Introduction
Critical commentators view the mention of Cyrus as proof that Isaiah 40-48 was written by a prophetic hand other than Isaiah of Jerusalem. Conservative scholars, on the other hand, think that Isaiah could have predicted the rise of Cyrus, but they are in the minority.
The issues are complex and some conservative commentators regard the mention of Cyrus to be a corruption of the text. In this way they are able to ascribe all of Isaiah 40-66 to Isaiah of Jerusalem. However, it is more common for conservative critics to accept that Cyrus is mentioned and that Isaiah has “thought himself” into the situation of the Babylonian exiles and predicted the downfall of Babylon and the return of the exiles to Judah.
The problem with the conservative approach is that generally a prophet speaks to his own generation; God raises up prophets to address his people and the situation that they are facing. Why would Isaiah of Jerusalem mention Cyrus? Of what relevance is Cyrus to the Jerusalem of his day? In order to answer this question we have to read all of Isaiah 40-66 and get a picture of the events that Isaiah is addressing in Jerusalem.
The proposal of this article is that Cyrus is presented as an ironic “fulfillment” of the purpose that God had originally sought to carry out with his Servant Hezekiah.
Describing Cyrus with Irony
The evidence for irony in the description of Cyrus can be set out as follows:
1) Yahweh addresses Cyrus, “to his anointed to Cyrus” (Isa 45:1) and this cites the Davidic formula, “to his anointed to David” (2 Sam 22:51, Pss 18:51).[1] Since Cyrus is not someone anointed by a priest or prophet, the assertion is ironic and a contrast with the Davidic king in Jerusalem. The implication is that the Davidic king had failed, and a “foreign” Davidic replacement was necessary. The criticism is severe, but it reflects the gravity of the prediction of the Babylonian captivity of the royal house in Isa 39:6, which came after the deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian army.
2) A word-play is made on Hezekiah’s name in the assertion, “whose right hand I have strengthened” (Isa 45:1, KJV mg.). Hezekiah’s name is embedded in the verb “to strengthen”—hzqyyh/hzq. Such word-play is appropriate for ironical invective directed towards an individual: their name is used against them.
The strengthening of Cyrus’ right hand picks up a further Davidic element in the strengthening of the Davidic king’s right hand (Pss 16:8, 73:23, Isa 41:13). The motif of the right hand is not used elsewhere in relation to foreign conquerors. Where God brings a conqueror against the land, this is not elsewhere described in terms of God holding the conqueror’s right hand. The target of this prediction could be the Babylonian envoys if the point of the rhetoric is that Yahweh will raise up Cyrus and “take the hand” of a ruler who will subdue nations including Babylon.
3) Cyrus is addressed in person in Isa 45:1-7, but the scene includes others (the audience) because Cyrus is spoken about in the third person a parenthesis:
“…to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut…” Isa 45:1 (KJV)
The verb for “to subdue” is rare and is used here in an allusion to Isa 41:2,
“Who raised up righteousness from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and let him subdue kings?” Isa 41:2 (KJV revised)
The links between Isa 45:1 and Isa 41:2 have caused commentators to identify the “righteousness from the east” in Isa 41:2 as Cyrus. However, the linkage could be one of an ironical contrast between two individuals rather than expressing the same reference. If Isa 41:2 is about Hezekiah, pictured as an anti-typical Abraham,[2] these links establish an ironic contrast between Hezekiah and Cyrus.
4) The “loosing” of the loins of kings uses a common verb (Isa 45:1); the figure seems to be that the power of kings will be weakened before Cyrus (cf. Nah 2:2). The result of this will be to open the gates and the gates will not be shut. This idea resonates with Isa 60:11,
“Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut[3] day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.” Isa 60:11 (KJV)
This text describes the preeminence of Jerusalem over the nations, but it ascribes this achievement to the redeemer who comes to Zion (Isa 59:20) as the “light” of Zion (Isa 60:1). If Isa 45:1 is expressing the same idea in shorthand, it is ascribing the opening of the gates of Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 26:2) to Cyrus and asserting that kings will be brought to Jerusalem. However, such a prediction would be ironic if it is parasitic upon the redemptive hope expressed in Isaiah 60, as such a hope would be expected through a messianic figure (Isa 61:1).
5) Yahweh addresses Cyrus, “I will go before you” (Isa 45:2), and this echoes older traditions of the Angel of the Lord (Exod 23:20, 23, 32:34, 33:2) going before the people. The role adopted by Yahweh, however, is not the former role of the Angel of the Lord, which was to drive out the nations so that Israel might inherit the land; the role would be to straighten something.
The AV, NASB and RSV convey different ideas about what is straightened:
“I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight…” Isa 45:2 (KJV)
“I will go before you and make the rough places smooth…” Isa 45:2 (NAS)
“I will go before you and level the mountains …” Isa 45:2 (RSV)
The Hebrew word, translated “crooked places” in the KJV means “honourable” (7x, Exod 23:3, Lev 19:15, 32, Prov 25:6, Isa 63:1, Lam 5:12), and there is no reason to posit a different sense for Isa 45:2. The translators have seen a connection with Isa 40:3, because of the shared claim to “straighten” something. In Isa 40:4, the “crooked” (cf. Jer 17:9, Hos 6:8) are made “straight”, which uses the corresponding noun for the verb “to straighten”, and such a group could well be those in positions of honour as suggested by Isa 45:2.
The link with Isa 40:3-4 sets the rhetorical tone for this assertion about Cyrus. In Isa 40:3-4, the people are exhorted to prepare a way for the Lord and “straighten” his highway; here this work is going to be done by Yahweh for Cyrus. The contrast could not be greater, but it signifies the deeply ironical nature of the prediction. If the honourable among the people would not straighten their “paths” and prepare a highway for Yahweh, this would be done by God himself—he would straighten the honourable for Cyrus.
6) The next prediction cites Pss 107:16,
“I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron…” Isa 45:2 (KJV revised)
“For he hath broken the doors of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.” Pss 107:16 (KJV)
The point being made in this clause is not equivalent to the earlier assertion that the gates will not be shut (Isa 45:1). If doors are opened, there is no need to break them down. Also, this characteristic does not fit Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon; it is not the city gates that are broken down, as that city was captured without a battle; it could fit Cyrus’ capture of other cities.
The psalmist supplies the clue. Yahweh has broken down the doors of brass and bars of iron in order to release men from prison (Pss 107:10, 14, cf. Isa 42:22). Isaiah is predicting the same action will be carried out by Cyrus, i.e. Cyrus will release men from prison. However, the contrast is ironic because this is the action that had been appointed to the Servant, who was to bring out “those that sit in darkness” (Isa 42:7, Pss 107:10).
7) While any conqueror would acquire treasure, this does not explain the choice of expression “treasures of darkness” (Isa 45:3). The emphasis in the account of the visit of the Babylonian envoys was on Hezekiah showing off his treasure (Isa 39:2, 4). It would be ironic therefore for that treasure to be given to a foreign king who was fulfilling a Davidic role. Hezekiah’s treasures were taken to Babylon (Jer 20:5), and would have ended up in the possession of Cyrus when he took Babylon. Hezekiah’s treasures would be “treasures of darkness” for Cyrus because they would have been placed in the “darkness” of captivity as a consequence of thinking in darkness.
8) Cyrus is “called”—“I, the Lord, call thee” (Isa 45:3), which is language used of the Servant (Isa 42:6); a stress on the “name” of the Servant is also featured (Isa 49:1). The assertion, “I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name”, cites Isa 43:1, “I have called thee by thy name”, which is addressed to Jacob/Israel. This duplication in language is a clear indication that Cyrus is an ironic substitution for the Servant; it also supplies the background as to why Cyrus was named in the first place.
The Servant was named from the womb,
“The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” Isa 49:1 (KJV)
This pattern of parental naming is also illustrated in the naming of Immanuel (Isa 7:14). It follows from this pattern that naming would be involved in any ironic critique of God’s Servant in order to establish that person as a comparable named figure. Thus, while scholars have thought it implausible that Isaiah of Jerusalem would have named a Persian ruler 150 years ahead of time, in fact, an “ironic servant” would require a name to complete the irony.
Cyrus is also “surnamed” by Yahweh (Isa 45:4), but the surname or title is not stated. The Hebrew verb is rare (4x) and occurs in Isaiah[4] only in Isa 44:5, “and surname himself by the name of Israel” (KJV). If “Cyrus” and “anointed” are not considered titles, the implication of this intertext is that Yahweh surnamed Cyrus by the name of Israel for the sake of Jacob his servant.[5]
9) The final ironic characteristic of Cyrus is his “girding” by Yahweh. The echo here is to the “girding” of David,
“For thou hast girded me with strength to battle: them that rose up against me hast thou subdued under me.” 2 Sam 22:40 (KJV), cf. Pss 18:40
This oracle displays a nationalistic perspective. Cyrus is a foreign king, but his function serves national goals.
The role of Cyrus as “David” is to cause the dispersed of Israel to know that Yahweh is God (Isa 45:6). They have been scattered to the east and to the west (Isa 43:5), and with the rise of Cyrus, they will know in the east and in the west that Yahweh is God. In this sense Cyrus was “for” Jacob/Israel—to bring about their return.
The Motivation for Irony
If Cyrus is an ironic individual, he has to be ironic in relation to someone or something—some situation. His description indicates that he is ironic in relation to the Davidic king in Jerusalem. It follows therefore that this prophecy is being uttered at a time when there is a king in Jerusalem and not by an anonymous prophet living at the end of the exile as suggested by most critical commentators. If the purpose of God for Judah in Isaiah’s day rested with the Servant and that servant failed, God could have deferred his plans and introduced Cyrus as an ironic fulfillment of aspects of those plans.
The evidence for a failure on the part of the Servant is indicated by Isaiah in the reference to the sin of Judah’s first father (Isa 43:27-28, cf. Isa 9:6). The honourable of Jerusalem were also involved in this sin (Isa 43:28). Such a “sin” could well be the diplomatic overtures to Babylon, and this would also explain the anti-Babylon statements in Isaiah 40-48 which have natural fulfillments in the campaigns of Sennacherib against Babylon in 700 and 689. Nevertheless, the “sin” of Hezekiah at this time only led to a deferral of God’s anger (Isa 48:9); the people were not “cut off”. The prediction of Cyrus is therefore a natural critique of Hezekiah and an illustration of God-in-control.
The thrust of Cyrus’ work was to promote the laying of the foundation of the temple and building of Jerusalem. In keeping with the irony of announcing a future builder in the person of Cyrus, it is implied that the city is in a state of disrepair at the time of the announcement. The city was in a state of disrepair after the siege of 701. In order to bolster the defences of Jerusalem, a wall had been built from existing buildings in the city (2 Chron 32:5, Isa 22:10), and during the siege damage was inflicted on the wall (Isa 22:5). The temple was also denuded of its silver and gold (2 Kgs 18:15-16), and it was also the subject of fire (Isa 64:10, “has been burned with fire”, RSV); furthermore, the sacrifices had stopped (Isa 43:23-24). Such damage led to talk of a new temple (Isa 66:1). This talk was encouraged by Yahweh in his declaration that he was laying the foundation of a metaphorical temple in the trying of Hezekiah (Isa 28:16). Against this background, it is entirely plausible that Isaiah should inveigh against Hezekiah with a prediction that another king would lay the foundation of a temple as a consequence of his entertaining a Babylonian alliance. These details offer a context in which a long-range prophecy might be made offering a solution to the problems of the moment in 700.
Conclusion
It has been shown that it is entirely plausible that Isaiah of Jerusalem could have predicted the rise of Cyrus as part of a prophetic critique directed against Hezekiah. However, this does not answer the question of why Isaiah picked a Persian king and named him. Could Isaiah of Jerusalem actually have foreseen the rise of Persia?
[1] The formula is unique to these texts.
[2] This cannot be argued at this point, but the Jewish Targum sees Isa 41:2 as a reference to Abraham. There are echoes of Abraham’s “battle of the kings” in Isa 41:2-4.
[3] The expression only occurs in Isa 45:1, 60:11.
[4] The other uses are Job 32:21-22; one of many rare words shared between Isaiah and Job.
[5] Hence, Cyrus cannot be considered as God’s Servant per se.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One