicles 9:3.

his God be with him The parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 36:23 reads -the Lord (Jahveh) his God bewith him". As it is more probable that the sacred Name should have been inserted than omitted by the Jewish copyists, the text as it stands in our verse is preferable; it is also supported by the LXX. and by Esther 2:5. The word in the original for -be" (y-hî), containing the first two consonants of -Jahveh", may possibly have been mistaken for it and have given rise to the variation. The words are a common form of blessing. Cf. English -Good-bye" (God be with you). After the blessing comes the substance of the decree, (1) the Return, (2) the Building of the Temple.

and let him go up Change of subject, "His God be with him and let such an one -go up" ". The journey to the land of Judah is treated as an ascent. Cf. "The Songs of Ascents", Psalms 120-134.

and build i.e. rebuild.

the Lord God of Israel R.V. the Lord, the God of Israel, in the original -Jahveh the God of Israel"; -the God of Israel", the old national title used freely without room for misconception after the destruction of the Northern kingdom (cf. in Ezra 4:1; Ezra 4:3; Ezra 5:1; Ezra 6:14; Ezra 6:21-22; Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:15; Ezra 8:35; Ezra 9:4; Ezra 9:15). The discipline of the Captivity had revived the conception of the true Israel (see Isaiah 41:17; Jeremiah 30:2; Ezekiel 8:4).

(heis the God,) whichis in Jerusalem So R.V. text, but R.V. margin - he is the God which is in Jerusalem", gives an alternative rendering.

(a) If the words -he is the God" be taken parenthetically as in A.V. and R.V. text, then -which is in Jerusalem" refers to -the house of Jahveh". It gives an additional piece of information necessary to those who did not associate the temples of gods with any one place. Temples of heathen gods, e.g. of Nebo, might be erected in any number of towns. Why not therefore of Jahveh? Cyrus" decree explicitly localizes the cult.

(b) Otherwise the words, -which is in Jerusalem", are taken closely with -He is the God", as in the margin of the R.V. This is the rendering of the LXX. (αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν Ἱερονσαλήμ) and the Vulgate (Ipse est Deus qui est in Ierusalem). It is also supported by the Jewish tradition preserved by the Hebrew accents. Accepting this collocation of the words, the student must be careful to attach the proper emphasis to the words -the God". For the clause is not simply geographically explanatory of the foregoing words, -the Lord the God of Israel", stating that -he is the God who is in Jerusalem" in order to distinguish him from the gods of other localities. But the name, -the God", is used emphatically (hâ-Elohim, not Elohim) and absolutely, as in Ezra 1:4-5. Compare -The Lord He is theGod" in 1 Kings 18:39. The sense then is -He is The God, the Almighty, and He has made choice of Jerusalem as His dwelling-place".

Reasons for preferring the former translation (i.e. that of the A.V. and R.V. Text) are the following

(1) The phrase -which is in Jerusalem" is almost invariably in this book applied to the Temple or Temple service (cf. Ezra 1:4-5; Ezra 2:68; Ezra 5:2; Ezra 5:14-16; Ezra 6:5; Ezra 6:12 (9, 18), Ezra 7:15-17; Ezra 7:27). (2) It is not a natural phrase whether part of the original edict or added by Jewish translator by which to designate One who has already been termed -the God of Israel". (3) The objection to the separation (in the A.V. and R.V.) of the clause, "which is in J.", from the word to which it should be attached, has occasioned the rendering of the LXX., Vulg., and R.V. marg. (4) But a parenthetical -He is the God" bears the impress of a thoroughly Jewish insertion after the mention of the sacred Name. (5) The supposed significance of the alternative rendering disappears with the discovery that Cyrus was no monotheist. For Cyrus would not have said -He is the (i.e. the true) God who is at Jerusalem" while a post-captivity Jewish editor would not have introduced so unusual and restrictive a localization for his God.

We conclude therefore that the words -He is the God" are a Jewish parenthesis inserted by the compiler reverently but awkwardly, in such a way as to break up the sentence -the house of the Lord, the God of Israel which is at Jerusalem".