That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
28. The series of predicates here culminates in the mention by name of the conqueror of Babylon and liberator of Israel. The name Cyrus is in Persian Krush, in Babylonian Kurash, in Greek . The traditional Hebrew pronunciation is Kresh, but it is probable that the original form preserved the characteristic long u which appears in the other languages. On the career of Cyrus see Introduction, pp. 17 ff.
He is my shepherd ] Or simply, My Shepherd. “Shepherd” here means “ruler” as in Jer 3:15; Ezekiel 34. pass.; Mic 5:5: comp. the Homeric . It is one of the honorific titles alluded to in ch. Isa 45:4.
perform all my pleasure ] Or, complete all my purpose; cf. ch. Isa 46:10, Isa 48:14, Isa 53:10. This use of the Heb. word for “pleasure” illustrates the transition to its later sense of “business” (ch. Isa 58:3; Isa 58:13) or “matter” (Ecc 5:8; Ecc 8:6). Comp. Arab. shay’ (= thing) from sh’a (to will).
even saying ] If the text be right the meaning would probably be that Cyrus would accomplish Jehovah’s purpose by giving the order for the rebuilding of the Temple &c. LXX. and Vulg. read “that saith,” substituting a participle for the inf. of the Heb. In this case the subject is Jehovah, as throughout the passage.
Instead of to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be , the Heb. has of Jerusalem, Let her be. See on Isa 44:26.
According to Josephus ( Ant. XI. Isa 1:2) it was the reading of this verse that fired Cyrus with the ambition to restore the Jewish Temple and nationality. The statement, if true, would of course detract nothing from the significance of the prophecy. But it has no claim to be accepted, and would assuredly never have been made but for the assumption that the words were written by Isaiah “one hundred and forty years before the destruction of the Temple.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
That saith of Cyrus – This is the first time in which Cyrus is expressly named by Isaiah, though he is often referred to. He is mentioned by him only in one other place expressly by name Isa 45:1. He is several times mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament 2Ch 26:22-23; Ezr 1:1-2, Ezr 1:7; Ezr 3:7; Ezr 4:3; Ezr 5:13, Ezr 5:17; Dan 1:21; Dan 6:28; Dan 10:1. He began his reign about 550 b.c., and this prophecy was therefore delivered not far from a hundred and fifty years before he ascended the throne. None but God himself, or he whom God inspired, could have mentioned so long before, the name of him who should deliver the Jewish people from bondage; and if this was delivered, therefore, by Isaiah, it proves that he was under divine inspiration. The name of Cyrus ( koresh; Greek r Kuros) the Greek writers say, means the sun. It is contracted from the Persian word khorschid, which in that language has this signification. Cyrus was the celebrated king of the Medes and Persians, and was the son of Cambyses the Persian, and of Mandane, daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. For an account of his character and reign, see the notes at Isa 41:2, where I have anticipated all that is needful to be said here.
He is my shepherd – A shepherd is one who leads and guides a flock, and then the word denotes, by a natural and easy metaphor, a ruler, or leader of a people. Thus the name is given to Moses in Isa 43:2; compare Psa 77:20, and Eze 34:23. The name here is given to Cyrus because God would employ him to conduct his people again to their own land. The word my implies, that he was under the direction of God, and was employed in his service.
And shall perform all my pleasure – In destroying the city and kingdom of Babylon; in delivering the Jewish captives; and in rebuilding Jerusalem, and the temple.
Even saying to Jerusalem – That is, I say to Jerusalem. The Vulgate, and the Septuagint renders this as meaning God, and not Cyrus, and doubtless this is the true construction. It was one of the things which God would do, to say to Jerusalem that it should be rebuilt.
And to the temple – Though now desolate and in ruins, yet it shall be reconstructed, and its foundation shall be firmly laid. The phrase to Jerusalem, and to the temple, should be rendered of, in accordance with a common signification of the preposition (l), and as it is rendered in the former part of the verse when speaking of Cyrus (compare Gen 20:13; Jdg 9:54). It was indeed under the direction of Cyrus that the city of Jerusalem was rebuilt, and the temple reconstructed Ezr 1:1; but still it was to be traced to God, who raised him up for this purpose. That this passage was seen by Cyrus is the testimony of Josephus, and is morally certain from the nature of the case, since, otherwise, it is incredible that he should have aided the Jews in returning to their own land, and in rebuilding their city and temple (see the Introduction, Section 2). This is one of the numerous instances in the Bible, in which God claims control and jurisdiction even over pagan princes and monarchs, and in which he says that their plans are under his direction, and made subservient to his will. It is one of the proofs that God presides over all, and that he makes the voluntary purposes of people subservient to him, and a part of the means of executing his glorious designs in relation to his people. Indeed, all the proud monarchs and conquerors of the earth have been in some sense instruments in his hand of executing his pleasure.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 44:28
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd
Cyrus, the Lords shepherd
Cyrus was the ideal king of the Persians and Greeks.
His is the only name that is mentioned with any detail, I believe, both in the Persian and in the Greek, and also in the Hebrew literature. We speak of the great heroes of the world as Alexander and Caesar and Napoleon. That list begins too late. We ought to begin instead with Cyrus, who was at first a prince of a small principality at the head of the Gulf of Oman. Later he conquered the Medes and Persians. Later Asia Minor, including Lydia, and at last he captured Babylon. In capturing Babylon he released from captivity the chosen people, and it is because of that fact that he is called in the Scriptures, and that he is known in history by the very unique title of the Lords shepherd. There is only one other person to whom that phrase has ever been applied, and it is a very singular fact that a heathen king, one entirely out of all line with the chosen people, one so far away from traditions, which we have been in the habit of calling sacred, holy, as if his name had been Confucius or Buddha, in the Scriptures should have been given exactly the same title that was given to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. (A. H. Bradforad, D. D.)
The unity of history:
We will observe a few facts in support of my contention that history is the record of a beneficent development.
1. The governments of the world. In the early time government was simply for a few; there was no monarchy but force; there was no place for love. In the present time, in the immortal words of our President,. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. The word which I best remember of any which I heard spoken in London was by Dr. Bevan, Of old, government was for the few; to-day, government is for the many. And that is what things have been moving towards as the years have been passing.
2. Take another illustration, and that from the realm of religion. We think of one God; but to those early Hebrews there were many gods. They were not those who believed simply in one God for all the world. They believed in Jehovah as the God able to subdue all the gods of the heathen. They had not reached, except in the person of a few of their leaders, the sublime altitude of modern times of one pervading and all-enduring Unity, one holy, spiritual, true, and loving God. What was their worship?
3. We come to another illustration quite as familiar. We hear very much in our time concerning the social condition of the labouring people. The great dumb multitudes have found a voice; and every now and then, some man, ignorant of history, writes to say the rich were never so rich, and the poor never so poor; the condition of one class was never so luxurious, the condition of the other class was never so mean. He does not know what the condition of the masses was in the time when the pyramids were built, in the time when the Caesars ruled in Rome and doled out corn to the multitude. He has not read the history of Great Britain, or of France, or of any other nation of Europe, or on the face of the earth. The condition of the world is improving. In the old time the condition of the woman was that of a thing or an animal; she belonged to her husband. She is a woman now, the equal of her husband. In the old time the child was absolutely under the power of the father. If the child was an orphan he was put on the street. Now, to use the phrase of a contemporary writer, If he hath no father and if he hath no mother, he becomes the child of the public. What mean our charities? Conclusion–
(1) Providence is compelling progress and no individual can possibly prevent it.
(2) Not all are equally worthy of blessing, of commendation; although all may bear their part in bringing about the glorious consummation.
(3) Cyrus shows to us the sweep of the Divine purpose. Gods plan includes the nations and the ages. There is a place for Greece, for India, for China, for Rome, for Great Britain, there is a place for every nation as well as for Judah. There is a place for Napoleon, and Confucius, and Buddha, because there was a place for Cyrus.
(4) But the other One to whom that glorious name was applied, the Lords Shepherd, shows us what Cyrus does not show us, namely, the nature of that plan, revealing to us the nature of the One who made the plan. I look upon the face of Jesus Christ, and I see there is a person, and a sacrificial purpose, and a sacrifice which reaches even to the uttermost. (A. H. Bradford, D. D.)
Notables fulfilling Gods purpose
Rich princes shall do what poor prophets have foretold. (M. Henry.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 28. That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd – “Who saith to Cyrus, Thou art my shepherd”] Pastor meus es; Vulg. The true reading seems to be roi attah; the word attah, has probably been dropped out of the text. The same word is lost out of the text, Ps 119:57. It is supplied in the Septuagint by the word , thou art.
Saying to Jerusalem] For velemor, the Septuagint and Vulgate read haomer.
And to the temple] uleheychal, as lirushalayim, before; the preposition is necessary, and the Vulgate seems to read so. – Houbigant.
That saith of CYRUS, He is, or thou art, my shepherd – Saving to JERUSALEM, “Thou shalt be built;” and to the TEMPLE, “Thy foundation shall be laid.” – There is a remarkable beauty and propriety in this verse.
1. Cyrus is called God’s shepherd. Shepherd was an epithet which Cyrus took to himself; and what he gave to all good kings.
2. This Cyrus should say to the temple: “Thy foundation shall be laid.” Not – thou shalt be built. The fact is, only the foundation was laid in the days of Cyrus, the Ammonites having prevented the building; nor was it resumed till the second year of Darius, one of his successors. There is often a precision in the expressions of the prophets which is as honourable to truth, as it is unnoticed by careless readers.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Cyrus, whom God here designeth by his proper name two hundred years before he was born, that this might be an undeniable evidence of the certainty and exactness of Gods foreknowledge, and a convincing argument, and so most fit to conclude this dispute between God and idols.
He is my shepherd; him will I set up to be the shepherd of my people, to rescue them from wolves or tyrants, to gather them together, to rule them gently, and to provide comfortably for them.
All my pleasure; all that I command him to do, even to give leave and order for the rebuilding of the city and temple of Jerusalem, as it here follows.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28. my shepherdtype ofMessiah (Isa 40:11; Psa 23:1;Psa 77:20; Eze 34:23).
all my pleasuresoMessiah (Isa 42:1; Isa 53:10).This is the first time Cyrus is named expressly; and that, ahundred fifty years before the time when in 550 B.C.he began his reign. The name comes from the Persian khorschid,“the sun”; kings often taking their names from the gods;the sun was worshipped as a god in Persia.
sayingrather, “andthat saith”; construed with God, not with Cyrus.God’s word is instantaneously efficient in accomplishing His will.
to . . . toor, “ofJerusalem . . . of the temple,” as previously, the sameHebrew word is translated, “of Cyrus”[BARNES]. EnglishVersion is more graphic. Cyrus, according to JOSEPHUS,heard of this prophecy of Isaiah delivered so long before; hence hewas induced to do that which was so contrary to Oriental policy, toaid in restoring the captive Jews and rebuilding their temple andcity.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd,…. Or Coresh, as his name in the Hebrew language is; and in the Persian tongue signifies the “sun”; from whence he had his name, as Ctesias q and Plutarch r say; to which the Hebrew word “cheres”, which signifies the “sun”, has some affinity; though Joseph Scaliger s would have the name of Cyrus to signify “food” in the Persian language, and which answers to his character as a shepherd. The father of this illustrious person was Cambyses, king of Persia; his mother’s name was Mandane, daughter of Astyages, king of Media t. This prophecy, concerning him, was nearly two hundred years before he was born. Josephus says u, that Cyrus read this prophecy himself, which Isaiah had delivered out two hundred and ten years before; and which is a proof both of God’s prescience of future contingencies, and of the truth of divine revelation. The Lord honours him with the title and character of his “shepherd”, who was to lead his flock, the people of Israel, out of the Babylonish captivity, and guide them into their own land. It is very usual, both in sacred and profane writings, for kings to be called shepherds; and if Cyrus signifies “food”, as before observed, his name and office agree. Justin w says, he had this name given him, while he was among the shepherds, by whom he was brought up, having been exposed in his infancy. Cyrus himself compares a king to a shepherd, and observes a likeness between them x:
and shall perform all my pleasure; concerning the deliverance of the Jews from Babylon, and the encouragement of them to go up to their own land, and rebuild their city and temple; and many other things which he did, agreeably to the secret will of God, though he knew it not; and what he did he did not do in obedience to his will, but as overruled by the power and providence of God:
even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; these are not the words of the Lord, as before, but of Cyrus, giving orders that Jerusalem should be built:
and to the temple, thy foundation shall be laid; with great propriety this is said, since only the foundation was laid in his time; the Jews being discouraged and hindered by their enemies from going on with the building in his reign, until the times of Darius, king of Persia. See Ezr 1:1.
q Excerpta, p. 648. Ed. Gronov. r In Vita Artaxerxis, s Emendat. Temp. I. 6. t Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 1. sect. 1. u Antiqu. l. 11. c. 1. sect. 2. w Hist. ex Trogo l. 1. c. 5. x Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. 8. sect. 18.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
28. Saying to Cyrus. This is a remarkable passage, in which we not only may see the wonderful providence of God, but which likewise contains a striking proof of the truth and certainty of the prophecies. Here “Cyrus” was named long before he was born; for between the death of Manasseh, by whom Isaiah was slain, and the birth of “Cyrus,” more than a century intervened. Besides, even though he had been born, who would have conjectured that he should come from the most distant mountains of Persia to Babylon? These things ought therefore to be carefully observed, for they shew clearly that it was not by a human spirit that Isaiah spoke. No one would ever have thought that there would be a person named “Cyrus,” who should fly from the most distant and barbarous countries to deliver the people of God. (190)
As to the objection made by infidels, that those things might have been forged by the Jews after they were fulfilled, it is so foolish and absurd that there is no necessity for refuting it. The Jews perused those prophecies, while they were held in captivity, in order that they might cherish in their hearts the hope of deliverance, and would have been entirely discouraged, if the Lord had not comforted them by such promises. These records, therefore, supported the hearts of believers in hope and confidence; and I have no doubt that Cyrus, when he learned that God had appointed him to be the leader and shepherd for bringing back Israel, was astonished at those promises, and that they induced him to cherish kind feelings towards the people, so as to supply them with food and with everything that was necessary for their journey. Thus the Lord points out the person by whose hand he has determined to bring back his people, that they may not look around on all sides in perplexity.
Even by saying to Jerusalem. This is the conclusion, by which the former statements are confirmed, that they may rest assured that “Jerusalem” shall infallibly be built, and may learn from it how dear and precious they are to God, when they shall see the monarchy of all the east transferred to the Persians. At the same time he points out the end for which Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, namely, that the pure worship of God might be restored; for he does not promise this restoration, that men may seek their own ease or the conveniencies of life, but that the Lord’s people may purely and sincerely call upon him without any disturbance. This ought to be carefully observed, for there are many who value more highly their own convenience and external comforts than the honor and worship of God. Hence also Haggai complained bitterly, that all were eager to build their own houses, but almost all gave themselves no concern about the Temple. (Hag 1:4.) But it was the will of the Lord that men should care most about his house, and that is the import of what the Prophet says, —
And to the temple, Thou shalt be founded. But in the present day he does not thus recommend to us a temple of wood or stone, but living temples of God, which we are; for the Lord hath chosen his habitation in us. (2Co 6:16.) Such, therefore, are the temples which must be diligently built by the doctrine of the word, that we may lead a holy and righteous life, and may render to God the worship which is due to him; for this is the reason why the Lord wishes that there should be a Church in the world, that the remembrance of his name may not perish.
(190) “ Lequel viendroit avec une merveilleuse vistesse.” “Who should come with amazing swiftness.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN THE CAREER OF CYRUS
Isa. 44:28. Cyrus, my shepherd, shall perform all my pleasure.
The fulfilment of prophecy is one of the two supernatural arguments for the truth of the Scriptures. I now present in some detail the fulfilment of prophecy in the career and conquests of Cyrus.
Isaiah wrote not less than a hundred and thirty years before Cyrus was born; and not less than a hundred and fifty years before his conquest of Babylon. It was long before the Median kingdom existed. The captivity of Judah had not begun. Three or four generations lived and died between the prophet and the Persian prince. The prophet could not possibly have other means of knowing who Cyrus was to be, or what he was to do in the world, than the simple revelation of the facts by the Spirit of God. Yet that he foretold the conquerors career, down to minutest details, is established by precisely the same kind and amount of evidence which proves that either Cyrus or Isaiah existed at all.
1. The name of Cyrus, the point of the compass indicative of his birthplace, and the direction of his march upon Babylon, are distinctly foretold. Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus, I have raised up one from the North. From the rising of the sunthat is, from the Eastshall he call upon my name. The two points of the compass named in this language of Isaiah are singularly true. Cyrus was born in Persia, which was east of Babylon. It was commonly called the East. One historian speaks of it as the land of the sunrising. But at a very early age Cyrus was removed to Media, lying on the north of Babylon; and it was from Media that he came down, at the head of victorious hosts, upon the doomed capital. The prophet thus sees in a vision a prince of eastern birth marching upon the city from the north, and that his name is Cyrus.
Small matters these, but all the more significant for that. The question is: Who told Isaiah such minute details about a man he never saw or heard of; coming from a kingdom which at that time had no existence; achieving a conquest which then had not been dreamed of? How did he know what name the future conqueror would bear, a hundred and thirty years before he had a name?
Did anybody ever predict Bonapartes conquest of Italy a century before his birth? Did ever statesman or magician, as far back as A.D. 1650, declare that, a century and a half later, a conqueror born in the west of Italy would come down from the north and take possession of Rome, and that his name would be Napoleon? Yet this is in kind what the Hebrew prophet did. The question is, Who told him all that? How did he alone, of all the inhabitants of the world, find out the facts so exactly and so minutely?
2. Isaiah furthermore describes with remarkable accuracy the personal character of Cyrus. His warlike spirit, his towering ambition, the rapidity of his conquests, the equity of his administration, and his heathen religion, are all declared after the manner of prophecy. Calling a ravenous bird from the East, is the prophets language. Prophetic vision deals largely in symbols. The eagle is its favourite symbol of an aspiring, warlike, swift conqueror. Who raised up the righteous man from the East is the prophetic description of Cyrus. It is almost the exact language in which historians describe the government of the Persian king. The just one he is often called. Take example from the Persian, the tutors of Oriental princes used to say to their royal pupils. I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me, are the words which prophecy puts into the mouth of God concerning him. This is a distinct prediction of his ignorance of the true God.
These are but a few specimens of the prophetic touches of which there are many more, portraying with an artists skill the character of this monarch. Imagine now that, in addition to announcing the name and the birthplace of Napoleon a hundred and thirty years before he was born, the magician had described him as an eagle in his conquests; had said that he would originate a superior code of jurisprudence,the Code Napoleon; and that in his religion he would be a Romanist. Would not such hints, added to the items before named, redouble the surprise at the magicians power? Would not men ask with astonishment who he was, where he came from, by whose authority he spoke, and where he got his information? Yet this is just what Isaiah declares of the great conqueror of the East.
3. The significance of the prophecy deepens, when it comes to describe the conquests achieved by Cyrus. Passages abound of which these are specimens: He gave the nations before him. He made him ruler over kings. He made them as dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. The isles saw it and feared, they helped every one his neighbour. Every one said to his neighbour, Be of good courage. I will subdue nations under him. I will loose the loins of kings.
By such rapid glances, the half of which I do not quote, the prophet foretells the victories of Cyrus over the great nations of the East; the consternation of their kings; their alliances for mutual defence; and the velocity with which the Persian legions marched from victory to victory.
Turn we now to history: what has that to say? It does but repeat the prophecy in describing the facts as they occurred. Says one: He had scarcely gained one victory, before his tumultuous forces poured down on other battle-grounds. Scarcely had one city fallen, before he stood thundering at the gates of another. Empires were like dust before him, and cities like chaff. That prophecy, I will loose the loins of kings, had its exact fulfilment in the consternation of Belshazzar at the handwriting on the wall, when the Persian armies were on the march, and within twenty-four hours would be heard tramping the streets of the doomed capital.
4. The prophecy of the downfall of Babylon deserves distinct review. The prophetic story runs in this style: Evil shall come upon thee. Thou shalt not know from whence it ariseth. Thou shalt not be able to put it off. Desolation shall come suddenly, which thou shalt not know. Thus is expressed the sudden, the unexpected, the irresistible, and the improbable calamity which was coming upon that haughty city.
Just such, in fact, was its conquest by Cyrus. That event, to begin with, was in itself, and in any form, improbable. The military science of the age pronounced Babylon impregnable by any methods of assault or siege then known. So secure did king and people feel that it could not be taken by human force or strategy, that on the very night of its capture by Cyrus, they were given up to feasting and carousal behind their insurmountable walls. The king would not believe the rumour of the enemys entrance, even when the blood of his people was flowing in the streets.
Here, again, little incidents are detailed which no soothsayer would have thought of, or would have dared to predict, if he had thought of them. I will say to the deep, Be dry. I will dry up thy rivers. I will open before him the two-leaved gates. The gates shall not be shut. The significance of this language will appear from arraying it side by side with the historic facts. Babylon was a city fifteen miles square. It was intersected by the river Euphrates, as London is by the Thames, and Paris by the Seine. Solid walls surrounded it three hundred and fifty feet high, and broad enough on the top for four chariots to be driven abreast. The two sections again were separated by walls running along both banks of the river. Fronting the streets on either side were folding gates for convenience of access to the stream by day, which the police were instructed to close at the setting of the sun.
Cyrus took the city by a remarkable stratagem. He invented a novel way of marching his army into impregnable Babylon. If he could not march over the walls, he would contrive to march under. He did it by a very simple expedient, when once thought of, but only he had the genius to think of it. He dug an immense canal around the walls, and turned the river Euphrates into it. Then he marched his army at dead of night, and in dead silence, under the walls, in the vacant bed of the river. But this brought him only between the two other immense river-walls inside. How to surmount these was the question. The indomitable general had provided scaling-ladders for the purpose. But the God of Isaiah had done better for him than that. He found those gates which let the citizens down to the river in the day-timetwo-leaved, that is, folding-gateswide open. Like other drunken policemen, the custodians of Babylon had neglected to close those gates. Even the palace gates were not closed. The invader got near enough to hear the drunken carousals of the king and his courtiers inside, before they were convinced of his approach. Do you not now see a new meaning in the words, I will dry up thy rivers; I will open the two-leaved gates; the gates shall not be shut; I will loose the loins of kings?
Herodotus, writing seventy years afterwards, says, If the besieged had been aware of the designs of Cyrus, they might have destroyed his troops. They had only to secure the folding gates leading to the river, and to have manned the embankments on either side, and they would have enclosed the Persians in a trap from which they could never have escaped. As it happened, they were taken by surprise; and such is the extent of the city that they who lived in the extremities were made prisoners before the alarm reached the palace. As it happened. Yes, it happened; but a hundred and more years before God had said by His prophet how it should happen. He had said, I will open the two-leaved gates. So Cyrus found them wide open, and the way clear to the very banquet-hall of the palace, just as Isaiah had said, before Cyrus was born, that they should be.
The question therefore returns, laden with redoubled significance, Where did Isaiah get his information? Who told him that Babylon, a hundred and fifty years afterwards, would be shut off from the Euphrates by gates? Who told him that they would be folding-gates? How did he know that a man named Cyrus would enter the capital in the bed of the river, and on that particular night, contrary to usage and to law, would find that the police had left those gates open, as if on purpose to let the invader in? In short, how came he to write history a hundred and fifty years beforehand? Did any other historian ever write his history a century and a half before it happened, instead of a century and a half later, and be lucky enough to have it all happen to be true, even down to the structure and the opening of gates?
5. One other feature of the prophecy and the history in parallels remains to be noticed. Isaiah explicitly foretells the restoration of Judah from captivity, and the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, through the agency of Cyrus, God declares by the mouth of the prophet: I will direct all his ways. He shall let go my captives; even saying to Jerusalem, Be built, and to the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid. He shall let go my captives, not for price or reward. Ye shall be redeemed without money. Ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight.
Here we find another group of details which no uninspired mind could have guessed at, and no soothsayer would have dared to predict. Every one of them was to the last degree improbable. No statesman of the age did conjecture them. In the prophets time there were no captives at all in Babylon from Judah. When they became captives, long after, it was improbable that they would be released in any way by an Oriental despot, flushed with victory. They were very valuable captives. They were of an intelligent race. Good servants, able-bodied men and women for household use, skilful artisans, honest labourers, were abundant among them. Men of learning and genius, like Daniel, some of whom were deservedly advanced to high places in the realm, were Hebrews. Never was a more valuable class of slaves of equal number held by the rights of war than those held under command of Cyrus from Judea. It was the last thing to be expected from an Eastern despot, that he should let such a people go free; that he should charge no ransom for them; that they should not be compelled to take their freedom by force or stratagem; that their master himself should restore to them their plundered treasures, and direct the rebuilding of their desolated temple. Never was a prediction more improbable on the face of it.
Yet all these things happened, just as Isaiah said they would. The truth of the history no infidel presumes to question, whatever he may think of the prophecy. The question therefore returns again, How did Isaiah get his knowledge of coming events? Who told him facts a hundred and more years before the wisest statesman of the age had once thought of them as conjectures? Did any other man, not inspired of God, ever coin history thus out of guess-work? Did ever romance fall true like this? Sir Walter Scott wrote historical romances. Has Ivanhoe or Quentin Durward ever come true? Toss up a font of alphabetic type at random in the air, and will they come down all set and ready for the press in the form of the Arabian Nights? Yet this is, in substance, what infidelity asks us to believe, when it denies the gift of Divine inspiration to the Hebrew prophets.
Such, then, is the argument from fulfilled prophecy for the Divine origin of the Scriptures. The career of Cyrus is but a single sample. Other cases of the same kind swell the proof to volumes. The present condition of Babylon, the destruction of Moab, the fall of Tyre, the conquest of Egypt, the doom of Damascus, the desolation of Idumea, the sack of Jerusalem, the life, death, and burial of Christ, are events which belong to the same class. They all abound with the same sort of coincidence between the prophecy and the history. The coincidence extends to minute details. It is sustained without a break through long-continued narrative, covering yearsyes, centuries, and involving the destiny of individuals with the fate of nations and of empires.
Such intricate and involved prevision no human mind could have painted without a break in the truthfulness of the story, unless inspired by an omniscient God. Any other solution of the mystery throws upon us a weight of credulity a hundredfold greater than that of faith in the Arabian Nights as authentic history. For the most part infidelity feels this, and very shrewdly decides to let the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible alone. There is no other argument for the truth of the Christian Scriptures, which infidels so generally agree to ignore as this.Austin Phelps, D.D.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(28) That saith of Cyrus.The Hebrew form is Koresh, answering to the Kurus of the inscription of the kings tomb in the Murghab valley. The prediction of the name of the future deliverer has its only parallel in that of Josiah (1Ki. 13:2). Such a phenomenon admits of three possible explanations:(1) That it is a prophecy after the eventi.e., that the whole of Isaiah, or this part of it, was written at the close of the exile. (2) That the name was revealed to the prophet in a way altogether supernatural. (3) That the name came within the horizon of the prophets vision from his natural stand-point, the supernatural element being found in the facts which he is led to connect with it. Of these, (3) seems to commend itself as most analogous with the methods of prophetic teaching. The main facts in the case are these(1) Events had made Isaiah acquainted with the name of the Medes, and with a people bearing the name (Elam), afterwards given by the Jews to the Persians of the Greeks (Isa. 11:1; Isa. 13:7; Isa. 21:2; 2Ki. 17:6; 2Ki. 18:11). (2) Koresh or Kyros was the name of a river in that region, and the conqueror is said to have changed his previous name (Agradates) for it (Strab. Xv. 3, 6). (3) The name has been said to mean the sun (Plutarch, Ctesias), and this, though not accepted by many modern scholars as philologically accurate, at least indicates that the Greeks assigned that meaning to it. It would be a natural name for one who, as a worshipper of Ormuzd, saw in the sun the supreme symbol of the God of heaven. (4) The grandfather of the great Cyrus is said to have borne the same name (Herod. i. 111). (5) The facts point to the conclusion that the name Kursus; if not a titular epithet, like the Pharaoh of Egypt, may yet have had the prestige of antiquity and dignity, historical or mythical. (6) Is it altogether impossible that the prophecy, circulating among the Babylonian exiles, helped to bring about its own fulfilment, and that Agradates may have been led to take the name of Kurus because he found his work described in connection with it (Josh. Ant., xii. 1, 2)?
My shepherd.As guiding the flock of Jehovah, each to their own pasture.
Thou shalt be built.Both verbs are better taken as imperatives, Let her be built; Let thy foundations be laid.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Isa 44:28. That saith of Cyrus Here at length the prophet clearly discovers the grand scope of his discourse. He speaks of Cyrus by name, as foreknown and decreed by the divine counsel, for the performance of the great work designed by providence, at least 170 years before the event. This is one of the most remarkable prophesies in Scripture; of the same kind with that 1Ki 13:1-2. He is called God’s shepherd, as he was to be the instrument of gathering God’s people together, and leading them home as a shepherd does his flock. Xenophon tells us, that Cyrus used to compare kings in general, and himself in particular, to a shepherd. See Cyropoed. lib. 8.
REFLECTIONS.1st, Amid the threatened judgments which closed the former chapter, a multitude of faithful souls remain to God, to whom he addresses himself for their comfort and encouragement.
1. Their character and relation to him are mentioned. They bear the honourable title of his servants, whom he will protect; they are his chosen, whom with peculiar regard he watches over; they are called Jesurun, upright, such being their temper; or seeing ones, to whom the glory of God in the Gospel of his Son hath been manifested; they are God’s creation, his spiritual people, whom he will help, and therefore, whatever troubles fall on others, they need not fear. Happy are the people that are in such a case, so near and dear to the blessed God.
2. God promises to do great things for them. I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; the soul that, under a sense of sin, as the parched ground, thirsts for pardon, grace, and consolation, shall be replenished abundantly out of God’s fulness. I will pour my Spirit, that best of gifts, upon thy seed, the spiritual seed of Christ, and my blessing upon thine offspring; the blessed effect of which will be, that they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water-courses; numerous, flourishing, and increasing in all the gifts of grace, and fruits of holiness. Note; The soul is then truly happy, when watered by the divine Spirit, it daily grows in grace, and in the knowledge and love of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. They shall make open and public profession of their adherence to the Lord Christ; and not only the Jews, but the Gentiles, called to the knowledge of the Gospel, shall rank themselves among the Israel of God, join in communion and worship with them, and become one fold under one shepherd. Note; (1.) It is the duty and delight of every true believer to surrender up himself into the arms of Jesus; and he is then happy when he can say, I am the Lord’s, my beloved is mine, and I am his. (2.) An Israelite indeed is a greater name, and more to be envied, than that of the highest monarchs of the earth.
2nd, Never was controversy so unequal as that recorded in this chapter between the living Jehovah and dead idols.
1. God displays his own greatness and glory, eternal and omniscient; let his Israel hear and believe. He is their King, their Redeemer, and in that peculiar relation to them demands their love and fidelity. He is also the Lord of Hosts, the universal Sovereign, the first and the last, from eternity to eternity; and besides him, there is no God. No other can foresee and declare, as he hath done, the events of futurity, or give an exact account of his works from the days of old, since he appointed the ancient people, the first inhabitants of the earth: even of the nearest occurrences which should happen; the idol gods could not inform them, therefore they neither need fear them, nor ought to serve them, but be witnesses for God and his truth; besides whom, there is no other that can at all pretend to claim their notice, or deserve their worship.
2. He exposes the folly and stupidity of idolaters, as a warning to his people not to follow their abominable ways, and especially to guard them in Babylon, the city of idols, from joining in that worship so hateful to him, and so absurd in itself. The makers of the idols are all vanity, prove themselves empty and foolish; they call their idols delectable things, but they are unprofitable and vain; can neither know nor see the wants of their votaries, who seem equally blind in paying worship to the senseless stock, and witness to their own folly, for how wretched must be thy god, of which man himself is the maker, and well may they be ashamed of the work! The description of it alone is sufficient to expose both the maker and the idol to ridicule. The smith labours at the forge to prepare the iron-work, and the carpenter with his tools fashions and planes the tree into shape and form; and, when made, fastens it in its place. He gets a log of durable wood, or an ash of his own planting; and whilst one part of the loppings are employed to the uses of his kitchen, to dress his victuals, or warm him, the residue is made a god, and, with senseless stupidity he falls down to worship it; never reflecting on the ignoble use to which the remainder of the tree was applied, and that his own folly only made the difference between the log he worshipped, and the coals on his hearth; and all proceeds from the darkness of a deceived heart; the Devil, the god of this world, having blinded the eyes of idolaters, that they cannot see the lie that is in their right hand. Note; (1.) When once the human heart is abandoned to itself, there is nothing so brutish and absurd that it may not be brought to do. (2.) The pains that idolaters take to honour and worship their idols, is a just reproof of those who are negligent in the worship of the living and true God. (3.) They who place their affections on worldly things, are in fact idolaters; and will find, to their everlasting disappointment, a lie in their right hand. (4.) The serious consideration of the evil of our ways, is the first step towards our recovery.
3rdly, God, having exposed the folly of idolatry, addresses himself to his own people.
1. He bids them remember these things; and in the land whither they were about to be carried captive, beware of these abominations to which they would be tempted; and to which also, to their shame, in time past, they had been so prone. Note; It becomes us to remember our own evil ways, that we may loath and abhor ourselves for them.
2. He gives them the most endearing promises, claiming them as his own, and assuring them of his kind and constant remembrances; and, as that was among the most eminent of all mercies, he particularly promises them the pardon of all their great and numerous transgressions, to blot them out as a cloud, and as a thick cloud to disperse them. Note; (1.) Our sins, like the dark cloud, intercept the beams of God’s favour, and expose us to the storm of divine wrath. (2.) When God speaks the pardoning word, the clouds pass away, and the Sun of righteousness arises with healing in his wings. (3.) It is matter of transporting joy to the soul when this blessed change is effected, and when in Jesus we, who were in darkness and the shadow of death, behold the light of life.
3. He exhorts them in the view of these great and precious promises to return unto him without delay. They had greatly departed from him, and deserved his wrath and indignation; but he again shews himself as their Redeemer, and therefore invites them to the arms of his mercy. Note; (1.) The promise of pardoning grace is the great argument and inducement for the miserable sinner to return to God. (2.) Whenever he does he will find redemption prepared for him and applied to his soul, both from the guilt and power of sin, and, if faithful, from the inbeing of sin, and from death and hell, and all their consequences.
4. A triumphant song is put in the mouth of the faithful redeemed, not merely of the Jews delivered from Babylon, but of all the Israel of God, who, through Jesus Christ, have obtained victory over the powers of sin and Satan. The joy is great; the heavens are called upon to join in the song, and angels on their golden harps to speak the wonders of redeeming love; whilst earth, with all its inhabitants, from every forest and mountain echoes back the grateful sound of thanksgiving to the God of their mercies. Note; (1.) Praise is the bounden tribute due from every redeemed soul. (2.) There is joy in heaven over every soul recovered by divine grace from the bondage of corruption.
5. The Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, encourages them to trust in his promises, which, as the Almighty Creator and Governor of all, he was fully able to accomplish; particularly he engages to confound the wise men and diviners of Babylon, who saw for it lying visions of peace, and would be mad with vexation when the event corresponded so little with their prophesies, while his own word should receive the fullest accomplishment in the deliverance of his people. The cities of Zion would shortly be desolate indeed, without inhabitants; but their desolations should not continue, God will restore her decayed palaces, and rear again the temple from its ruins: Cyrus by name is appointed as his shepherd, the great instrument which the Lord meant to employ; first, to destroy Babylon, the oppressor of his people, which Cyrus did by turning the course of the river which ran through the place, and thereby entered the city; and then to proclaim deliverance to the captive Jews, and restore their civil and ecclesiastical polity; giving them leave to rebuild their city and temple, and fixing them again in their own land. Note; (1.) When God hath designs to fulfil, he cannot want the means; difficulties before him are nothing; the mountain becomes a plain, the river dry. (2.) The character of a good king is, to be God’s shepherd, to protect and provide for his people, and be a nursing father to his church. (3.) Whatever the greatest conquerors propose to themselves, they are raised up purely to fulfil God’s pleasure, and perform his purposes.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
REFLECTIONS
READER! let us not dismiss this blessed Chapter (for it is a very blessed one), until we have first looked up for grace to gather the several improving reflections it affords; and also looked within, into our own hearts, for the discovery of our personal interest in it.
And first, blessed Immanuel! my soul would desire to behold thee, as the glorious Head and Representative of thine Israel; unto whom all these precious promises are given, and in whom they become yea and amen to thy redeemed in thee. Yea, Lord, thou hast condescended to become all that is here said for thy Church, thy body; and therefore, in thee, and by thee, and from thee, would my soul alone look for all the blessings of the covenant.
And shall I not plead then with thee, my God and Father in Christ Jesus, for his righteousness sake, that thou wilt do as thou hast said? Did Jehovah promise our glorious Surety, to pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground? And is not my soul athirst for those waters of Bethlehem; and longing for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, more than the hart panteth for the water brooks? Oh! for the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit, to be poured out from on high on my soul, until the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water! And oh! for grace to give, and to be continually giving the same full testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus, that I may call myself the Lord’s, and fully and unalterably subscribe with my hand and whole heart, that I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine!
Blessed Lord! would I say, while the heavens are singing salvation, and the lower parts of the earth are sounding praise, let my poor lisping tongue join the charming chorus, that the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Ver. 28. That saith of Cyrus. ] One hundred and seventy years, at least, before he was born.
Thou art my shepherd,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Cyrus. See note on Isa 45:1.
even saying = and saying: i.e. Jehovah, the Speaker from Isa 44:24, and in the preceding clause. It does not mean that Cyrus spoke of rebuilding Jerusalem (for he did not), but it records what Jehovah would say of Cyrus, and what He would say also to Jerusalem. Nehemiah must have obtained a copy of Isaiah on his visit to Jerusalem, or he could not have instructed Cyrus.
Jerusalem. Named before the temple, because the city and its walls were first built, before the temple foundations were laid. See notes on Neh 7:4, and also App-57 and App-58.
temple. Named after Jerusalem, because the city walls were first built. See note above, and compare Neh 7:4 with Hag 1:1-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Cyrus
Cf. 1Ki 13:2 where Josiah was mentioned by name three hundred years before his birth.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Cyrus: Isa 42:15, Isa 45:1, Isa 45:3, Isa 46:11, Isa 48:14, Isa 48:15, Dan 10:1
my shepherd: Isa 63:11, Psa 78:71, Psa 78:72
saying: Isa 45:13, 2Ch 36:22, 2Ch 36:23, Ezr 1:1-3, Ezr 6:3-18
Reciprocal: Ezr 4:3 – king Cyrus Ezr 5:13 – General Ezr 6:14 – according Psa 137:8 – happy Isa 13:3 – commanded Isa 41:25 – raised Isa 41:27 – I will give Isa 45:4 – I have even Jer 25:9 – Nebuchadrezzar Jer 27:6 – my Jer 30:18 – the palace Jer 31:38 – that Jer 43:10 – my servant Jer 50:21 – and do Dan 2:39 – another kingdom Dan 6:28 – and in Dan 8:3 – one Mic 5:5 – then
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Isa 44:28. That saith of Cyrus Whom God here mentions by his proper name, two hundred years before he was born, that this might be an undeniable evidence of the exactness of Gods foreknowledge, and a convincing argument to conclude this dispute between God and idols. He is my shepherd Him will I set up to be the shepherd of my people, to rescue them from wolves or tyrants, to gather them together, to rule them gently, and to provide comfortably for them. Xenophon tells us, that Cyrus used to compare kings in general, and himself in particular, to a shepherd. Cyropd., lib. 8. And shall perform all my pleasure All that I command him to do, especially to give leave and order for the rebuilding of the city and temple of Jerusalem, as it here follows. This prophecy, which thus speaks of Cyrus by name, as foreknown and appointed by the divine counsel for the performance of the great work designed by providence, is one of the most remarkable contained in Scripture, of the same kind with that 1Ki 13:1-2.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
44:28 That saith of {f} Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and he shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
(f) To assure them of their deliverance he names the person by whom it would be, more than a hundred years before he was born.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God announced that Cyrus would be the person who would allow Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the temple foundations relaid. The mention of his name climaxes this prophecy (Isa 44:24-28). Cyrus would be the Lord’s shepherd, the one who would lead the Israelites back into their land by permitting its restoration. He would carry out all God’s desire (cf. Isa 41:2-3; Isa 41:25).
The title "My Shepherd" was one that God used of the Davidic kings (cf. 2Sa 5:2; 1Ki 22:17; Eze 34:23). The fact that He used it here of a pagan monarch shows that God would use pagans to fulfill His wishes-since the Davidic kings had proved unreliable (cf. Isa 7:13; Isa 39:7). This was indeed a new thing that God had not done before (cf. Isa 43:19).
"In a wonderfully ingenious way, just as the foreigner, Ruth, became an ancestress of David (Rth 4:13-22), the foreigner Cyrus typifies the Davidic Messiah (Isa 53:10; Zec 11:4; Zec 13:7; Joh 8:29; Joh 10:11)." [Note: Oswalt, The Book . . . 40-66, p. 197.]
Cyrus (559-530 B.C.) issued his decree to allow the Jewish exiles to return and rebuild Jerusalem in 538 B.C. This happened about 190 years after Isaiah announced this prophecy. Josephus recorded that Cyrus read Isaiah’s prophecy predicting that he himself-Cyrus-would send the Israelites back to Palestine to rebuild the temple, and that he desired to fulfill this very prediction. [Note: Josephus, 11:1:2. ] Josephus also dated Isaiah’s prophecy 140 years before the destruction of the temple, namely, about 726 B.C. The Persian monarch had not even been born at this time. When Isaiah made this prophecy his hearers probably said to one another: "Who did he say would do this? Who is Cyrus?"
This prophecy is the primary reason that critics on the unity of Isaiah have insisted that Isaiah of Jerusalem could not possibly have written this prediction. It must have been written, they say, sometime after Cyrus issued his decree. [Note: See Allis, pp. 51-61, for refutation of this common viewpoint.] However, the point that Yahweh was making throughout this book was that He alone could predict and create the future. For a similar prophecy involving Josiah, who had not yet been born, see 1Ki 13:2.
Motyer noted parallels between Isa 44:24 to Isa 48:22 and Isa 49:1 to Isa 53:12. [Note: Motyer, p. 352.] These sections provide the solutions to Israel’s double need: national bondage (cf. Isa 42:18 to Isa 43:21) and spiritual sinfulness (cf. Isa 43:22 to Isa 44:22).
|
The work of Cyrus (Isa 44:24 to Isa 48:22) |
The work of the Servant (Isaiah 49:1-53:12) |
|
The tIsa_44:24-28 ask stated and the agent named (Isa 44:24-28) |
The task stated and the agent named |
|
The task confirmed: to Israel and the world (Isa 45:1-7) |
The task confirmed: to Israel and the world (Isa 49:7-12) |
|
The response: prayer (Isa 45:8) |
The response: praise (Isa 49:13) |
|
Israel’s disquiet (Isa 45:9-25) |
Israel’s despondency (Isa 49:14 to Isa 50:11) |
|
• The Lord’s purpose affirmed (Isa 45:9-13) |
• The Lord’s love affirmed (Isa 49:14-16) |
|
• Israel and Gentiles (Isa 45:14-22) |
• Israel and Gentiles (Isa 49:17-26) |
|
• Those who find righteousness and strength in the supreme Lord and those who oppose Him (Isa 45:23-25) |
• The Servant, the exemplar of those who find strength and vindication in the Almighty Lord (Isa 50:1-11) |
|
The Lord’s care for Israel – from the beginning through to the coming salvation (Isa 46:1-13) |
The Lord’s care for Israel – from the beginning through to the coming salvation (Isa 51:1-16) |
|
Babylon: from the throne to the dust (Isa 47:1-15) |
Zion: from the dust to the throne |
|
Redemption from Babylon (Isa 48:1-22) |
Redemption from sin (Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12) |
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
ete_me Isa 44:28-28
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.