Cyrus – A Case Study in Prophecy

Introduction

In an earlier paper,[1] we argued that the Cyrus oracles are partly an ironic criticism of Hezekiah. In this paper, we oppose that argument and present another line of interpretation.

In his paper, “Cyrus the Great”, in this issue, P. Wyns criticizes my approach to the Cyrus oracles as set out in my book Isaiah 40-48. After summarizing my material in his own words, he says that I present Cyrus as an Elamite prince “ironically lauded in Davidic terms in order to teach Merodach-Baladan and Hezekiah a lesson.” This is partly incorrect. In my book, I present the irony as one directed towards Hezekiah and not Merodach-Baladan.

In this paper, we will agree with Wyns that the Cyrus oracles are not ironic as regards to Hezekiah, arguing instead that they are partly ironic for the leaders of Judah who sought an alliance with Babylon. The reason for this judgment lies with Isaiah 42 and its declarations in favour of the Servant, Hezekiah. Ironic criticism of Hezekiah a few oracles later does not fit with this approval. However, repentance and acknowledgement of Hezekiah, the Suffering Servant, by the Jerusalem elite, does not come until Isaiah 53, and so any partial irony in the Cyrus oracles would be directed at them.

Irony is some sort of reversal. However, irony may be perceived by a reader because of background knowledge that s/he brings to the text. This kind of ironic attribution can be confused with irony that is derived from the internal dynamics of a text as that text reflects a situation on the ground. Thus, a reader today may ‘see’ that a messianic Cyrus is ironic in the light of the Davidic theology of the Psalms or Deuteronomy; but this attribution includes the reader in the claim of irony; s/he has become part of the discursive space that sets the irony. We do not deny this wider irony; we are denying that there is an irony directed towards Hezekiah in the immediate situation behind the text.

The Nature of Prophecy

Wyns’ first objection to making an initial application of the Cyrus oracles in Isaiah’s day is “if this Cyrus was an Elamite prince with the Babylonian delegation, no reason is given as to why he should receive the privilege of being distinguished from the other delegates.” This objection fails because no reason has to be given in the oracles for the choice of any individual; it can just be a choice.[2] Yahweh is free to choose anyone to fulfil his purpose.

Our case is one of historical method: the Cyrus oracles are primary evidence for there being a ‘Cyrus’ in the party of Babylonian princes. This construal of the oracles has more probability than the alternative supposition that the oracles are from a Second Isaiah commenting on Cyrus the Great. This is because of the testimony of the superscription to the book (1:1) and the evidence of Second Temple Judaism. This evidence favours Isaiah of Jerusalem as the author, and since prophets prophesy to their own generation in the first instance, it follows that the Cyrus oracles have a contemporary catalyst.[3]

The nature of prophecy is such that it has relevance to the original audience. This is true of biblical prophecy as well as other ANE prophecy. (We place to one side Daniel.) Prophecy is essentially political; we interpret it in relation to matters of state and society. N. K. Gottwald defines politics in this way: “politics will be viewed as the public exercise of power, coupled with the legitimation of its use, within a given social and territorial space”.^[4] This is Isaiah’s concern—how is power being exercised in Judah; what decisions should be taken; what mistakes are being made; what is Yahweh’s plan and purpose for the people; and how he has validated his will by declaring beforehand the things that happen to the nation.

J. Blenkinsopp states of Isaiah 40-55,

The author of 40-55 is doing what prophets during the time of the kingdoms were doing—that is, commenting and making judgments on contemporaneous international affairs from a specific theological perspective.[5]

The political character of Isaiah’s ministry can be seen in many features of the book: the naming of his children; the inclusion of burdens against the nations; the personal dealings with Ahaz and Hezekiah; symbolic acts like walking naked; as well as the terms of his oracles which are concerned with the well-being of the people and the direction of policy. We see his concern for policy in his advice against an alliance with Egypt or rebellion against Assyria. Hence, as M. De Jong states, “A further recurrent element within the Isaianic material is the emphasis on the imminence of fulfilment of the announcements (see 7:16; 8:4; 10:25; 18:5; 28:4).”^[6] So, while De Jong is only commenting on Isaiah 1-39, we would apply his observation to Isaiah 40-66.

The Cyrus oracles have relevance to Isaiah’s audience which consists of the Babylonian princes as well as the Jerusalem court and the people. Given that Yahweh addresses Cyrus and anoints him, the best explanation is that he is a member of the party in Jerusalem. Given that Merodach-Baladan is about to be finally defeated by Sennacherib (or just has been), the nomination of Cyrus as the one who will say to Jerusalem ‘She will be built’ and to the temple, ‘You will be founded’ is entirely plausible prognostication against Merodach-Baladan who had sent the party of envoys. Events were overtaking their mission even as they entered into an alliance with Hezekiah.

Commentators of all persuasions use the well-known history surrounding Cyrus the Great to identify the ‘Cyrus’ of Isaiah without first evaluating whether and how an eighth century prophet could prophesy about an eighth century prince called ‘Cyrus’. The point here is not the familiar conservative riposte that critical scholars reject the possibility of divine inspiration; rather, it is the methodological point that we should first ask whether there could have been a catalyst in a situation that Isaiah of Jerusalem faced that can account for the mention of a ‘Cyrus’. Our proposal is that the Cyrus oracle units are primary evidence that there was a ‘Cyrus’ present in the Babylonian party that visited Hezekiah and that he was a prince of Anshan/Parsumash, a region then allied to Babylon against Assyria. Thus, Isaiah’s prophecy refers to Cyrus the Great through the forbear that was in the Babylonian party.

It is surrealistic to suggest that Isaiah thought himself into the circumstances of the exiles and presented a lively engaged dialogue between Yahweh and the people of the exile who did not as yet exist. This kind of writing is unknown amongst the pre-exilic prophets who represent Yahweh’s engagement with the people of their day (likewise, for ANE prophecy generally).

Wyns raises the question as to whether God would have involved a Cyrus in the building of Jerusalem and the founding of the temple. Did God ‘need’ any help from foreigners? The question is loaded but the theological answer is that the involvement of Gentiles in the building of the tabernacle/temple is an established typological pattern, as we see with the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple. Oracles that specifically identify a Gentile who will supply materials for Hezekiah’s work on the temple, or in the construction of a new temple, fit this pattern.

The Cyrus oracles refer only to the founding of the temple rather than its building. This is important if, in Hezekiah’s day, he was concerned with first extending the temple mount for a new temple. The invocation of this prophecy in Ezra (1:2-3, 6:3; cf. 2 Chron 36:23) refers to building and foundations; Cyrus the Great applied the prophecy to himself (rightly) but this does not mean that there was not an earlier fulfilment by one of his ancestors who supplied materials for foundation work on temple mount and the rebuilding of Jerusalem after 701. The point is not that this happened, but rather that it could have happened; it is a plausible oracle in the context of the aftermath of the Assyrian invasion. That Hezekiah would be the ‘builder’ (Isa 45:13) is not contradicted by this reconstruction; kings build, but supplies come from traders. The archaeological and textual argument for major work after 701 on the temple mount has been laid out by L. Ritmeyer.^[7]

Hezekiah’s Building Programme

Ritmeyer comments that “Major building activities took place in Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah.”[8]

With the demise of the Northern Kingdom, the flow of refugees south in the 720s, we can surmise that the population expanded and this would lead to the extending of the city walls—the ‘broad wall’ (Neh 3:8, 12), as well as repair of the city walls (Isa 22:9-10). Ritmeyer comments, “In the light of these building activities, it appears reasonable to suggest that the Temple area would not have been neglected.”[9]

Extending the temple mount, strengthening it, repairing the platform, with a view to rebuilding the temple or its associated buildings, could reasonably be described as a work of ‘founding’. Textual evidence for this work includes:

1) The expression, ‘the mountain of the house of the Lord’, comes into use in the eighth century (Isa 2:3; Mic 4:1-2; cf. 2 Chron 33:15). This may not be a matter of geography but a metaphorical description of the raised and extended Temple platform. We can infer that discussion about the state of the temple and the extending of the temple mount was going on in Ahaz’ day,

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. Isa 2:2 (KJV); cf. Mic 4:1-3

This is a prophecy of Isaiah (‘word’, rbd, Isa 2:1), an editorial note that supplies the answer as to ‘who quotes whom?’ Micah has the same prophecy (Mic 4:1-3) but this note tells us that he is quoting Isaiah, whose utterance dates from Ahaz’ day (and his co-regent period with Uzziah).

Confirmation of this direction of dependency is indicated by Jeremiah who incidentally ties Micah’s prophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem to an ‘entreaty’ of the Lord by Hezekiah (Jer 26:18-19). This ‘entreaty’ (hlx) of the Lord averts the destruction. We can date this beseeching to the time of Hezekiah’s sickness which coincided with the Assyrian invasion because of the homonym used to describe that ‘sickness’ (hlx, 2 Chron 32:24). This dates Micah’s prophesying, recorded in Micah 3, to a period when Assyria was a threat (Mic 3:12). This is certainly as early as Hezekiah’s rebellion in 705, but the prophesying could have begun earlier with Sargon II’s expeditions to the Levant in 711.

The quotation of Isaiah by Micah (Mic 4:1-3) immediately follows the prophecy of destruction (Mic 3:11-12), and the KJV correctly connects the two prophecies with a ‘But’,

But (w) in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. Mic 4:1 (KJV)

Here, Micah is quoting Isaiah’s prophecy from Ahaz’ day at just the point in his book that it becomes relevant as grounds for hope. In this way he signals that the Assyrian threat will be removed. This tells us that ‘the last days’ of Isa 2:2 are those that relate to the Assyrian invasion and the subsequent restoration, i.e. the last days of the Assyrian hegemony over Judah.

Thus, Isaiah and Micah describe the ‘establishment’ of ‘the mountain of the house of the Lord’ in a restoration of Jerusalem and Judah. This language could well indicate that new building work would ‘establish’ the temple mount (the ‘mountain’) and its temple as that to which all peoples should flow. The prophecy would be encouragement for Hezekiah to undertake work in relation to the temple and its courts.

2) The size of the area containing the temple and its two courts is not recorded in the Bible (2 Chron 4:9). The Mishnah (m.middot 2.1) records a size of 500 cubits[10] square for the ‘mountain of the house’—but this description does not connect to the account in Kings and Chronicles for Solomon’s temple but, rather, to the temple mount of the eighth century. Josephus records that after Solomon the temple area “in future ages the people added new banks, and the hill became a larger plain” (War. 5.184-185).^[11] This agrees with the biblical record which records Jehoshaphat’s ‘new court’ (2 Chron 20:5), which was not an additional third court, but in some sense a replacement for one of the existing two courts (2 Chron 33:5). The proposal of an expansion of the temple area and the establishment of a new ‘mountain of the house’ (temple platform) is therefore consistent with other evidence.

In view of (1) and (2) above, Ritmeyer concludes, “We therefore suggest that the construction of the square Temple Mount took place during the reign of Hezekiah, a time of extraordinary architectural activity towards the end of the eighth and at the beginning of the seventh century BC.”[12] Our modification to this proposal is that the extension and construction was either started or, more likely, re-started after 701. This reflects the rhetoric of the Cyrus oracle, that he would say that the temple will be founded rather than Merodach-Baladan.[13]

Naming Cyrus

Someone might say (not Wyns) that naming individuals in prophecy is quite rare; it is unlikely that Isaiah would have named a foreign prince in the Babylonian party let alone an emperor-king one hundred and fifty years in the future. What can we say about this argument?[14]

Isaiah does name individuals in his oracles (as opposed to his narrative history, including Shebna and Eliakim,

Then it will come about in that day, that I will summon my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your tunic and tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your authority, and he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, and he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house. So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. Isa 22:21-24 (NASB)

This oracle is about the replacement of Shebna with Eliakim and it bears some comparison with the Cyrus oracle in being about the placement of an individual in government. Hephzibah is another individual that is named (Isa 62:4) and Meshullam,

Who is blind but my Servant? And deaf like my messenger I send? Who is blind like Meshullam? And blind like the servant of Yahweh? Isa 42:19

The name here is the representation of the Hebrew word ~lvm (MT: m^ešullām). Commentators are divided in how to treat the word; they naturally resist reading a proper name in an oracle because it is a very particular detail. The problem for commentaries is that the word occurs everywhere else as a proper name (17x, e.g. 2 Kgs 22:3). From our point of view, in typological terms, the naming here of the messenger who goes before the Arm of the Lord is duplicated in the naming of John the Baptist who went before Christ.

The naming of Cyrus is all part of an anointing,

It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd! And he will perform all my desire.’ And he will declare of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid’. Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus… Isa 44:28-45:1 (NASB revised)

The oracle in vv. 1-7 addresses the Lord’s anointed (v. 1), and the word ‘anointed’ is fairly common (37x), although it is rare in the prophets (3x). Its principal usage is in relation to priests (e.g. Lev 4:3) and the Davidic king (e.g. Lam 4:20; Hab 3:13), and the classic example of its use is found in Psalm 2:

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying… Ps 2:2 (KJV)

It is over-interpretation to see a reference to a (the) messiah in Isa 45:1. The expression ‘to Cyrus’ is a separate clause and the same explanatory structure is present in 2 Sam 22:51 and Ps 18:51,

vrwkl wxyvml (‘to his anointed, to Cyrus’)
dwdl wxyvml (‘to his anointed, to David’)

These expressions arrest the attention of the reader because ‘to Cyrus’ has replaced ‘to David’ (or the name of a Davidic king). The point of the citation is precisely the variation of ‘to Cyrus’ for ‘to David’, and this is to give Cyrus a comparable status to that of David.

The statement indicates more than that God has raised-up a foreign conqueror to execute his purpose; it implies that Yahweh had actually anointed Cyrus. This point is supported by the double allusion to David being a shepherd and then being anointed by God by a prophet to be king; likewise, Cyrus was God’s shepherd and his anointed. In the Jerusalem of Isaiah’s day, there could well have been an anointment by Isaiah of the ‘Cyrus’ among the Babylonian envoys, but not of Cyrus the Great, who was not (as far as we know) anointed by an Israelite prophet. The historical precedent for a prophet anointing a foreign king would be that of Elijah anointing Hazeal to be king of Syria (1 Kgs 19:15).

While we can relate the terms of Isa 45:1-7 to Cyrus the Great; we can also relate them to Cyrus, a prince in the Babylonian party, once we recognise him to be Teispes/Shishpish (675-640), the king who established the Achaemenid dynasty in Anshan/Parsumash.^[15] This could be the initial and partial fulfilment of the words of Isaiah’s oracle, which is about subduing nations.

Excising Cyrus

Wyns favours J. W. Thirtle’s explanation of how ‘Cyrus’ came to be in the text.[16] The text of Isa 45:1 has been changed from vrx ‘craftsman’ (Isa 44:12, 13) to vrwk. This would make Yahweh originally assert, “…to his anointed, to the craftsman”. Given that x sounds like k, the letters could have been intentionally changed with w added to give the vowel sound.[17] However, such a change is not trivial because while the letters have similar sounds, their orthography is quite different, and w cannot be just be added as the vowel unless it was suitable to represent the vowel sound of vrx.

(1) Thirtle says, “First, the passage would be applied to Cyrus, who, in presence of the people, realized parts which in some measure corresponded with those set forth in the passage about the Lord’s anointed.”

The question to ask here is: why would the Babylonian exiles do this, if for 150 years they had been accustomed to applying the passage to Hezekiah? What opinion of Scripture does this proposal imply about the exiles who exercised leadership? Suppose Cyrus was thought to be God’s craftsman, why would this interpretation of Isaiah motivate Jewish leaders to alter the text to use Cyrus’ name rather than just tell Cyrus that he was ‘the craftsman’ of the prophecy? There is sufficient in the prophecy to apply to Cyrus as ‘the craftsman’ without altering the text for political purposes. For example, Cyrus had subdued nations and perhaps already shown tolerance towards foreign gods and their temples.

(2) Thirtle says, “Second, Cyrus was hopefully regarded as the workman, or artificer vrx whom Jehovah had empowered to do great things in the interests of the Jews.” This is just repeating the first point in a different way: to apply the craftsman passage to Cyrus is just to show where your hopes lie in the situation.

There is a further point: the oracles have predictions (‘She shall be built’; ‘It will be founded’), but these are not indicative of a craftsman; they show the decision making of a king. This king-like quality of the oracles is reinforced by talk of subduing nations, the loins of kings, opening gates, and so on. It doesn’t seem likely that the two oracles originally had the notion of ‘craftsman’; it doesn’t fit.

(3) Thirtle says, “Third, seeing that the word vrx thus implied, or stood for Cyrus, it would seem right or desirable to conform the letters to a more correct representation in Hebrew of the Persian word – hence vrk, afterwards vrwk, and then by pointing vr,AK.”

The question to ask here is: why would the exiles not just add ‘Cyrus’ to the text and retain the mention of ‘the craftsman’? In English, the result might then have been ‘to the craftsman, to Cyrus’. The point that this suggestion raises is that Thirtle is not being clear on what the original text had in place before the change. The poetic rhythm of (the unchanged) ‘to his anointed’ suggests the original would have been ‘to his craftsman’ (not ‘to the craftsman’) and this means that vrxl was not the form in the text but rather wvrxl.

Thirtle proposes that the initial change was to vrk and then “afterwards” to  vrwk. This is a spelling change, but Thirtle gives no rationale for the change or a reason why vrwk was not the original spelling when the textual change was made; variable spellings of Hebrew names is a characteristic of early and late biblical books.[18]

There is no correspondence in meaning between the Hebrew word for ‘craftsman’ and ‘Cyrus’. ‘Kūrush’ (Cyrus) is now thought to be an Elamite name, meaning, ‘He who bestows care’ or ‘He gives fortune’.[19] So, if Thirtle is right, the exiles received no help making their textual change from the meaning of Cyrus’ name. In fact, Thirtle is formally wrong in his proposal: vrk is not a “more correct representation” than vrx in Hebrew of Cyrus’ name in Persian/Elamite (Kūrush), because vrx is not a representation of Cyrus’ name in the first place.

(4) Thirtle says, “By these measures and mutations the word came to speak of King Cyrus and of him only. There was no intention to introduce disorder into the text –only a purpose to reduce the spelling to a form which was believed to be right.”

This supposes that the issue is a matter of spelling, but this is false; it is a matter of word change and the deletion of a word that has a completely different meaning to the Persian, whose representation is being introduced.

(5) Thirtle concludes, “In the judgment of some leader, or leaders, of the people, vrx was intended to indicate vrk, and effect was given to this belief by the alteration of the initial letter. Thus a common appellation was made into a proper name, and a seed of misunderstanding was sown in the Isaiah prophecies.”

The scenario that Thirtle paints looks simple, but making a common appellation into a proper name that is the equivalent of a Persian/Elamite name is not a trivial change to the text. It is not simply altering one consonant; it is introducing a name with an unrelated meaning and likely dropping the pronominal suffix (‘his craftsman’). We might well ask: why wasn’t the text changed back after Cyrus died?[20] It is all very well suggesting some leader(s) of the people made such a change, but how were the scrolls of the scriptures being kept? How many were there; in Babylon; in the homeland? Were scribes likely to make such a change at the command of a leader with a political agenda? Would such a change be duplicated? Why is there no evidence of an alternative tradition in the history of the text?

Cyrus – A Throne Name

Our case is that ‘Cyrus’ is integral to the text of Isaiah. We have a prophecy that has an initial application to a ‘Cyrus’ in the Babylonian party and a secondary application to Cyrus the Great. This is possible because of divine inspiration and the fact that God is in control of history. The first Cyrus is an ancestor of Cyrus the Great, a prince of the Achaemenid dynasty, which had its base in Anshan. The prophecy came to have a dual fulfilment; i.e. what was not fulfilled by Cyrus the Prince, was fulfilled through Cyrus the Great and vice versa.

In terms of the historico-critical method, the most likely hypothesis is that there was a Cyrus the Prince. In the narrative of Isaiah 36-39, there is a visit of Babylonian envoys (princes) from Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon, happening at the time. Babylon is known from the Assyrian Annals to be allied to southern Elamite tribes, and ‘Cyrus’ is a common name of that region. If the Babylonian envoys had such a prince among their number, it makes sense as prophetic counter-rhetoric to assert that a ‘Cyrus’ would say to Jerusalem, ‘Thou shalt be built’, and of the temple, ‘It shall be founded’, rather than Merodach-Baladan.

Our proposal is that ‘Cyrus’ became a throne name for the Achaemenids with Cyrus I and Cyrus II because of the prophecy that was made to the Cyrus in the Babylonian party.[21] The prince, we suggest, was Teispes,[22]  the father of Cyrus I, who reigned from 675-640.[23] He is mentioned under the name ‘Cyrus’ in the Nassouhi Prism which is dated to 646.[24]

Anshan and Parsumash (Parsua) are lands noted separately in Sennacherib’s annals, but they are always together (e.g. in Sennacherib’s campaign against Elam in 691, Annals. 43). Moreover, as R. N. Frye comments “From the time of Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) until the rise of the Achaemenids we find reference to the Par-su-ma-aš or Parsu (both presumably for Parsua) only in the south.”^[25] On this basis, we can say that Anshan and Parsumash were closely associated and in the south; Yamauchi’s judgment is that ‘Anshan’ was an archaic name for Parsumash.^[26]

Predictions

The predictions that Isaiah makes about Cyrus fit the known history in 700. Hezekiah has a building programme; supplies were needed. Trade between Babylon and Judah could well have been on the agenda. That an alliance is at the heart of the visit of the Babylonian envoys is suggested by Josephus, in Ant. 11.2.2, “But the king of Babylon, whose name was Baladan, sent ambassadors to Hezekiah with presents, and desired he would be his ally and his friend”. Isaiah’s counter rhetoric is perfectly plausible in this context: looking at Cyrus, he says that he would arrange supplies (and even labour) for the building work in Jerusalem. The point here is not that stone blocks and timber would be sent from Mesopotamia, but that (possibly) Babylonian traders in Northern Israel[27] would deliver these supplies because of Cyrus’ contacts.

However, equally, the words ‘Thou shalt be built’ and ‘It shall be founded’ are fulfilled either wholly or partly by Cyrus the Great. Biblical evidence has it that Cyrus gave a decree to build the temple (2 Chron 36:23/Ezra 1:2-3), and to lay its foundation (Ezra 6:3), but there is no record of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Isa 44:28).^[28] The absence of evidence for a decree to rebuild Jerusalem could mean that this part of Isaiah’s oracle was fulfilled by Cyrus the Prince, or it could be that such a decree was made by Cyrus the Great, but we have no corroborating record; what we do have is a decree about the temple. Cyrus’ general policy was to restore the gods to their home cities and “repair their dwelling places”.[29]

The principle here is that we may not have historical records showing an oracle was fulfilled; in the case of Cyrus the Great we have confirmation of some fulfilment but not all; in the case of Cyrus the Prince, we have no conformation at all. This lack of confirmation doesn’t cast doubt on the plausibility of Isaiah having uttered an oracle about Cyrus. That question should only be settled by looking at the circumstances in which the oracles are purported to be uttered. Are there elements of Isaiah’s situation which make his uttering the oracles plausible?

The other predictions about Cyrus are about what Yahweh will do:

• Subdue nations
• Loosen the loins of kings
• Open gates
• Straighten paths
• Break down doors
• Bestow treasure

These are, on one level, perfectly general things that a god might say in an anointment ceremony for a prince who will be a king one day. They are not implausible in an ANE royal court. They are exceptionable when they take place in Jerusalem and are things uttered by an Israelite prophet of a foreign prince. They are exceptionable, not from the perspective of the theology of Isaiah or the traditions of Israel, because Israelite prophets have anointed foreign kings in the past. They are exceptionable from the point of view of the Babylonian envoys and Cyrus.

It is straightforward to show that some of these things are fulfilled in Cyrus the Great.  According to the Chronicler (2 Chron 36:23), there is recognition by Cyrus of a personal charge from Yahweh in the words, “the Lord God hath given me”; he is not acknowledging a general prediction about his reign. This reflects the language of personal address in the Isaiah oracles: ‘thus saith the Lord…to Cyrus’. Further, Cyrus acknowledges that the Lord God has given him kingdoms; this is the aspect, “to subdue nations before him” (Isa 45:1). Also, Cyrus mentions the commission to build a temple (2 Chron 36:23; Ezra 1:2), and in the second record of the decree, the foundations of the temple are noted (Ezra 6:3), in accordance with Isa 44:28. Further, Cyrus acknowledges that the Jews are the people of the Lord, and this is a feature of the oracles (Isa 45:4).

Turning our attention back to Cyrus the Prince, one of the reasons that the envoys came to Judah was to enquire about the “wonder that was done in the land” (2 Chron 32:31). This enquiry may have led to an understanding of the faith of Israel and the power of the God of Israel. Any openness on their part and that of Cyrus would engage Isaiah and explain why Yahweh addresses Cyrus in personal terms. It would further explain the choice of Cyrus and why it is he that would come to know the God of Israel. Offers to supply materials for the temple and Jerusalem might just have been a business matter, but it may also have been a newly fostered recognition of Yahweh on the part of Cyrus. This kind of encounter with Isaiah would explain the actions of Cyrus the Great, and his recognition of the God of Israel, which extended to a knowledge of the building dimensions for the new temple (2 Chron 36:23; Ezra 1:2). The oracle of Isaiah might well have been preserved with the Achaemenid family through the generations. Would this prophecy have contributed to infighting among the envoys? Possibly; such an objective would be reasonable for Isaiah.

Yahweh was going to work through Cyrus “for the sake of Jacob/Israel” (Isa 45:4). This has an obvious fulfilment in Cyrus the Great who was responsible for the return from Exile. But we should not overlook God’s work with Cyrus the Prince as also being for the sake of Jacob/Israel, because he is the ancestor which established the Achaemenid dynasty of which Cyrus the Great was to be its greatest king.

Identifying Oracles

One of the problems in the interpretation of Isaiah is the recognition of distinct oracle units and deciding ‘what goes with what’. Scholars regard Isa 44:24-28 and 45:1-7 as the oracle units that pertain to Cyrus. There are good reasons for this and we should not assume that the rest of Isaiah 45 is about Cyrus, although scholars often also say that Isa 45:13 is about Cyrus. It is worthwhile collecting examples of this problem ‘in action’ from this debate.

(1) Isaiah 45:13 is often applied to Cyrus, but “he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives” is not true of Cyrus the Great; Isa 44:28 is very clear: Cyrus says something about Jerusalem, namely, it will be built; it does not have Cyrus building Jerusalem. In Isa 45:13, the statement is instead that ‘the man’ builds the city. Cyrus did not build Jerusalem, and whereas we can infer that he said Jerusalem should be rebuilt, the actual work of building was obviously still stalled in Haggai’s day (Hag 1:1, 9).

The key to identifying this ‘new Adam’ is the verb ‘to raise up’; this is used of the One from the North (Isa 41:25) and it is he, the Arm of the Lord, who will send liberated Judahites to go and build Jerusalem. This is not just a literal fulfilment, but a metaphorical one also, as the liberated Judahites become the New Jerusalem. (The catalyst for the later talk of a ‘new Jerusalem’ is this rebuilding work.)

The issue of price and reward (or bribe) is not relevant to Cyrus the Great’s injunction to the exiles of Babylon to go home and rebuild the temple. He was the absolute power and there was no comparable Judahite state willing or able to pay a price or bribe for the return of exiles. But it’s possible that the Babylonian envoys had sought payment for the release of Judahite captives in Babylon and this is the contrast. In 701, Judahite captives had been sold on through the sea ports and to the surrounding nations; we know this because they were to return from all points of the compass. The contrast is being made that the Arm of the Lord would not seek reward for his exploits liberating Judahites; such captives would just be ‘sent’ (xlv^[30]) to Jerusalem.

(2) Wyns comments on Isa 45:8, observing that it is about the resurrection, and remarks that, “It is impossible that this language would be applied (even as ironic rhetoric, contra Perry) to a pagan idol worshiper.” The obvious reply to this comment is that Isa 45:8 is not part of the Cyrus oracle which is normally taken to extend from vv. 1-7. The motif of ‘let the earth open’ might very well refer to the resurrection, but this is coupled with a bestowal of the Spirit in the motif ‘Drop down, ye heavens, from above’.[31]

We have in Isaiah 45 a clear example of how readers can be misled. The tone of the chapter changes from v. 8 onwards and we cannot assume that the oracle units of vv. 8-25 come from the same week or month as the Cyrus oracle of vv. 1-7. The association of material in the same chapter misleads readers into making it all apply to the time of Cyrus. Furthermore, whereas the Cyrus oracle in vv. 1-7 had two specific addressees, Merodach-Baladan and the Jerusalem leaders, vv. 8-25 are oracles addressed to a sudden gathering and influx  of Judahites from some region to which they had been deported (Isa 45:20).

The return of those deported and sold on by Sennacherib no doubt happened in waves and from different points of the compass. Some would have needed to escape; others would have been liberated in local uprisings; yet others will have returned with the agreement of those places where they had been relocated. Isaiah would no doubt proclaim the word of the Lord to those who returned. In the oracle units of vv. 8-25 we shift our vantage point from the royal court and the argument of ambassadors (vv. 1-7) to the market-place and the countryside.

The battle for the hearts of the returnees is with those who look to idols for guidance, both those returning with their idols and those in the land who look to other gods. We know this is a theme of these oracle units because they have typical anti-idol motifs: there is the asking of Yahweh about the future (v. 11) and there is the contrast between God as a maker and those who make idols (vv. 9, 12, 16, 18, 20). The theme connects with the oracle discourse that follows in that Bel and Nebo are said to have already bowed the knee before Yahweh (Isa 45:23; 46:1).

The oracle units in vv. 8-25 are relatively clear. The opening verse (v. 8) is a celebration of the spring rains of 700 and the bestowal of the Spirit. Two ‘Woes’ follow (vv. 9-10) which address those who doubted Yahweh intentions and purpose with Judah. In vv. 11-13 we have described God’s new creation with the land in which has raised up another ‘Adam’ who will build Jerusalem (v. 13; Isa 41:25). Another ‘Thus saith the Lord’ (v. 14) gives contextual detail relating to Ethiopia, Egypt and the Sabeans, which can only have relevance to Hezekiah’s day as these groups were involved in the military campaigns of 701. The next unit, vv. 15-19, is about God’s providential knowledge of what will happen in the land and among the nations. Those in the nations and among Israel who seek such knowledge from idols will be ashamed. This address is particularly relevant to those that have been deported to the nations and are now returning. In vv. 20-25, they are told to assemble and draw near and hear what Isaiah is saying: the returnees were not to look to other gods for guidance but to Yahweh (v. 22), for it is only in Yahweh that the seed of Israel can be justified (v. 25).

(3) Failure to demarcate the limits of the Cyrus oracle (vv. 1-7) also vitiates Wyns’ comparison with Psalm 2. Here he makes eight connections with Isaiah 45 that come after v. 7 and three connections with v. 1. Only the connections with v. 1 are relevant to this debate. These are ‘his anointed’, the subduing of the nations, and the mention of kings.

Of these connections, the only strong one is the phrase ‘his anointed’. The other two links are lexically weak (just ‘kings’). It may beg the question to say so, but Psalm 2 is about nations and kings local to Judah, whereas Isa 45:1-7 is about Mesopotamia and the military events and politics of empire. This language of ‘anointing’ may be just coincidental. We will return to this question below.

(4) Lastly, two other intertexts that Wyns cites to establish the Davidic character of Isaiah 45, namely v. 10 (an Abraham and Sarah type) and v. 23 (Suffering Servant), also fail to address the question of whether ‘Cyrus’ is original to Isa 45:1 because they are not part of the Cyrus oracle unit of vv. 1-7.

Historical Contextualization

Does removing ‘Cyrus’ from the text work? Does the prophecy work as a prophecy about Hezekiah, the master-craftsman? The answer is that to some extent it does work, but this is the point about our historical contextualization of historically indeterminate prophecies: some details may fit, but what doesn’t fit so easily may be what breaks our hypothesis. The details that don’t readily fit Wyns’ hypothesis are,

• There is no reason why Hezekiah should be reminded that he is God’s anointed; he has been sole king for 15 years (45:1).
• There is no reason why Hezekiah should need to know that Yahweh is the God of Israel (45:3); he knew God, which is not what the prophecy says (45:4, 5).
• Once we remove the name ‘Cyrus’, there is no reason for the emphases ‘called thee by name’ and ‘surnamed thee’ (45:4). The title ‘craftsman’ is not a name and Hezekiah knew that he was the Servant (42:1).

If we place Cyrus back into the text, is there anything that doesn’t fit? Wyns avers that God would not have sought ‘help’ from a foreign conqueror, but this isn’t a very strong objection. Cyrus’ role is in Mesopotamia and not Judah; furthermore, God did seek help from local nations to liberate Judahites after 701, but found none, and so raised up his own redeemer (Isa 41:28; 50:2; 63:5); and of course, he has recently used Sennacherib to bring judgement on Judah.

Intertextual Connections

Another problem for interpreters is in making the right intertextual connections. Some connections may involve the socio-historical context rather than the intertexts of Isaiah’s own scriptures. For example,

(1) The act of holding the king by the right hand is part of the Babylonian rituals involving Marduk and the New Year Festival. An eighth century example of this language would be the eponym record of Tiglath-Pileser III taking the hand of Bel in 729 and 728.^[32] But it is not only an idiom associated with ritual, but a way of describing the divine choice of the king. Thus, in the Berlin ‘Merodach-Baladan Stele’ Merodach-Baladan claims,

He (the god Marduk) looked (with favour) upon Marduk-apla-iddina (II), king of Babylon, prince who reveres him, to whom he (the god Marduk) stretched out his hand, legitimate eldest son of Erība-Marduk, king of Babylon, who has made firm the foundation(s) of the land.^[33]

Isaiah’s point in Isa 45:1 is that Yahweh has not held Merodach-Baladan by the hand; he will hold Cyrus by the hand. This connection shows that it is wrong to make a contrast with the “craftsman” who holds a lie (idol) in his right hand (Isa.44:20), with the one whose right hand Yahweh holds (Isa.45:1).

(2) A significant point of difference with Wyns is the treatment of Psalm 107. The individual suffering of Hezekiah has a collective dimension insofar as he suffered on behalf of the people for their peace, but this doesn’t mean that the people did not suffer and that it is not their suffering which is the topic of Psalm 107. This psalm is replete with a plural emphasis (‘they’, ‘their’, ‘them’). An individual is their redeemer, but it is they who are behind gates and bars needing redemption.

Wyns says that “The ‘breaking in pieces of the gates of bronze and the cutting of the bars of iron’ is a metaphor for the bonds of death.” It is more likely a literal description of the taking of cities. Whereas ‘the gates of death’ is a figure, it is difficult to see why bronze would be an apt characteristic of the gates of death. The gates are different.

The psalmist is speaking of Yahweh breaking down the doors of brass and bars of iron in order to release men from prison, who were sitting in darkness and bound by chains (Ps 107:10, 14; cf. Isa 42:22). Yahweh is predicting that Cyrus will do the same, i.e. Cyrus will take cities and release men from prison. The doors of brass are not prison doors but those that would adorn temples and palaces; they would have bars of iron securing them in place.[34] To liberate those in prison an army would break through the city gates, assault the brass doors of the palace and cut asunder their bars of iron (‘bars’, Ps 107:16; Job 38:10).

Yahweh states that he will do these things through Cyrus, but the fact that they need doing suggests that there is an historical context involving prisons.

But this is a people robbed and plundered, they are all of them trapped in holes and hidden in prisons; they have become a prey with none to rescue, a spoil with none to say, ‘Restore!’ Isa 42:22 (RSV)

This doesn’t fit the end of the exile, when the exiles were living a peaceful life, but it does correspond to the possibilities of the situation in Babylonia in 700 where Judahites had been deported by Sennacherib. The nobles deported by Sennacherib might well have been in prison houses and Cyrus the prince could well have had a role in the release of such prisoners. Nevertheless, we might also say that Cyrus the Great would ‘liberate’ the exiles and these should be thought of as in a metaphorical ‘prison’, being exiles. The choice of the figure is motivated by the circumstances of Isaiah’s day rather than the actual conditions of the exile.

The release of prisoners was not only a function for Cyrus in Mesopotamia; it was a role appointed to the Servant in the Levant, who was also to bring out “‘those that sit in darkness” ($vx ybvy, Isa 42:7; Ps 107:10).

(3) ‘Darkness’ (Höºšek) is a very common word, and so it would not be surprising if it was associated with death and the grave. But in Isaiah there are two aspects to ‘darkness’: i) Assyria was a military ‘darkness’ over the land (Isa 5:30); and ii) idolatry and divination were the ‘darkness’ of false religion (Isa 9:1; 29:15, 18; 42:7; 59:9; 60:2). This suggests that the ‘treasures of darkness’ are Assyrian plunder and tribute. This reading is supported by the parallelism, ‘hidden wealth’ of ‘secret places’, terms which are used of places where people hide their money and valuables (e.g. Gen 43:23; Ps 10:8-9; Lam 3:10). To make ‘treasures of darkness’ a metaphor for resurrected people, either for Hezekiah in the form of the revived nation, or for the Messiah in the future, has no intertextual support: the terms for ‘treasure’ and ‘hidden wealth’ are not used elsewhere in typological contexts denoting people. The ‘secret places’ are also not used elsewhere as figure for the grave.

In Isaiah’s day, the treasures of Assyria are being promised to Cyrus, presumably from any military actions taken by him in Mesopotamia; this is slightly ironic in that Hezekiah had showed off his ‘treasure of darkness’ that he had re-acquired as plunder in the immediate aftermath of the Assyrian invasion. But, on the other hand, following the principle of dual fulfilment, with regard to Cyrus the Great, Hezekiah’s treasures were taken to Babylon (Jer 20:5), and would have ended up in the possession of him also when he took Babylon.

A Davidic Prophecy?

On the basis of intertextual connections cited above, Wyns’ main argument is “The idea that a pagan king who worshiped idols would be addressed in Davidic terms as Yahweh’s anointed runs contrary to the thrust of the text.” We have removed some of Wyns’ intertexts on the grounds they are not part of the Cyrus oracles (i.e. the intertexts of Isa 45:8ff), but the question still remains: if we do not simply dismiss the Davidic overtones of Isa 44:28 and 45:1 as coincidence, what do they signify and could they have been applied to Cyrus the prince/Cyrus the Great?

The problem of method here is like listening to someone on the telephone and only hearing one side of the conversation; you construct what the other person is saying on the basis of that side of the conversation you are hearing. This illustration shows why mirror-reading the text is legitimate. So, the other side of the conversation underlying the Cyrus oracles is likely to be one that is advocating a king and a shepherd and moreover one that is lauded as capable of subduing nations and taking cities.

The obvious candidate is Merodach-Baladan, who is introduced as ‘the king of Babylon’ (Isa 39:1) even though this status is questionable, Sennacherib having deposed him in 703. Yahweh’s own argument to the envoys is that there was ‘no throne’ (Isa 47:1) for Babylon. This argument contextualizes the language that ‘looks’ Davidic as just comprising coincidental shared motifs. The only other candidate is Hezekiah, but we have noted details in Isa 45:1-7 that do not fit him.

Isaiah 44:28

Wyns favours a new translation of Isaiah 44:28 from R. Oosting,[35]

…and to say of Jerusalem “She will be rebuilt and she will be founded as a temple”.[36]

The more normal translation is,

And he declares of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’ (NASB, cf. RSV, KJV, NET, etc.)

The verb used for ‘founding’ is dsy (44x) and BDB (413) gives its range of meaning as ‘to establish, found, fix’.  There is an ambiguity in the pronominal suffix for the verb dsy. The suffix attached to the verb ‘to establish, found, fix’ could be a feminine third person or a second person masculine singular.^[37] The third person feminine singular would be rendered,

…saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘She shall be founded’. Isa 44:28 (RSV revised)

The noun lkyh is masculine and elsewhere used with masculine verb forms, so it would be exceptional to treat it here as a feminine form.^[38] This in turn suggests that dsy is a second person masculine singular, giving, ‘You shall be founded’, which is followed by most translations.

Oosting argues that on the basis of the lack of a definite article attached to lkyh, and the fact that the verb is in Niphal here rather than Pual or Hophal, that the noun has an adjunct sense, giving,

…and to say of Jerusalem, “She will be rebuilt and she will be founded as a temple.”

Oosting cites Isa 51:12 as a parallel where a noun without the definite article is coupled with a Niphal verb giving, ‘…is made like grass’ (NASB), allowing him to propose for Isa 44:28 ‘founded as a temple’.

The proposal has several difficulties. First, Oosting pitches his argument at the level of the syntactical understanding of the Massoretes, rather than at just the consonantal text, but their pattern for the noun is masculine and not feminine. Second, his parallel example of Isa 51:12 has a ‘conjunction+noun-phrase+noun+verb’ clause, and it may be this combination, rather than just the verb form (Niphal) and an anarthrous noun ‘grass’ (rycx) which is syntactically significant, giving the ‘like grass’ sense; Oosting doesn’t consider this explanation.; the clause in Isa 44:28 is just ‘conjunction+noun+verb’. Third, the quotation of Isa 44:28 elsewhere is in the context of founding the temple, rather than the building of Jerusalem. Ezra 3:6 is the case in point because it has the only other occurrence of lkyhw in Hebrew and the same verb dsy, albeit in Pual (‘the foundation of the temple of the Lord had not been laid’). The inner-biblical exegesis of the consonantal text of Isa 44:28 is therefore in terms of a reference to the temple and not the city.^[39]

Cyrus and Darius

The identity of Darius the Mede in Daniel is a well-known problem and beyond our scope. Wyns assumes the solution of Darius Hystapsis but there are other proposals including Cyrus the Great.[40] It would seem that any argument that Cyrus the Great was not a temple builder, because Darius Hystapsis was the temple builder, depends on a distinction being made between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great. Nevertheless, regardless of how we solve the problem of the identity of Darius the Mede, Wyns’ argument is flawed because Isaiah only states that Cyrus will say to the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid’. This is specifically picked up in Ezra 6:3 which details that both the temple and the foundations were subject to decree (e.g. NASB, KJV, NET,).

Whether the foundation was laid during Cyrus’ reign is a moot point; Isaiah’s prophecy is all about what will be said. The mirror reading of the prophecy is simply that there was talk in Jerusalem about extending the temple mount and laying the foundation of a temple. Fulfilment by Cyrus the prince and Cyrus the Great is entirely plausible, even though we have only evidence of fulfilment by Cyrus the Great in his decree. That Cyrus made such a decree is supported directly by Josephus (Ant. 11.1.1) and indirectly when he says of Darius I that he did “all that Cyrus intended to do before him, relating to the restoration of the temple” (Ant. 11.3.8). That the foundation was laid, in part or full, is supported by the record of a ‘foundation-laying’ ceremony in Ezra 3:10-13. It is therefore a mis-reading to affirm as Wyns does, “If the prophecy in Isaiah is taken at face value then all that can be said is that Cyrus failed and the prophecy failed.”

We might well ask, with Wyns, as to why Isaiah’s prophecy about Cyrus is not mentioned by Ezra, when he does mention Jeremiah’s seventy year prophecy (2 Chron 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4). The question calls for speculation, and Wyns’ answer is that ‘Cyrus’ was not in the text of Isaiah. This answer has a sting in the tail because Wyns’ believes that Isaiah’s prophecy (without ‘Cyrus’) was being used at the time; so the question for Wyns is really, why did ‘Cyrus’ end up in Isaiah but not in Ezra? Why should the name get interpolated in Isaiah but not Ezra, a historical record that was being written at the time?

We can make two points: the first is that the prophecy-fulfilment structure of 2 Chron 36:22-23/Ezra 1:1-4 doesn’t allow for a reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, because Ezra’s historical record relates to the return of the exiles and the building of the temple rather than the foundation of the temple. We cannot legitimately complain that Ezra has chosen to record Cyrus’ decree about the temple rather than its foundation because the decree concerning the temple is the larger fact which he has rightly recorded.

The second point is that Ezra does record historical material about the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3/6), but without mentioning Isaiah, and this is because the structure and point of his record is not that of ‘prophecy-fulfilment’. The fact that Ezra does record a foundation laying ceremony (Ezra 3) is unexceptionable, but the mention of the foundations in Ezra 6:3 as part of Cyrus’ decree is noteworthy, because Darius’ concerns have been about the temple and not any foundation; the mention of a foundation in the decree is more information than the context demands. This is evidence that Cyrus knows of Isaiah’s prophecy about the temple’s foundation.

Conclusion

A liberal commentator on Isaiah 40-66 believes in a Second Isaiah and would probably say of this debate, ‘a plague on both your houses’. There have been a few liberal scholars who have deleted ‘Cyrus’ from the text, but the overwhelming majority retain ‘Cyrus’. A conservative commentator needs to explain why ‘Cyrus’ would have featured in a prophecy of Isaiah of Jerusalem. One or two have deleted ‘Cyrus’ from the text; but most simply assert that Isaiah was divinely inspired to prophesy about Cyrus without answering the question as to how the prophecies were relevant to the Judah of his day. This is a failing on their part.

Keeping ‘Cyrus’ in the text is not just a matter of textual integrity; it is a task for historical contextualization. This in turn is a matter of mirror-reading the prophecies for the other side of the ‘conversation’. When we do this, something like the exegesis presented here is the most likely eighth/seventh century context for Isaiah’s oracles and written record.