Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 41:2
Who raised up the righteous [man] from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made [him] rule over kings? he gave [them] as the dust to his sword, [and] as driven stubble to his bow.
2. Who hath stirred up foot ] A much-disputed clause. Two points may be regarded as settled; (1) that the abstract noun deq cannot be rendered “righteous man” (A.V. following Vulg.); and (2) that it is not to be treated as obj. to “stirred up” (A.V., LXX., Vulg.), but belongs to the second member of the sentence (Heb. accentuation). On the whole the most satisfactory translation is: Who hath stirred up from the sun-rising (him whom) victory meets at every step? (lit. “at his foot” cf. Gen 30:30). Comp. R.V. marg. The Heb. verbs for “meet” and “call” are distinct in origin, but closely resemble each other; and the forms are constantly interchanged. The bare sense of “victory” is perhaps an extreme use of deq (= righteousness) but it is in the line of the prophet’s characteristic use of the expression. It means the outward manifestation that one is in the right, and when, as here, the tribunal is the battle-field, right is equivalent to victory (see Appendix, Note II). If the ordinary sense of “righteousness” is to be retained, the word must be taken as adv. acc., as in R.V.: Who hath raised up one from the east, whom he calleth in righteousness to his foot?
gave ] giveth. made him rule over ] It is perhaps necessary (with Ewald or Hitzig) to change the vowels, rendering, subdueth (as in ch. Isa 45:1).
he gave them as the dust to his sword ] The words would naturally read, “he maketh his sword as dust.” But this is an unnatural figure for the swiftness of Cyrus’s conquests; we must either take “his” as equivalent to “their” (which is obviously objectionable), or with the LXX. change the suffix to plur., he maketh their sword as dust. So the next clause: their bow as driven stubble.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2, 3. The marvellous career of Cyrus is vividly described in highly poetical language. That the reference is to Cyrus (who is first named in ch. Isa 44:28) is unquestionable; although the Jewish exegetes (with the exception of Aben Ezra), and even Calvin, follow the Targ. in applying the verses to Abraham, and his victory over the four kings (Genesis 14).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who raised up – This word ( heyr) is usually applied to the act of arousing one from sleep Son 2:7; Son 3:5; Son 8:4; Zec 4:1; then to awake, arouse, or stir up to any enterprise. Here it means, that God had caused the man here referred to, to arouse for the overthrow of their enemies; it was by his agency that he had been led to form the plans which should result in their deliverance. This is the first argument which God urges to induce his people to put confidence in him, and to hope for deliverance; and the fact that he had raised up and qualified such a man for the work, he urges as a proof that he would certainly protect and guard his people.
The righteous man from the east – Hebrew, tsedeq – righteousness. The Septuagint renders it literally, Dikaiosunen – righteousness. The Vulgate renders it, The just; the Syriac as the Septuagint. The word here evidently means, as in our translation, the just or righteous man. It is common in the Hebrew, as in other languages, to put the abstract for the concrete. In regard to the person here referred to, there have been three principal opinions, which it may be proper briefly to notice.
1. The first is, that which refers it to Abraham. This is the interpretation of the Chaldee Paraphrast, who renders it, Who has publicly led from the east Abraham, the chosen of the just; and this interpretation has been adopted by Jarchi, Kimchi, Abarbanel, and by the Jewish writers generally. They say that it means that God had called Abraham from the east; that he conducted him to the land of Canaan, and enabled him to vanquish the people who resided there, and particularly that he vanquished the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, and delivered Lot from their hands Gen. 14; and that this is designed by God to show them that he who had thus raised up Abraham would raise up them also in the east. There are, however, objections to this interpretation which seem to be insuperable, a few of which may be referred to.
(a) The country from which Abraham came, the land of Chaldea or Mesopotamia, is not commonly in the Scriptures called the east, but the north (see Jer 1:13-15; Jer 4:6; Jer 6:1; Jer 23:8; Jer 25:9, Jer 25:26; Jer 31:8; Jer 46:10; Jer 50:3; Dan 11:6, Dan 11:8, Dan 11:11. This country was situated to the northeast of Palestine, and it is believed is nowhere in the Scriptures called the country of the east.
(b) The description which is here given of what was accomplished by him who was raised up from the east, is not one that applies to Abraham. It supposes more important achievements than any that signalized the father of the faithful. There were no acts in the life of Abraham that can be regarded as subduing the nations before him; as ruling over kings; or as scattering them like the dust or the stubble. Indeed, he appears to have been engaged but in one military adventure – the rescue of Lot – and that was of so slight and unimportant a character as not to form the peculiarity of his public life. Had Abraham been referred to here, it would have been for some other trait than that of a conqueror or military chieftain.
(c) We shall see that the description and the connection require us to understand it of another – of Cyrus.
2. A second opinion is, that it refers directly and entirely to the Messiah. Many of the fathers, as Jerome, Cyril, Eusebius, Theodoret, Procopius, held this opinion. But the objections to this are insuperable.
(a) It is not true that the Messiah was raised up from the east. He was born in the land of Judea, and always lived in that land.
(b) The description here is by no means one that applies to him. It is the description of a warrior and a conqueror; of one who subdued nations, and scattered them before him.
(c) The connection and design of the passage does not admit of the interpretation. That design is, to lead the Jews in exile to put confidence in God, and to hope for a speedy rescue. In order to this, the prophet directs them to the fact that a king appeared in the east, and that he scattered the nations; and from these facts they were to infer that they would themselves be delivered, and that God would be their protector. But how would this design be accomplished by a reference to so remote an event as the coming of the Messiah?
3. The third opinion, therefore, remains, that this refers to Cyrus, the Persian monarch, by whom Babylon was taken, and by whom the Jews were restored to their own land. In support of this interpretation, a few considerations may be adverted to.
(a) It agrees with the fact in regard to the country from which Cyrus came for purposes of conquest. He came from the land which is everywhere in the Scriptures called the East.
(b) It agrees with the specifications which Isaiah elsewhere makes, where Cyrus is mentioned by name, and where there can be no danger of error in regard to the interpretation (see Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1-4, Isa 45:13). Thus in Isa 46:11, it is said of Cyrus, Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my commandments from a far country.
(c) The entire description here is one that applies in a remarkable manner to Cyrus, as will be shown more fully in the notes at the particular expressions which occur.
(d) This supposition accords with the design of the prophet.
It was to be an assurance to them not only that God would raise up such a man, but that they should be delivered; and as this was intended to comfort them in Babylon, it was intended that when they were apprised of the conquests of Cyrus, they were to be assured of the fact that God was their protector; and those conquests, therefore, were to be regarded by them as a proof that God would deliver them. This opinion is held by Vitringa, Rosenmuller, and probably by a large majority of the most intelligent commentators. The only objection of weight to it is that suggested by Lowth, that the character of a righteous man does not apply to Cyrus. But to this it may be replied, that the word may be used nor to denote one that is pious, or a true worshipper of God, but one who was disposed to do justly, or who was not a tyrant; and especially it may be applied to him on account of his delivering the Jews from their hard and oppressive bondage in Babylon, and restoring them to their own land.
That was an act of eminent public justice; and the favors which he showed them in enabling them to rebuild their city and temple, were such as to render it not improper that this appellation should be given to him. It may be added also that Cyrus was a prince eminently distinguished for justice and equity, and for a mild and kind administration over his own subjects. Xenophon, who has described his character at length, has proposed him as an example of a just monarch, and his government as an example of an equitable administration. All the ancient writers celebrate his humanity and benevolence (compare Diod. xiii. 342, and the Cyropedia of Xenophon everywhere). As there will be frequent occasion to refer to Cyrus in the notes at the chapters which follow, it may be proper here to give a very brief outline of his public actions, that his agency in the deliverance of the Jews may be more fully appreciated.
Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, the Persian, and of Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. Astyages is in Scripture called Ahasuerus. Cambyses was, according to Xenophon (Cyr. i.), king of Persia, or, according to Herodotus (i. 107), he was a nobleman. If he was the king of Persia, of course Cyrus was the heir of the throne. Cyrus was born in his fathers court, A.M. 3405, or 595 b.c., and was educated with great care. At the age of twelve years, his grandfather, Astyages, sent for him and his mother Mandane to court, and he was treated, of course, with great attention. Astyages, or Ahasuerus, had a son by the name of Cyaxares, who was born about a year before Cyrus, and who was heir to the throne of Media. Some time after this, the son of the king of Assyria having invaded Media, Astyages, with his son Cyaxares, and his grandson Cyrus, marched against him. Cyrus defeated the Assyrians, but, was soon after retailed by his father Cambyses to Persia, that he might be near him.
At the age of sixteen, indeed, and when at the court of his grandfather, Cyrus signalized himself for his valor in a war with the king of Babylon. Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had invaded the territories of Media, but was repelled with great loss, and Cyrus pursued him with great slaughter to his own borders. This invasion of Evil-Merodach laid the foundation of the hostility between Babylon and Media, which was not terminated until Babylon was taken and destroyed by the united armies of Media and Persia. When Astyages died, after a reign of thirty-five years, he was succeeded by his son Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus. He was still involved in a war with the Babylonians. Cyrus was made general of the Persian troops, and at the head of an army of 30,000 men was sent to assist Cyaxares, whom the Babylonians were preparing to attack. The Babylonian monarch at this time was Neriglissar, who had murdered Evil-Merodach, and who had usurped the crown of Babylon. Cyaxares and Cyrus carried on the war against Babylon during the reigns of Neriglissar and his son Laborosoarchod, and of Nabonadius. The Babylonians were defeated, and Cyrus carried his arms into the countries to the west beyond the river Halys – a river running north into the Euxine Sea – and subdued Cappadocia, and conquered Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, and subdued almost all Asia Minor. Having conquered this country, he returned again, re-crossed the Euphrates, turned his arms against the Assyrians, and then laid siege to Babylon, and took it (see the notes at Isa. 13; 14), and subdued that mighty kingdom.
During the life of Cyaxares his uncle, he acted in conjunction with him. On the death of this king of Media, Cyrus married his daughter, and thus united the crowns of Media and Persia. After this marriage, he subdued all the nations between Syria and the Red Sea, and died at the age of seventy, after a reign of thirty years. Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus, is in the Scripture called Darius the Mede Dan 5:31, and it is said there, that it was by him that Babylon was taken. But Babylon was taken by the valor of Cyrus, though acting in connection with, and under Cyaxares; and it is said to have been taken by Cyaxares, or Darius, though it was done by the personal valor of Cyrus. Josephus (Ant. xii. 13) says, that Darius with his ally, Cyrus, destroyed the kingdom of Babylon. Jerome assigns three reasons why Babylon is said in the Scriptures to have been taken by Darius or Cyaxares; first, because he was the older of the two; secondly, because the Medes were at that time more famous than the Persians; and thirdly, because the uncle ought to be preferred to the nephew. The Greek writers say that Babylon was taken by Cyrus, without mentioning Cyaxares or Darius, doubtless because it was done solely by his valor. For a full account of the reign of Cyrus, see Xen. Cyr., Herodotus, and the ancient part of the Universal History, vol. iv. Ed. Lond. 1779, 8vo.
Called him to his foot – Lowth renders this, Hath called him to attend his steps. Noyes renders it, Him whom victory meeteth in his march. Grotius, Called him that he should follow him, and he refers to Gen 12:1; Jos 24:3; Heb 11:8. Rosenmuller renders it, Who hath called from the East that man to whom righteousness occurs at his feet, that is, attends him. But the idea seems to be, that God had influenced him to follow him as one follows a guide at his feet, or close to him.
Gave the nations before him – That is, subdued nations before him. This is justly descriptive of the victorious career of Cyrus. Among the nations whom he subdued, were the Armenians, the Cappadocians, the Lydians, the Phrygians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, comprising a very large portion of the world, known at that time. Cyrus subdued, according to Xenophon, all the nations lying between the Euxine and Caspian seas on the north, to the Red Sea on the south, and even Egypt, so that his own proclamation was true: Yahweh, God of heaven, hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth Ezr 1:2.
And made him rule over kings – As the kings of Babylon, of Lydia, of Cappadocia, who were brought into subjection under him, and acknowledged their dependence on him.
He hath given them as the dust to his sword – He has scattered, or destroyed them by his sword, as the dust is driven before the wind. A similar remark is made by David Psa 18:42 :
Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind,
I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.
And as driven stubble – The allusion here is to the process of fanning grain. The grain was thrown by a shovel or fan in the air, and the stubble or chaff was driven away. So it is said of the nations before Cyrus, implying that they were utterly scattered.
To his bow – The bow was one of the common weapons of war, and the inhabitants of the East were distinguished for its use The idea in this verse is very beautiful, and is one that is often employed in the Sacred Scriptures, and by Isaiah himself (see Job 21:18; Psa 1:4; Psa 35:5; the notes at Isa 17:13; Isa 29:5; compare Hos 13:3).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 41:2
The righteous man from the East
The righteous man from the East
The question, whose appearance is predicted, has been always a subject of dispute.
Eusebius, Theodoret, and Procopius understand it as describing the triumphs of the true religion, or the Gospel, here called righteousness. Cyril and Jerome apply it to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as the Righteous One, or the Lord our Righteousness. Cocceius stands alone in his application of the verso to the apostle Paul. The Jews make Abraham the subject of the passage, excepting Aben Ezra, who, with Vitringa and all the latest writers, understands it as a prophecy of Cyrus. The inappropriateness of the terms employed to our Saviour or the Gospel, to Abraham or Paul, is almost self-evident, and equally clear is its appropriateness to the case of Cyrus. The argument in favour of the latter application, drawn from the analogy of Isa 45:1; Isa 46:11, is less conclusive, because he is there expresslynamed. The truth appears to be that this is a more general intimation of a great eventful movement from the East, which is afterwards repeated with specific reference to Cyrus and his conquests. It might even be supposed without absurdity that there is here an allusion to the general progress of the human race, of conquest, civilisation, and religion from the East to the West. Umbreit supposes a specific reference to the course of the sun, from which the name of Cyrus was derived. (J. A. Alexander.)
Cyrus raised up by God
Stirred up the sense is impelled into activity. (Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
Cyrus from the East, yet from the North
From the East; Cyrus home, Susiania being to the east of Babylonia. From the North (Isa 41:25), alludes to the Medes, who united with the Persians under Cyrus, and whose home was to the north or north-east of Babylonia. (Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
Cyrus called in righteousness
(see R.V.):–Cyrus career being a furtherance of Gods righteous purpose for the government of the world. (Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
Cyrus called to Gods foot
To call to ones foot is a Hebrew idiom for calling to ones service, or summoning to take a place among ones followers. (J. A. Alexander.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 2. The righteous man] The Chaldee and Vulgate seem to have read tsaddik. But Jerome, though his translation has justum, appears to have read tsedek; for in his comment he expresses it by justum, sive justitiam. However, I think all interpreters understand it of a person. So the Septuagint in MS. Pachom. , “he hath called him;” but the other copies have , her. They are divided in ascertaining this person; some explain it of Abraham, others of Cyrus. I rather think that the former is meant; because the character of the righteous man, or righteousness, agrees better with Abraham than with Cyrus. Besides, immediately after the description of the success given by God to Abraham and his posterity, (who, I presume, are to be taken into the account,) the idolaters are introduced as greatly alarmed at this event. Abraham was called out of the east; and his posterity were introduced into the land of Canaan, in order to destroy the idolaters of that country, and they were established there on purpose to stand as a barrier against the idolatry then prevailing, and threatening to overrun the whole face of the earth. Cyrus, though not properly an idolater or worshipper of images, yet had nothing in his character to cause such an alarm among the idolaters, Isa 41:5-7. Farther, after having just touched upon that circumstance, the prophet with great ease returns to his former subject, and resumes Abraham and the Israelites; and assures them that as God had called them, and chosen them for this purpose, he would uphold and support them to the utmost, and at length give them victory over all the heathen nations, their enemies; Isa 41:8-16. Kimchi is of the same mind and gives the same reasons.
He gave them as the dust to his sword – “Hath made them like the dust before his sword”] The image is strong and beautiful; it is often made use of by the sacred poets; see Ps 1:4; Ps 35:6; Job 21:18, and by Isaiah himself in other places, Isa 17:13; Isa 29:5. But there is great difficulty in making out the construction. The Septuagint read kashtam, charbam, their sword, their bow, understanding it of the sword and bow of the conquered kings: but this is not so agreeable to the analogy of the image, as employed in other places. The Chaldee paraphrast and Kimchi solve the difficulty by supposing an ellipsis of liphney before those words. It must be owned that the ellipsis is hard and unusual: but I choose rather to submit to this, than, by adhering with Vitringa to the more obvious construction, to destroy entirely both the image and the sense. But the Vulgate by gladio ejus, to his sword, and arcui ejus, to his bow, seems to express lecharbo, to his sword, and lekashto, to his bow, the admission of which reading may perhaps be thought preferable to Kimchi’s ellipsis.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Who? what man or god? Was it not my alone work? The idols were so far from assisting me, that they did their utmost to oppose me in it.
Raised up into being and power, stirring up his spirit, and strengthening him to the work.
The righteous man, Heb. righteousness, which is put for a man of righteousness, as pride is put for a proud man, Psa 36:11, and deceit for a deceitful man, Psa 109:2; for it is evident from the following words that he spake here of a person. But who this person is, is much disputed by interpreters. Some understand it of Christ. And doubtless the person here spoken of was an eminent type of Christ, and so in a mystical sense it may belong to him. But the things here said to be done by this righteous man, seem to agree much better unto a man of war than unto the Prince of peace. And therefore this place is immediately understood either,
1. Of Abraham, who was a person eminently righteous, and came out of Chaldea, which sometimes seems to be called the east, as Isa 2:6; Zec 8:7, who did the things here mentioned; partly in his own person, conquering five kings, and the nations with them, Ge 14, and following God he knew not whither; and partly by his posterity, whose exploits may well be ascribed to him, not only because they came out of his loins, but also and especially because all their successes and victories were given to them for Abrahams sake, and by the virtue of Gods promise and covenant made with Abraham, for the giving of Canaan to him and to his seed for ever. And this interpretation may seem to receive some countenance from Isa 41:5,6, which agrees well to the practice of the Canaanites and neighbouring nations; who upon Israels march towards them were filled with great consternation, and used all possible diligence in seeking both to their idols and to men for help against them, as we read in that sacred history. And thus Gods argument against idolatry is taken from an illustrious example of Gods infinite power, put forth in saving his people, and destroying their enemies before them; and of the impotency of idols to hinder him in that work. Or,
2. Of Cyrus, who might be called a righteous man; or, as it is in the Hebrew, a man of righteousness; because he was raised up in righteousness, as it is said of him, Isa 14:13, and was Gods great instrument to manifest his righteousness; both his faithfulness, in fulfilling his promise of delivering his people out of Babylon after seventy years (righteousness being often put for faithfulness); and his justice, in punishing the enemies and oppressors of his people, the wicked Babylonians; upon which account the Medes, who served under Cyrus in his expedition against the Babylonians, are called Gods sanctified ones, Isa 13:3. And all the other expressions here used are very applicable to him, and were verified in him. He came from the east; from Persia, which was directly eastward, both from Judea and from Babylon, and which is called the east in this very case, Isa 46:11. He was raised up by God in an eminent and extraordinary manner, as is noted both by sacred and profane historians; and therefore this very word is used concerning him and his army, not only here, but elsewhere; as Isa 13:17; Jer 1:9; 51:1,11. To him also all the following passages agree, as we shall see. And although this great person and action were yet to come, yet the prophet speaks of them as if they were already past, as the prophets most frequently do. And as in the clause of the former chapter he speaks of Gods people as if they were actually in the captivity of Babylon, Isa 41:27, so here he speaks of them as if they were actually brought out of Babylon by Cyrus. And by this instance he pleads his cause against the Gentiles and their idols, because this was an evident proof of Gods almighty power, and of the vanity and weakness of idols, which eminently appeared in the destruction of the Babylonians, who were a people mad upon their idols, as is said, Jer 50:38, and yet were destroyed together with their idols, Jer 51:47. From the east; from a country eastward from Judea, as Chaldea was in part, but Persia more directly. Called him to his foot; to march after him, and under Gods banner, against Babylon. Thus Baraks army is said to be at his feet, Jdg 4:10. Compare also Gen 30:30.
Gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings; subdued nations and their kings before him.
He gave them as the dust; to be beaten by him as small as dust, as is said, Psa 18:42. Or, to be put to flight as easily as the dust is scattered by the wind, as the following clause expounds this.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. Whoelse but God? The factthat God “raiseth up” Cyrus and qualifies him for becomingthe conqueror of the nations and deliverer of God’s people, is astrong argument why they should trust in Him. The future is hereprophetically represented as present or past.
the righteous manCyrus;as Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1-4;Isa 45:13; Isa 46:11,”from the East,” prove. Called “righteous,”not so much on account of his own equity [HERODOTUS,3.89], as because he fulfilled God’s righteous will inrestoring the Jews from their unjust captivity. Raised him up inrighteousness. The Septuagint takes the Hebrew as anoun “righteousness.” MAURERtranslates, “Who raised up him whom salvation (national andtemporal, the gift of God’s ‘righteousness’ to the good, Isa32:17; compare Isa 45:8;Isa 51:5) meets at his foot”(that is, wherever he goes). Cyrus is said to come from the East,because Persia is east of Babylon; but in Isa41:25, from the north, in reference to Media. At the sametime the full sense of righteousness, or righteous, andof the whole passage, is realized only in Messiah, Cyrus’ antitype(Cyrus knew not God, Isa45:4). He goes forth as the Universal Conqueror of the “nations,”in righteousness making war (Psa 2:8;Psa 2:9; Rev 19:11-15;Rev 6:2; Rev 2:26;Rev 2:27). “The idols Heshall utterly abolish” (compare Isa 7:23;Isa 2:18). Righteousness wasalways raised up from the East. Paradise was east of Eden. Thecherubim were at the east of the garden. Abraham was called from theEast. Judea, the birthplace of Messiah, was in the East.
called . . . to . . .footcalled him to attend His (God’s) steps, that is, followHis guidance. In Ezr 1:2, Cyrusacknowledges Jehovah as the Giver of his victories. He subdued thenations from the Euxine to the Red Sea, and even Egypt (saysXENOPHON).
dust (Isa 17:13;Isa 29:5; Psa 18:42).Persia, Cyrus’ country, was famed for the use of the “bow”(Isa 22:6). “Before him”means “gave them into his power” (Jos10:12). MAURERtranslates, “Gave his (the enemy’s) sword to be dust, and his(the enemy’s) bow to be as stubble” (Job 41:26;Job 41:29).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Who raised up the righteous man from the east,…. The Targum interprets this of Abraham; and so the Talmud h; and this way go most Jewish and Christian commentators, and to him the characters agree; he was a righteous man, believed in Christ for righteousness, had the righteousness of faith when circumcised, did justice, and wrought righteousness himself, and required his children and servants to do the same, Ge 15:6, he was raised up out of an idolatrous family, from Ur of the Chaldees, on the other side the river Euphrates, which lay east of Judea; he was called by the Lord to his foot, as it follows, and was obedient to him; he went forth at his command, not knowing whither he went, Heb 11:8. God gave him by promise the land of Canaan, possessed by several “nations”, and which his seed afterwards inherited; yea, he made him, in a spiritual sense, “the father of many nations”, even of all believers, in all nations of the world,
Ge 15:18, he made him a conqueror “over” the “kings” that had vanquished the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, and plundered their cities; who were no more able to stand before him, though he had no more than three hundred and eighteen servants of his household, than “dust and stubble” can resist the force of a mighty wind; he “pursued them” in an unknown tract, got an entire victory over them, without being hurt or losing a man; which was so extraordinary an affair, that Melchizedek, priest of the most high God, and a type of Christ, went forth to meet him, and blessed him, Ge 14:14, and who but the mighty God could or did raise up this man, and make him what he was, and do the things he did? some, as Aben Ezra, and several Christian writers also, think that Cyrus is meant, spoken of as raised up already, though to come, in the manner of prophetic language, called the ravenous bird from the east, Isa 46:11, who came from Persia, which lay east of Judea;
whom God called to his foot, and who performed his pleasure, and executed his counsel, and so said to be a “righteous man” in that respect; and is expressly said to be “raised up in righteousness”; before whom the Lord subdued “nations”, and loosed the loins of “kings”; see Isa 44:28, some understand it of him as a type of Christ, who is the righteous One, or “righteousness” itself, as the word properly signifies, the Lord our righteousness; whose name is “Oriens”, or the east, the rising sun in the east, Zec 3:8, the angel ascending from the east, Re 7:2, born in the eastern part of the world; called to be the servant of the Lord, and was; to whom he has given the Heathen for his inheritance, and made him his firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth, and whom he will overcome and slay with his twoedged sword: but since rather Christ is the person speaking, and concerning whom the controversy is, therefore some person distinct from him must be meant; and I am inclined to think, with Coeceius, that the Apostle Paul is intended, that wonderful man; though this sense is rejected by Vitringa: he was a “righteous” one, made so by the righteousness of Christ; he believed in it, and was a preacher of it, and lived a holy and righteous life and conversation; whom the Lord raised up for uncommon service and usefulness, and to whom he appeared personally to make him a minister, and send him out to do his work; he was raised up in the eastern part of the world, in Judea, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and from thence sent forth into various parts; see
Ac 26:16:
called him to his foot; and though he was like a furious lion, raging against his saints, breathing out slaughter and threatenings against them, and in the height of his rage and fury; yet was at once, at the call of Christ, made as tame as a lamb, and said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” he was willing to do anything and everything he pleased, Ac 9:1 and when he signified it as his will that he should preach his Gospel, he was not disobedient, he did not confer with flesh and blood, but at once set about it with the greatest zeal and readiness:
gave the nations before him; made him an apostle of the Gentiles, or of the nations, and made those Gentiles or nations obedient by word and deed; he triumphed in Christ everywhere, and diffused the savour of his knowledge in every place, Ro 11:13:
and made him rule over kings? governors, princes, potentates, and kings of the earth; he had power over their spirits, being an instrument either of converting them, as Sergius Paulus the Roman deputy, from whence some think he had his name; or to make them to tremble at his discourses, as Felix the Roman governor; and of bringing them at least to own there was something in the Christian religion, as Agrippa, a crowned head, who was obliged to confess he had almost persuaded him to be a Christian, Ac 13:7, and of bringing their kingdoms, and the inhabitants of them, into subjection to Christ:
he gave them as dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow; whose weapons were not carnal, but spiritual, and mighty through God; his sword was the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; his bow and arrows were the Gospel, and the truths of it, in whose ministry Christ went forth conquering, and to conquer: and this being attended with the power of God, men could no more stand against them than dust and stubble before the wind.
h T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 156. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 15. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 108. 2. and Taanith, fol. 21. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The parties invited are now to be thought of as present, and Jehovah commences in Isa 41:2: “Who hath raised up the man from the rising of the sun, whom justice meets at his foot, He giveth up nations before him, and kings He subdues, giveth men like the dust to his sword, and like driven stubble to his bow?” The sentence governed by “who” ( m ) ends at l e raglo (at his foot); at the same time, all that follows is spoken with the echo of the interrogative accent. The person raised up is Cyrus, who is afterwards mentioned by name. The coming one (if, that is to say, we adhere to the belief in Isaiah’s authorship of these addresses) first approaches gradually within the horizon of the prophet’s ideal present; and it is only little by little that the prophet becomes more intimately acquainted with a phenomenon which belongs to so distant a future, and has been brought so close to his own eyes. Jehovah has raised up the new great hero “from the east” ( m immizrach ), and, according to Isa 41:25, “from the north” also. Both of these were fulfilled; for Cyrus was a Persian belonging to the clan of Achaemenes ( Hakhamanis ), which stood at the head of the tribe, or of the Pasargadae. He was the son of Cambyses; and even if the Median princess Mandane were not his mother, yet, according to nearly all the ancient accounts, he was connected with the royal house of Media; at any rate, after Astyages was dethroned, he became head and chief of the Medes as well as of the Persians (hence the name of “Mule” which was give to him by the oracle, and that given by Jerome, “ agitator bigae ”). Now Media was to the north of Babylonia, and Persia to the east; so that his victorious march, in which, even before the conquest of Babylon, he subjugated all the lands from the heights of Hinduku to the shores of the Aegean Sea, had for its starting-point both the east and north.
(Note: See Pahl’es Geschichte des Oriental. Alterthums. (1864), p. 170ff.)
The clause is an attributive clause, and as such a virtual object: “him whom (supply ) justice comes to meet ( ) = , Ges. 75, vi.) on his track” (cf., Gen 30:30; Job 18:11; Hab 3:5). The idea of tsedeq is determined by what follows: Jehovah gives up nations before him, and causes kings to be trodden down (causative of radah ). Accordingly, tsedeq is either to be understood here in an attributive sense, as denoting the justice exercised by a person (viz., the justice executed successfully by Cyrus, as the instrument of Jehovah, by the force of arms); or objectively of the justice awarded to a person (to which the idea of “meeting” is more appropriate), viz., the favourable result, the victory which procures justice for the just cause of the combatant. Rosenmller, Knobel, and others, are wrong in maintaining that tsedeq ( ts e daqah ) in chapters 40-66 signifies primarily justice, and the prosperity and salvation as its reward. The word means straightness, justice, righteousness, and nothing more (from tsadaq , to be hard, firm, extended, straight, e.g., rumh – un – tsadq , a hard, firm, and straight lance); but it has a double aspect, because justice consists, according to circumstances, of either wrath of favour, and therefore has sometimes the idea of the strict execution of justice, as in this instance, sometimes of a manifestation of justice in fidelity to promises, as in Isa 41:10. is repeated here in Isa 41:2 (just like in Isa 40:14) with the same subject, but in a different sense. To make sword and bow the subject, in the sense of “his sword gives (sc., ‘the foe’),” is a doubtful thing in itself; and as cherebh and qesheth are feminines, it is by no means advisable. Moreover, in other instances, the comparative leaves it to the reader to carry out the figure indicated according to his own fancy. And this is the case here: He (Jehovah) makes his sword as if there were dust, his bow as if there were hunted stubble (Bttcher), i.e., pounding the enemy like dust, and hunting it like flying stubble. Our text has , but in certain codices we find with tzere ; and this reading, which is contrary to rule, has in its favour the express testimony of Moses the punctuator.
(Note: In his (rules of pointing), with which the Masora finalis is surrounded.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
2. Who shall raise up righteousness from the east? This shews plainly what is the design of the Prophet; for he intends to assure the Jews that they will be in no danger of going astray, if they choose to follow the path which he points out to them. And this is the reason why he mentions Abraham; for he might have enumerated other works of God, but selected an example appropriate to his subject; for, having been descended from Abraham, whom God had brought out of Chaldea amidst so many dangers, they ought also to have hoped that he would equally assist them; since his power was not diminished, and he is not wearied by acts of kindness. (135) Because it was difficult for captives and exiles, while they were at a great distance from their native country, to hope for a return:, he exhorts them by a similar example to cherish favorable hopes. Having been scattered throughout Chaldea and the neighboring countries, they thought that the road which led homeward was shut up against them on account of numerous obstructions. But from the same place Abraham their father had traveled into Judea. (Gen 11:31.) Could not he who conducted one poor, solitary man, with his father, his nephew, and his wife, safe and sound amidst so ninny dangers, be the leader of his people in the journey? Since, therefore, God had called Abraham out of his native country, and delivered him from all distresses, this fact drawn from the family history ought to have made a deeper impression on his children, that the departure of their father Abraham might be a pledge or mirror of their future deliverance from Babylon.
When he calls Abraham righteousness, he does so, not for the purpose of extolling the man, but of shewing that God had assigned to him a character which belonged to the whole condition of the Church; for he was not called as a private individual, but the demonstration of God’s eternal justice which was given in his calling is common to all believers; as if he had said, that in his person the Church had once been delivered, in order that he might confidently believe that his salvation and the justice of God would be alike eternal. And indeed in a single individual we behold the calling of believers, and a sort of model of the Church, and the beginning and end of our salvation. In short, Abraham may be regarded as a mirror of the justice of God, so far as it shines in the affairs of this world. This word is used for the sake of amplification, ( πρὸς αὔξησιν); for to “raise up righteousness from the east,” where everything had been corrupted and polluted by the most abominable superstitions, was an astonishing work of God. If, therefore, such a display of God’s goodness and power had once been given, why ought; they not to expect the same or a similar display in future?
Called him to his foot. (136) Some interpret this as meaning that Abraham, wherever he went, called on the name of the Lord; for as soon as he came into any country, he erected an altar to God, that he might offer sacrifice upon it. (Gen 12:7, and 13:18.) This is indeed true, but I interpret it differently, that the Lord was the leader in the journey to Abraham, who followed him step by step; for when he was commanded to depart, no particular country was pointed out to which he should go; and thus when he set out he knew not either how far, or in what direction he should travel, but God kept him in suspense till he entered into the land of Canaan. (Gen 12:1; Act 7:3.) When Abraham had been called, he immediately appeared, and though he was uncertain as to his journey, he listened to the mouth of God, and was satisfied with having God for his leader. On this account the expression is appropriate, that he followed him “to his foot,” because he surrendered himself to God to be a footman, like obedient and submissive servants who follow the footsteps of their master, though they are uncertain whither he is leading them.
Gave nations before him. This means that although the good man might be afflicted and tormented every moment by many anxieties, yet God removed every obstruction that could annoy him. Moses does not enumerate all the difficulties which Abraham encountered at his departure, but any person may conclude that this journey could not be free from very great annoyances; for it was impossible for him, when he set out, not to draw upon himself the hatred of the nation, and to be universally condemned as a madman for leaving his native land, and relations, and friends, and wandering to an unknown country. After having come into the land of Canaan, he had to do with wicked and cruel men, with whom he could not be agreed, because he was entirely opposed to their superstitions. What Moses relates Shews plainly enough that Abraham was never at rest, and yet that wicked men durst not attempt to do anything against him; so that when he wished to purchase a sepulcher from the children of Herb, they offered it to him freely and for nothing, and acknowledged him to be a man of God and a prince. (Gen 23:6.)
And subdued kings. The Prophet illustrates the grace of God, by shewing that he did not spare even kings, so as to make it evident that he was a faithful protector of his servant or vassal Abraham. The history of the four kings whom he vanquished and routed is well known, (Gen 14:14,) and might be extended to Pharaoh, (Gen 12:17,) and Abimelech, (Gen 20:3,) who are also mentioned in Psa 105:14, where this subject is handled; for they were chastised because they dared to “touch the Lord’s Anointed.” (Psa 105:15.) But strictly it denotes that victory which he obtained over four kings, (Gen 14:14,) who had carried off his nephew Lot, with all that belonged to him; for it is very evident from the context that the Prophet does not speak of kings or nations that had been soothed, but of armed enemies that had been violently made to pass under the yoke.
As dust to his sword. Lastly, he magnifies the ease with which that victory was gained, and thus expresses the highest contempt by comparing those kings to dust and stubble; for he subdued them without exposing himself to danger. At the same time he reminds us that this ought not to be ascribed to the power of man, but to the assistance of God; because it is not by human power that victory can be so easily gained.
(135) “ Puisque sa force n’estoit point diminuee, ni sa beneficence refroidie.” “Since his strength was not diminished, nor his benevolence cooled.”
(136) “ L’ a-il pas appele pour venir apres soy.” “Called him to come after himself.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) Who raised up . . .More accurately, Who hath raised up from the East the man whom Righteousness calls (or, whom He calls in righteousness) to tread in His steps. (Comp. Isa. 45:2.) The man so raised up to rule over the islands and the peoples is none other than Koresh (Cyrus), the future restorer of Israel. The thought of Cyrus as working out the righteousness of God is dominant in these chapters (Isa. 42:6; Isa. 45:13). In the rapidity of his conquest, the prophet bids men see the proof that he is doing Gods work. So Jeremiah speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as the servant of Jehovah (Jer. 27:6). One may notice, if only to reject, the exposition of the Targum, followed by some commentators, which refers the verse to the call of Abraham and the victory of Genesis 14.
He gave them.Better, He giveth them, the future seen as present. The LXX. and some modern critics follow a reading which gives, he maketh them as dust, their sword as stubble.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2, 3. Ideally, the parties in controversy are now together, and Jehovah opens.
Who raised up the righteous The verb is in the prophetic past tense not as actually past, but actually certain to take place.
Righteous man Literally, righteousness; but denoting quality, and hence a righteous man, the hero man; undoubtedly referring to Cyrus the Mede; not here and now, but in Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1, actually so naming him. The argument starts with proof of the divinity of Jehovah in predicting, many years beforehand, that this hero is certain to appear, and on in the argument he twice names his hero Cyrus, who for Israel wrought, though a quasi-heathen, yet wrought under providence in this righteous cause. Observe how the description rushes! Succession of events there is, but so rapid that the time element is scarcely noticeable. Cyrus looms on the horizon for a moment, then disappears. Those who ignore the supernatural in prophecy, may with as little difficulty recognise Isaiah author here, as some other prophet nearer to, but not at, the event. The laws of Hebrew grammar permit, in lively description, scenes yet actually to occur to be transported in thought to a simultaneous past, (or, as some have it, an ideal present,) as here and often in these chapters. It is now rare to find expositors agreeing with Grotius, Lowth, and others, and with former Jewish commentators, in supposing Abraham, and not Cyrus, to be here meant. The great majority adhere to Cyrus as the intended hero, or the coming one. “The coming one first approaches gradually within the horizon of the prophet’s ideal present, and it is only little by little that the prophet becomes more intimately acquainted with a phenomenon which belongs to so distant a future, and has been brought so close to his own eyes. Jehovah has raised the new great hero ‘from the east,’ ( mimmizrach,) and, according to Isa 41:25, ‘from the north’ also. Both of these predictions were fulfilled; for Cyrus was a Persian belonging to the clan of Achaemenes, which stood at the head of the tribe of the Pasargardae. He was the son of Cambyses, and, according to all ancient accounts, he was connected with the royal house of Media; at any rate, after Astyages was dethroned, he became head and chief of the Medes as well as of the Persians.” “Now Media was to the north of Babylonia, and Persia to the east.” Delitzsch.
Isa 41:2-4. Who raised up the righteous man, &c. Who hath raised up the righteous man from the east; hath called him to attend his steps? Hath subdued nations at his presence; and given him dominion over kings? Hath made them like the dust before his sword; and like the driven stubble before his bow? He pursueth them; he passeth in safety; by a way never trodden before with his feet. Who hath performed, and made these things, calling the several generations from the beginning? I JEHOVAH, the first; and with the last, I am the same. Lowth. Every one sees that these words are so connected with the preceding as to contain the argument urged by God in proof of his divinity. The argument is taken from a certain great work and effect of the divine Providence, well known to those with whom the dispute is held: which effect appearing to be a divine work, and not possible to be ascribed to any other cause than the God of Israel, abundantly evinces that the honour of true divinity belongs to him and him only. This great work of the divine Providence is the raising up of a certain illustrious person from the east, celebrated for his justice, equity, and prosperity; who waged remarkable wars, conquered his enemies, and did other extraordinary things here understood. All these attributes exactly belonged to Cyrus; and there can be no doubt that he is here meant, from a comparison of the following passages in our prophet; Isa 41:25; chap. Isa 45:1; Isa 45:13 and Isa 46:11 which supply the place of a comment. See Vitringa. We may just remark, that the prophet here, as is very usual, speaks of the future in the past tense.
In these verses, Jehovah challengeth the inquiry into is sovereignty and power, that the eternity of his nature, and the graciousness of purposes in redemption, may be fully proved. And in the instance of Abraham, the great father of the faithful, as it should seem, is meant, the righteous man. See Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:11Rom 4:11 . The Chaldee paraphrase renders the words, who brought Abraham publickly from the East. And it should seem that the Lord refers, in Abraham’s instance, to the slaughter of the kings; Gen 14:14-16 . But what is yet more particularly to be regarded, in the illustration of these verses of the Prophet, is that Jehovah seems to point to the sovereignty of his distinguishing grace, in the call of Abraham. Who was it called this righteous man? And what righteousness was it he had, but the righteousness of faith in the promised redemption by Christ? And who gave him this faith? Oh! how truly blessed is it to trace the Lord’s hand as the first and predisposing cause, in all dispensations, whether of providence or grace? But while we behold Abraham, let us not overlook Christ. Who raised up Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, in his mediatorial character, and gave nations before him, and made him universal Lord of angels and of men! Here is the sum and substance of the scripture, to which the whole points, and in which the whole centres. Christ is indeed the Christ of God. Act 3:26 ; Luk 9:20 .
Isa 41:2 Who raised up the righteous [man] from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made [him] rule over kings? he gave [them] as the dust to his sword, [and] as driven stubble to his bow.
Ver. 2. Who raised up the righteous man from the east? ] Who but myself? Which of your idols can boast of such a man as Abraham was, like as I can?
Called him to his foot.
He gave the nations before him. the righteous man from the east: i.e. Abraham. Compare Cyrus raised up from the north, Isa 41:25.
kings: i.e. those mentioned in Gen 14:1, Gen 14:8, Gen 14:9. stubble = straw. Hebrew. kash, as in Isa 40:24.
the righteous man from the east
The reference here seems to be to Cyrus, whose victories and rapid growth in power are here ascribed to the providence of God. Isa 41:5-7 describe the effect upon the nations of the rise of the Persian power. They heartened each other, and made (Is 41:7) new idols. At Isa 41:8 the prophet addresses Israel. Since it was their God who raised up Cyrus, they should expect good, not evil, from him (Isa 41:8-20). Isa 41:21-24 form a contemptuous challenge to the idols in whom the nations are trusting.
Who raised: Isa 41:25, Isa 45:13, Isa 46:11, Gen 11:31, Gen 12:1-3, Gen 17:1, Heb 11:8-10
the righteous man: Heb. righteousness
gave: Isa 41:25, Isa 45:13, Isa 46:11, Gen 11:31, Gen 12:1-3, Gen 17:1, Heb 11:8-10
gave: Isa 41:15, Isa 45:1, Gen 14:14, Gen 14:15, Ezr 1:2, Heb 7:1
as the: Isa 41:15, Isa 41:16, 2Sa 22:43, 2Ki 13:7
as driven: Isa 40:24
Reciprocal: Gen 14:16 – General Psa 18:42 – beat Psa 83:13 – as the Isa 41:9 – whom Isa 47:14 – they shall Eze 25:4 – of the east Mal 4:1 – and all the Act 7:4 – came Rev 16:12 – that the
Isa 41:2-3. Who raised up Into being and power? Was it not my work alone? The righteous man Many expositors understand this of Abraham, who was a person eminently righteous, and was called from the other side of the Euphrates, which lay eastward from Judea, and who performed the things here mentioned, partly in his own person, conquering five kings and their people with them, (Genesis 14.,) and following God he knew not whither; and partly by his posterity, whose exploits may well be ascribed to him, not only because they came out of his loins, but also, and especially, because all their successes and victories were given to them for Abrahams sake, and by the virtue of Gods covenant made with him. And this interpretation seems to receive some countenance from Isa 41:5-6, which agree well with the practice of the Canaanites and neighbouring nations; who, upon Israels march toward them, were filled with great consternation, and used all possible diligence in seeking both to their idols and to men for help against them. To which may be added, that Abraham was called out of the east; and his posterity were introduced into the land of Canaan, in order to destroy the idolaters of that country; and they were established there on purpose to stand as a barrier against idolatry, then prevailing, and threatening to overrun the whole face of the earth. But though the particulars here mentioned by the prophet are most, or all of them, applicable to Abraham, yet Lowth, Vitringa, and many other commentators of great authority, think that they more exactly belong to Cyrus, and that upon a comparison of them with what is asserted Isa 41:25; Isa 45:1; Isa 45:13; and Isa 46:11, there can be no doubt that he is here meant. Cyrus might be called a righteous man, or, a man of righteousness, as the Hebrew rather means, because he was raised up in righteousness, as is said of him Isa 45:13, and was Gods great instrument, to manifest his faithfulness in fulfilling his promise of delivering his people out of Babylon, and his justice in punishing the enemies and oppressors of his people, the Babylonians; upon which account the Medes, who served under Cyrus in his expedition, are called Gods sanctified ones, Isa 13:3; Isa 13:17. And all the other expressions here used are very applicable to him, and were verified in him. He came from the east, from Persia, which was directly eastward from Judea and from Babylon. He was raised up by God in an eminent and extraordinary manner, as is observed both by sacred and profane historians. To him also all the following particulars agree, as we shall see. And although these things were yet to come, yet the prophet speaks of them as if they were already past, a practice not unusual with the prophets. And as in the former chapter, (Isa 41:27,) he speaks of Gods people as if they were actually in captivity in Babylon, so here he speaks of them as if they were actually brought out of it by Cyrus. And by this instance he pleads his cause against the Gentiles and their idols; because this was an evident proof of Gods almighty power, (as the prediction of it was of his infinite wisdom,) and of the vanity and weakness of idols, which eminently appeared in the destruction of the Babylonians, who were a people mad upon their idols, and yet were destroyed together with their idols, Jer 50:38; Jer 51:47. Called him to his foot To march after him, and under his banner against Babylon. Thus Baraks army is said to be at his feet, Jdg 4:10. Gave the nations before him, &c. Subdued nations and kings before him. Gave them as the dust to his sword To be put to flight as easily as the dust is scattered by the wind. He pursued them, and passed safely Went on in the pursuit with great ease, safety, and success; even by the way that he had not gone By unknown paths; which is added as a further evidence of Gods providential care of him. This was verified both in Abraham and in Cyrus.
41:2 Who raised up the {c} righteous [man] from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made [him] rule over kings? he gave [them] as the dust to his sword, [and] as driven stubble to his bow.
(c) Who called Abraham (who was the pattern of God’s justice in delivering his Church) from the idolatry of the Chaldeans to go to and fro at his commandment and placed him in the land of Canaan.
The Lord asked the nations a question: Who had righteously summoned a conqueror from the East who would defeat nations and overcome kings as easily and swiftly as one blows away dust and chaff? Later, Isaiah would identify this conqueror as Cyrus the Persian (Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1), but here the emphasis is on the One who sovereignly called him into action, namely: Yahweh. The four Mesopotamian kings who invaded Canaan in Abraham’s day and took Lot captive were the prototype of this invader, as were Sargon, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar. Jesus Christ will be the ultimate fulfillment when He returns to the earth east of Jerusalem (on the Mount of Olives), and overcomes His enemies, who will have assembled in Palestine. Cyrus came from Persia (modern Iran), which was east of Mesopotamia. This invader would proceed safely over previously unused routes.
CHAPTER X
CYRUS
Isa 41:2; Isa 44:28-28; Isa 46:11; Isa 48:14
CYRUS, the Persian, is the only man outside the covenant and people of Israel, who is yet entitled the Lords Shepherd, and the Lords Messiah or Christ. He is, besides, the only great personality of whom both the Bible and Greek literature treat at length and with sympathy. Did we know nothing more of him than this, the heathen who received the most sacred titles of Revelation, the one man in history who was the cynosure of both Greece and Judah, could not fail to be of the greatest interest to us. But apart from the way in which he impressed the Greek imagination and was interpreted by the Hebrew conscience, we have an amount of historical evidence about Cyrus, which, if it dissipates the beautiful legends told of his origin and his end, confirms most of what is written of his character by Herodotus and Xenophon, and all of what is described as his career by the prophet whom we are studying. Whether of his own virtue, or as being the leader of a new race of men at the fortunate moment of their call, Cyrus lifted himself, from the lowest of royal stations, to a conquest and an empire achieved by only two or three others in the history of the world. Originally but the prince of Anshan, or Anzan, -a territory of uncertain size at the head of the Persian Gulf, -he brought under his sway, by policy or war, the large and vigorous nations of the Medes and Persians; he overthrew the Lydian kingdom, and subjugated Asia Minor; he so impressed the beginnings of Greek life, that, with all their own great men, the Greeks never ceased to regard this Persian as the ideal king; he captured Babylon, the throne of the ancient East, and thus effected the transfer of empire from the Semitic to the Aryan stock. He also satisfied the peoples, whom he had beaten, with his rule, and organised his realms with a thoroughness unequalled over so vast an extent till the rise of the Roman Empire.
We have scarcely any contemporary or nearly contemporary evidence about his personality. But his achievements testify to extraordinary genius, and his character was the admiration of all antiquity. To Greek literature Cyrus was the Prince pre-eminent, -set forth as the model for education in childhood, self-restraint in youth, just and powerful government in manhood. Most of what we read of him in Xenophons “Cyropaedia” is, of course, romance; but the very fact, that, like our own King Arthur, Cyrus was used as a mirror to flash great ideals down the ages, proves that there was with him native brilliance and width of surface as well as fortunate eminence of position. He owed much to the virtue of his race. Rotten as the later Persians have become, the nation in those days impressed its enemies with its truthfulness, purity, and vigour. But the man who not only led such a nation, and was their darling, but combined under his sceptre, in equal discipline and contentment, so many other and diverse peoples, so many powerful and ambitious rulers, cannot have been merely the best specimen of his own nations virtue, but must have added to this, at least much of the original qualities-humanity, breadth of mind, sweetness, patience, and genius for managing men-which his sympathetic biographer imputes to him in so heroic a degree. It is evident that the “Cyropaedia” is ignorant of many facts about Cyrus, and must have taken conscious liberties with many more, but nobody-who, on the one hand, is aware of what Cyrus effected upon the world, and who, on the other, can appreciate that it was possible for a foreigner (who, nevertheless, had travelled through most of the scenes of Cyrus career) to form this rich conception of him more than a century after his death-can doubt that the Persians character (due allowance being made for hero-worship) must have been in the main as Xenophon describes it.
Yet it is very remarkable that our Scripture states not one moral or religious virtue as the qualification of this Gentile to the title of “Jehovahs Messiah.” We search here in vain for any gleam of appreciation of that character, which drew the admiring eyes of Greece. In the whole range of our prophecy there is not a single adjective, expressing a moral virtue, applied to Cyrus. The “righteousness,” which so many passages associate with his name, is attributed, not to him, but to Gods calling of him, and does not imply justice or any similar quality, but is, as we shall afterwards see when we examine the remarkable use of this word in Second Isaiah, a mixture of good faith and thoroughness, -all-rightness. The one passage of our prophet, in which it has been supposed by some that Jehovah makes a religious claim to Cyrus, as if the Persian were a monotheist-“he calleth on My name”-is, as we have seen, too uncertain, both in text and rendering, to have anything built upon it. Indeed, no Hebrew could have justly praised this Persians faith, who called himself the “servant of Merodach,” and in his public proclamations to Babylonia ascribed to the Babylonian gods his power to enter their city. Cyrus was very probably the pious ruler described by Xenophon, but he was no monotheist. And our prophet denies all religious sympathy between him and Jehovah, in words too strong to be misunderstood: “I woo thee, though thou hast not known Me I gird thee, though thou hast not known Me”. {Isa 45:4-5} On what, then, is the Divine election of Cyrus grounded by our prophet, if not upon his character and his faith? Simply and barely upon Gods sovereignty and will. That is the impressive lesson of the passage: “I am Jehovah, Maker of everything; that stretch forth the heavens alone, and spread the earth by Myself that say of Koresh, My shepherd, and all My pleasure he shall accomplish.” {Isa 44:24; Isa 44:28} Cyrus is Jehovahs because all things are Jehovahs; of whatsoever character or faith they be, they are His and for His uses. “I am Jehovah, and there is none else: Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of peace and Creator of evil; I, Jehovah, Maker of all these.” Gods sovereignty could not be more broadly stated. All things, irrespective of their character, are from Him and for His ends. But what end is dearer to the Almighty, what has He more plainly declared, than that His people shall be settled again in their own land? For this He will use the fittest force. The return of Israel to Palestine is a political event, requiring political power; and the greatest political power of the day is Cyrus. Therefore, by His prophet, the Almighty declares Cyrus to be His peoples deliverer, His own anointed. “Thus saith Jehovah to His Messiah, to Koresh:That thou mayest know that I am Jehovah, Caller of thee by thy name, God of Israel, for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel My chosen. And I have called thee by thy name. I have wooed thee, though thou hast not known Me”. {Isa 45:1; Isa 45:3-4}
Now to this designation of Cyrus, as the Messiah, great objections rose from Israel. We can understand them. People who have fallen from a glorious past, cling passionately to its precedents. All the ancient promises of a deliverer for Israel represented him as springing from the house of David. The deliverance, too, was to have come by miracle, or by the impression of the peoples own holiness upon their oppressors. The Lord was to have made bare His arm and Israel to go forth in the pride of His favour, as in the days of Egypt and the Red Sea. But this deliverer, who was announced, was alien to the commonwealth of Israel; and not by some miracle was the peoples exodus promised, but as the effect of his imperial word-a minor incident in his policy! The precedents and the pride of Israel called out against such a scheme of salvation, and the murmurs of the people rose against the word of God.
Sternly replies the Almighty: “Woe to him that striveth with his Moulder, a potsherd among the potsherds of the ground! Saith clay to its moulder, What doest thou? or thy work” of thee, “No hands hath he? Woe to him that saith to a father, What begettest thou? or to a woman, With what travailest thou? Thus saith Jehovah, Holy of Israel and his Moulder: The things that are coming ask of Me; concerning My sons, and concerning the work of My hands, command ye Me! I have made Earth, and created man upon her: I, My hands, have stretched Heaven, and all its hosts have I ordered.” In that universal providence, this Cyrus is but an incident. “I have stirred him up in righteousness, and all his ways shall I make level. He”-emphatic-“shall build My City, and My Captivity he shall send off-not for price and not for reward, saith Jehovah of Hosts.” {Isa 45:9-13}
To this bare fiat, the passages referring to Cyrus in chapter 46 and chapter 48, add scarcely anything. “I am God, and there is none like Me Who say, My counsel shall stand, and all My pleasure will I perform. Who call from the sunrise a Bird-of-prey, from a land far-off the Man of My counsel. Yea, I have spoken, yea, I will bring it to pass. I have formed, yea, will do it.” {Isa 46:9-11} “Bird-of-prey” here has been thought to have reference to the eagle, which was the standard of Cyrus. But it refers to Cyrus himself. What God sees in this man to fulfil His purpose is swift, resistless force. Not his character, but his swoop is useful for the Almightys end. Again: “Be gathered, all of you, and hearken; who among them hath published these things? Jehovah hath loved him: he will do His pleasure on Babel, and his arm” shall be on “the Chaldeans. I, I have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and will cause his way to prosper,” or, “I will pioneer his way”. {Isa 48:14-15} This verb “to cause to prosper” is one often used by our prophet, but nowhere more appropriately to its original meaning than here, where it is used of “a way.” The word signifies “to cut through”; then “to ford a river”-there is no word for bridge in Hebrew; then “to go on well, prosper.”
In all these passages, then, there is no word about character. Cyrus is neither chosen for his character nor said to be endowed with one. But that he is there, and that he does so much, is due simply to this, that God has chosen him. And what he is endowed with is force, push, swiftness, irresistibleness. He is, in short, not a character, but a tool; and God makes no apology for using him but this, that he has the qualities of a tool.
Now we cannot help being struck with the contrast of all this, the Hebrew view of Cyrus, with the well-known Greek views of him. To the Greeks he is first and foremost a character. Xenophon, and Herodotus almost as much as Xenophon, are less concerned with what Cyrus did than with what he was. He is the King, the ideal ruler. It is his simplicity, his purity, his health, his wisdom, his generosity, his moral influence upon men, that attract the Greeks, and they conceive that he cannot be too brightly painted in his virtues, if so he may serve for an example to following generations. But bring Cyrus out of the light of the eyes of this hero-worshipping people, that light that has so gilded his native virtues, into the shadow of the austere Hebrew faith, and the brilliance is quenched. He still moves forcibly, but his character is neutral. Scripture emphasises only his strength, his serviceableness, his success. “Whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loosen the loins of kings; to open doors before him, and gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee, and make the rugged places plain. I will shiver doors of brass, and bars of iron will I sunder”. That Cyrus is doing a work in Gods hand and for Gods end, and therefore forcibly, and sure of success-that is all the interest Scripture takes in Cyrus.
Observe the difference. It is characteristic of the two nations. The Greek views Cyrus as an example; therefore cannot too abundantly multiply his morality. The Hebrew views him as a tool; but with a tool you are not anxious about its moral character, you only desire to be convinced of its force and its fitness. The Greek mind is careful to unfold the noble humanity of the man, -a humanity universally and eternally noble. By the side of that imperishable picture of him, how meagre to Greek eyes would have seemed the temporary occasion, for which the Hebrew claimed Cyrus had been raised up-to lead the petty Jewish tribe back to their own obscure corner of the earth. Herodotus and Xenophon, had you told them that this was the chief commission of Cyrus from God, to restore the Jews to Palestine, would have laughed. “Identify him, forsooth, with those provincial interests!” they would have said. “He was meant, we lift him up, for mankind!”
What judgment are we to pass on these two characteristic pictures of Cyrus? What lessons are we to draw from their contrast?
They do not contradict, but in many particulars they corroborate one another. Cyrus would not have been the efficient weapon in the Almightys hand, which our prophet panegyrises, but for that thoughtfulness in preparation and swift readiness to seize the occasion, which Xenophon extols. And nothing is more striking to one familiar with our Scriptures, when reading the “Cyropaedia,” than the frequency with which the writer insists on the success that followed the Persian. If to the Hebrew Cyrus was the called of God, upheld in righteousness, to the Greek he was equally conspicuous as the favourite of fortune. “I have always,” Xenophon makes the dying king say, “seemed to feel my strength increase with the advance of time, so that I have not found myself weaker in my old age than in my youth, nor do I know that I have attempted or desired anything in which I have not been successful.” And this was said piously, for Xenophons Cyrus was a devout servant of the gods.
The two views, then, are not hostile, nor are we compelled to choose between them. Still, they make a very suggestive contrast, if we put these two questions about them: Which is the more true to historical fact? Which is the more inspiring example?
Which is the more true to historical fact? There is no difficulty in answering this: undoubtedly, the Hebrew. It has been of far more importance to the world that Cyrus freed the Jews than that he inspired the “Cyropaedia.” That single enactment of his, perhaps only one of a hundred consequences of his capture of Babylon, has had infinitely greater results than his character, or than its magnificent exaggeration by Greek hero-worship. No one who has read the “Cyropaedia”-out of his school-days-would desire to place it in any contrast, in which its peculiar charm would be shadowed, or its own modest and strictly-limited claims would not receive justice. The charm, the truth of the “Cyropaedia,” are eternal; but the significance they borrow from Cyrus-though they are as much due, perhaps, to Xenophons own pure soul as to Cyrus-is not to be compared for one instant to the significance of that single deed of his, into which the Bible absorbs the meaning of his whole career, -the liberation of the Jews. The “Cyropaedia” has been the instruction and delight of many, -of as many in modern times, perhaps, as in ancient. But the liberation of the Jews meant the assurance of the worlds religious education. Cyrus sent this people back to their land solely as a spiritual people. He did not allow them to set up again the house of David, but by his decree the Temple was rebuilt. Israel entered upon their purely religious career, set in order their vast stores of spiritual experience, wrote their histories of grace and providence, developed their worship, handed down their law, and kept themselves holy unto the Lord. Till, in the fulness of the times, from this petty and exclusive tribe, and by the fire, which they kept burning on the altar that Cyrus had empowered them to raise, there was kindled the glory of a universal religion. To change the figure, Christianity sprang from Judaism as the flower from the seed; but it was the hand of Cyrus, which planted the seed in the only soil in which it could have fructified. Of such a universal destiny for the Faith, Cyrus was not conscious, but the Jews themselves were. Our prophet represents him, indeed, as acting for “Jacob My servants sake, and Israels My chosen,” but the chapter does not close without proclamation to “the ends of the earth to look unto Jehovah and be saved,” and the promise of a time “when every knee shall bow and every tongue swear unto the God of Israel.”
Now put all these results, which the Jews, regardless of the character of Cyrus, saw flowing from his policy, as the servant of God on their behalf, side by side with the influence which the Greeks borrowed from Cyrus, and say whether Greek or Jew had the more true and historical conscience of this great power, -whether Greek or Jew had his hand on the pulse of the worlds mare artery. Surely we see that the main artery of human life runs down the Bible, that here we have a sense of the control of history, which is higher than even the highest hero-worship. Some may say, “True, but what a very unequal contest, into which to thrust the poor Cyropaedia!” Precisely; it is from the inequality of the contrast, that we learn the uniqueness of Israels inspiration. Let us do all justice to the Greek and his appreciation of Cyrus. In that, he seems the perfection of humanity; but with the Jew we rise to the Divine, touching the right hand of the providence of God.
There is a moral lesson for ourselves in these two views about Cyrus. The Greeks regard him as a hero, the Jews as an instrument. The Greeks are interested in him that he is so attractive a figure, so effective an example to rouse men and restrain them. But the Jews stand in wonder of his subjection to the will of God; their Scriptures extol, not his virtues, but his predestination to certain Divine ends.
Now let us say no word against hero-worship. We have need of all the heroes, which the Greek, and every other, literature can raise up for us. We need the communion of the saints. To make us humble in our pride, to make us hopeful in our despair, we need our big brothers, the heroes of humanity. We need them in history, we need them in fiction; we cannot do without them for shame, for courage, for fellowship, for truth. But let us remember that still more indispensable-for strength, as well as for peace, of mind-is the other temper. Neither self nor the world is conquered by admiration of men, but by the fear and obligation of God. I speak now of applying this temper to ourselves. We shall live fruitful and consistent lives only in so far as we hear God saying to us, “I gird thee,” and give ourselves into His guidance. Admire heroes if thou wilt, but only admire them and thou remainest a slave. Learn their secret, to commit themselves to God and to obey Him, and thou shalt become a hero too.
Gods anointing of Cyrus, the heathen, has yet another lesson to teach us, which religious people especially need to learn.
This passage about Cyrus lifts us to a very absolute and awful faith. “I am Jehovah, and none else: Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of peace and Creator of mischief; I Jehovah, Maker of all these things.” The objection at once rises, “Is it possible to believe this? Are we to lay upon providence everything that happens? Surely we Westerns, with our native scepticism and strong conscience, cannot be expected to hold a faith so Oriental and fatalistic as that.”
But notice to whom the passage is addressed. To religious people, who professedly accept Gods sovereignty, but wish to make an exception in the one case against which they have a prejudice-that a Gentile should be the deliverer of the holy people. Such narrow and imperfect believers are reminded that they must not substitute for faith in God their own ideas of how God ought to work; that they must not limit His operations to their own conception of His past revelations; that God does not always work even by His own precedents; and that many other forces than “conventional and religious ones-yea,” even forces as destitute of moral or religious character as Cyrus himself seemed to be-are also in Gods hands, and may be used by Him as means of grace. There is frequent charge made in our day against what are called the more advanced schools of theology, of scepticism and irreverence. But this passage reminds us that the most sceptical and irreverent are those old-fashioned believers, who, clinging to precedent and their own stereotyped notions of things, deny that Gods hands are in a movement, because it is novel and not orthodox. “Woe unto him that striveth with his Moulder; shall the clay say to its moulder, What makest thou?” God did not cease “moulding” when He gave us the canon and our creeds, when He founded the Church and the Sacraments. His hand is still among the clay, and upon time, that great “potters wheel,” which still moves obedient to His impulse. All the large forward movements, the big things of to-day-commerce, science, criticism however neutral, like Cyrus, their character may be, are, like Cyrus, grasped and anointed by God. Therefore let us show reverence and courage before the great things of to-day. Do not let us scoff at their novelty or grow fearful because they show no orthodox, or even no religious character. God reigns, and He will use them, for what has been the dearest purpose of His heart, the emancipation of true religion, the confirmation of the faithful, the victory of righteousness. When Cyrus rose and the prophet named him as Israels deliverer, and the severely orthodox in Israel objected, did God attempt to soothe them by pointing out how admirable a character he was, and how near in religion to the Jews themselves? God did no such thing, but spoke only of the military and political fitness of this great engine, by which He was to batter Babylon. That Cyrus was a quick marcher, a far shooter, an inspirer of fear, a follower up of victory, one who swooped like a “bird-of-prey,” one whose weight of war burst through every obstruction, -this is what the astonished pedants are told about the Gentile, to whose Gentileness they had objected. No soft words to calm their bristling orthodoxy, but heavy facts, -an appeal to their common-sense, if they had any, that this was the most practical means for the practical end God had in view. For again we learn the old lesson the prophets are ever so anxious to teach us, “God is wise.” He is concerned, not to be orthodox or true to His own precedent, but to be practical, and effective for salvation.
And so, too, in our own day, though we may not see any religious character whatsoever about certain successful movements-say in science, for instance-which are sure to affect the future of the Church and of Faith, do not let us despair, neither deny that they, too, are in the counsels of God. Let us only be sure that they are permitted for some end-some practical end; and watch, with meekness but with vigilance, to see what that end shall be. Perhaps the endowment of the Church with new weapons of truth; perhaps her emancipation from associations which, however ancient, are unhealthy; perhaps her opportunity to go forth upon new heights of vision, new fields of conquest.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary