What Do the References to Cyrus Imply?
The references to Cyrus (Koresh) in
Isa 44:28 and 45:1 indicate that God was determined to rebuild and restore the
ruins of Jerusalem and that he would use a strong military ruler who did not
know him to make a decree to rebuild Jerusalem (44:26; 45:1). This section has
to primarily with what God will do and only secondarily with what Cyrus/Koresh
will accomplish because of God’s help.
This prophecy presents a conundrum for
many interpreters because (1) it gives such a specific prophecy, including the
name of the king who will fulfill it, and (2) if it came form the prophet
Isaiah, it was given more than 150 years before it was fulfilled. There is only
one similar biblical example: in 1 Kgs 13:2, a prophet announced more than a
century in advance that a man named Josiah would destroy the altar built by
Jeroboam I at Bethel. According to 2 Kgs 23:15-17, this prophecy were made, the
prophets and their audiences had no idea how long it would be before these
words would be fulfilled. Therefore, the only unusual feature about both was
the advance naming of an individual who was not then known. If prophets can
predict eschatological events that will be fulfilled in the distant future,
prophets should also be able to predict events that will happen only 15- years later—though
this was not their usual practice. Charles Torrey, Klaus Baltzer, and R. K.
Harrison sought to eliminate this problem by suggesting that the name Cyrus
(Koresh) was a later scribal addition to Isa 44:28 and 45:1 after the prophecy
was fulfilled. In my opinion, this solution is unnecessary Isaiah 40-55 cannot
be dated on the basis of the prophecy about Cyrus (whether or not his mentioned
by name is original or a later scribal addition) simply because it predicts an
event that took place during the late exilic period.
The prophecy about Cyrus in isa
44:24-45:7 should not be interpreted as the key to placing chapters 40-55 in an
exilic setting. As both Brevard Childs and Hugh Williamson conclude, the
central issue in determining a date for Isa 40-55 is the claim that the
prophet’s audience could verify that the first stage of Cyrus’s work had been
completed (implying a later date after 550 BCE) and that the second stage lay
in the near future (implying the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE). Childs says,
On the basis of his former prophecies
concerning Cyrus, which have been realized and can readily be confirmed by all,
the prophet then makes a future prediction in 44;24ff. and 45:1ff. The logic of
the prophetic argument demands that the audience of the prophet’s words stands
at a point in the sixth century when the former prediction is viewed as part of
history. (Childs, Isaiah, 290)
The former predictions that were
already accomplished are usually connected to the prophecy in which God “stirs
up” and “calls” a strong “one from the east” and “delivers up nations to him,
and subdues kings before him” (41:2-3; cf. v. 25). Many commentators believe
that these verses describe Cyrus’ early victories as he rose to power. The
Hiphil perfect הֵעִיר (hē’ir), “he aroused, stirred up, awakened,” in
41:12 (cf. הַעִיר֤וֹתִי, ha’irôtî, “I stirred up,” in v. 25) points to a
past event. The same verbal form is used to describe God’s “awakening,
arousing” of Cyrus in 2 Chr 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, and a similar form of the same
verb is used in Isa 45:13, which many relate to Cyrus’ work. Although the
presence of the same verb in all of these passages might argue for connecting
them, an initial caution is raised when one notes that the same verb (ע-ו-ר, ‘-w-r)
is used for God’s “stirring up” of the Assyrian king Jehoram (2 Chr 21:16); and
his promise to “stir up” (Polel of ע-ו-ר, ‘-w-r) a scourge who was
“aroused, stirred up” in 41:2-3, 25 must be the military conqueror Cyrus. But
what evidence is there so support this view, and how can the events described
in these events described in these verses be firmly related to Cyrus’ victories
in 550 BCE? It is clear that the strong ruler will do God’s work, but it is not
clear from 41:2-3, 25 how this conquering king will deal with Israel. While it
is possible that the one God calls and uses to subdue nations in 41:2 and
Cyrus, who is described similarly in 45:1, 4, are the same person, the similar
descriptions in these two texts may point to parallels between two different
kings rather than to the same person.
Problems with identifying the king in
41:2-3, 25 with Cyrus arise when one tries to develop a holistic picture of the
military issues mentioned in 41:2-3, 10-13, 25. All of these verses describe a
military conflict. Verses 2-3 and 25 emphasize God’s use of a strong military
commander from the east, while verses 10-13 focus on God’s strengthening those
who were being attacked. Since the army that attacks God’s people in 41:10-13
will “become nothing,” this army cannot be a Babylonian army since it was
successful) or a Persian army (since they never attacked Jerusalem or the
Judeans in exile). Therefore, it can only refer to the Assyrian army that was
very successful in conquering forty-six walled cities in Judah but was later reduced
to nothing when an angel from God killed 185,000 soldiers (Isa 37;36). Thus, if
Isa 41 describes a single military event, Sennacherib must be the one from the
east whom YHWH arouses to defeat various nations in order to accomplish his
will (cf. 10:5, 36-37). Another reason for not viewing the king in 41:2-3, 25
as Cyrus is the statement that this king “will call on my name” (41:25), which
conflicts with God’s claim that Cyrus “did not know me” (45:4, 5).
Consequently, if Cyrus is not the king
referred to in 41:2-3, 10-13, 25, then it seems unwarranted to date the
composition of isa 4-55 to the period between Cyrus’ victories in 550 BCE and
his victory over Babylon in 539 BCE. Instead, the prophet appears to argue that
the Judeans should trust YHWH because of his overwhelming power over the
Assyrians, as described in chapters 36-37. The oracles in chapters 40-55 argue
that, since YHWH has raised up a strong king like Sennacherib (41:2-3, 25) and
will redeem his people from the power of this great king (41:10-13; cf. chs.
36-37), certainly his people should be able to trust in God’s ability to use
the known king Cyrus to restore the people of Jerusalem in the future.
(44:24-45:7). (Gary V. Smith, “Cyrus or Sennacherib? Historical Issues Involved
in the Interpretation of Isaiah 40-55,” in Bind Up the Testimony:
Explorations in the Genesis of the Book of Isaiah, ed. Daniel I. Block and
Richard L. Schultz [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2015], 189-91)
