Yahweh Will Raise Up Cyrus To Rebuild Jerusalem And Lay The Foundations of A New Temple (Isaiah 44:24 to Isaiah 45:13).
In the Near East of Isaiah's day there were not many major powers. Egypt had been silenced by Assyria, Babylon was continually the enemy of God, sometimes independent, and sometimes under the control of Assyria, Assyria was the one who demanded subservience and tribute, Media and Elam at different times assisted in the invasion of Israel. But among those who remained separate from all this, at this stage, was Persia. How Isaiah came to a knowledge that the king of Persia had a son called Cyrus (an earlier Cyrus) we do not know, but it is very possible that he formed part of a royal party which visited Persia on the occasion of Cyrus' birth, or alternatively assisted in the welcoming of Persian ambassadors who came bringing the good news. The famed prophet Isaiah who had foretold the miracle of Jerusalem would be eagerly sought for by the Persians whose interest in such matters was well known, and he may well have been called on to make his contribution to the birthday celebrations. (We are here speaking of Cyrus I, not the Cyrus II who conquered Babylon). And while they were together there may well have been promises of mutual aid, trade and assistance. Furthermore if Isaiah saw the infant babe for himself, there may well have come to him the certainty as he looked at him, that he was looking at the one whose house would be Yahweh's shepherd, for there is no doubt that Isaiah possessed the prophetic gift.
Whether Isaiah lived long enough to see Cyrus I of Persia come to the throne we do not know, but he would certainly have continued to know of him, the young promising prince of the kingdom of Persia whose dynasty would one day see the deliverance of Jerusalem. And it is very possible that as the famed prophet of Israel Isaiah continued to have communications with his house. (If Moab could seek out Balaam (Numbers 22:5), Persia could certainly seek out Isaiah). And this was possibly how God showed him that in the dynasty of Cyrus lay the earthly solution to Israel's seemingly insoluble problems.
It should be noted how briefly the situation is dealt with. No explanation is given for the condition of Jerusalem and its Temple which Cyrus' grandson (Cyrus II) will have his part in rebuilding, or how it got into that condition. Possibly it was assumed from Isaiah 39:6-7, but that is unlikely, for the need for rebuilding is not what is actually prophesied there. It seems more probable that Isaiah had come to see that the replacement of the Temple was necessary because it had been defiled (Isaiah 43:28), and that therefore it must happen, and that until it had occurred the Servant could not be raised up to do his work.
It is especially noteworthy that there is nowhere any suggestion in the narrative of who Cyrus will deliver Jerusalem from. All that matters to Isaiah is that the house of Cyrus will become the restorer of Jerusalem and will bring about the building of the new Temple and will subsequently take his reward from the nations, and indirectly bring glory to Yahweh..
It is in fact difficult to see why, if Isaiah knew the answer as to who would destroy Jerusalem he did not reveal it, for in view of Isaiah 43:14; Isaiah 47 and Isaiah 48:20 he could hardly be said to be trying to keep Babylon's name out of matters.
‘Thus says Yahweh your Redeemer,
And he who formed you from the womb,
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things,
Who stretches forth the heavens alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth.
Who is with me?” '
This new section begins with confirmation of what has gone before. Yahweh is Israel's Redeemer, and as the One Who formed them from the womb and as their Kinsman Redeemer with a special interest in their welfare, because He had formed them from the beginning as His own in a special relationship. He had brought them to birth. And He now stresses that He alone is the Creator of all things, and that He has done it all alone, with none other with Him. He, and He alone, had stretched out the heavens, He had spread abroad the earth. None was there with Him. It was all His work. Thus there is no limit to what He can do. The whole earth is His.
Note that ‘He who formed you from the womb' immediately makes the connection with the Servant (Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 49:5; see also Isaiah 44:21; Isaiah 49:1).
“Who frustrates the tokens of the deceivers,
And makes diviners mad.
Who turns wise men backwards,
And makes their knowledge foolishness.”
He also makes a fool of those who seek to discern the future. When those deceivers, the soothsayers, make use of their different methods of foretelling, He makes their tokens say the wrong thing, and He affects the minds of the diviners so that they continually err. The wise men (men wise in the occult) He turns back on themselves, and what they say is finally revealed as foolish. This is the constant experience of man. None know the future apart from Him. (Babylon is therefore already being thwarted by His power, see Isaiah 47:12-13).
“Who confirms the word of his servant,
And performs the counsel of his messengers.
In contrast He Himself confirms the word of His own prophets, and ensures the fulfilment of what His own messengers declare and advise. Thus men can determine Who to believe in, because it is only His prophets who reveal the truth, and whose words are fulfilled (compare Deuteronomy 18:21-22). This is one of the central thoughts in Isaiah, that what Yahweh has said, He does.
“Who says of Jerusalem, ‘she will be inhabited',
And of the cities of Judah, ‘they will be rebuilt',
I will raise up its waste places.”
In support of His prophets' words He declares the certainty of the continuation of Jerusalem. Whatever happens, she will be inhabited. The parallel with the cities of Judah may indicate an expectancy that there will also be a necessity for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and if so it suggests that Isaiah had a premonition of what was going to happen to it. On the other hand the contrast between Jerusalem ‘being inhabited' while the remaining cities of Judah would have to ‘be rebuilt' may point to the situation after the relief of Jerusalem, when only Jerusalem was left standing. Unlike the cases of Babylon (Isaiah 13:19-20) and Edom (34), however, Yahweh wants all to know that her future is secure. Whatever happens she will be inhabited. And He guarantees also the rebuilding of the cities of Judah, and the restoration of the waste places. As promised He will make a way in these wildernesses (Isaiah 43:19). While Judah may have been devastated by Assyria (see Isaiah 37:26), it will be re-established, and God will ensure that His Servant has a base to work from for the sending out of His Law (Isaiah 2:3).
“Who says to the deep, ‘Be dry,
And I will dry up your rivers'.”
In contrast to what Assyria has done, not only can Yahweh ensure the inhabiting and building of cities, but He can also dry up nations and peoples. Here the point is that He is so mighty that not only can He ensure the inhabiting of cities, but He can also remove the very lifeline of all nations. He can even dry up the sea, and the rivers that flow from it. This may again refer to the Reed Sea (Isaiah 11:15; Isaiah 19:5; Isaiah 51:10; Psalms 66:6; Psalms 106:9), and the Nile and its tributaries, as well as the rivers of Mesopotamia (Isaiah 11:15) but it looks beyond that to all seas (e.g. Nahum 1:4). He is the controller of the seas, and of the water supplies of nations, and thus He determines the future of those nations. Compare the boast of Sennacherib, ‘with the sole of my feet will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt' (Isaiah 37:25). The difference is that Yahweh can really do it. There was little that Israel feared more than ‘the deep', but Yahweh assures them that even such an enemy is putty in His hands. And He Who could dry up the rivers of the world had the world at His mercy. And this was not only true of the seas. It was true of the mighty nations that were often depicted in terms of the seas and rivers, Egypt as the Nile, Assyria/Babylon as The River. For all is in His hands.
We note here how constantly throughout Isaiah when Yahweh blesses He causes rivers to flow (Isaiah 43:19; Isaiah 44:3-4; Isaiah 30:25; Isaiah 32:2; Isaiah 33:21; Isaiah 41:18; Isaiah 66:12), and when He judges the rivers cease flowing (Isaiah 42:15; Isaiah 50:2; Isaiah 19:5). He controls the lifeblood of all peoples.
But the special emphasis to be drawn from this continues in Isaiah 45:1-3, where Cyrus is to act as His anointed against the nations.
“Who says of Cyrus, he is my shepherd,
And will perform all my pleasure.”
Within all His control Yahweh has a special purpose for Cyrus. Suddenly in the midst of generalities, even though important generalities, there comes a specific, like a bolt from the Isaianic blue. Isaiah speaks of ‘Cyrus' (Coresh), whom Yahweh calls ‘My shepherd', who will do His will, and will ‘perform all My pleasure'. The use of ‘shepherd' suggests a deliberate avoidance of the word ‘servant'. Cyrus' relationship with Yahweh is not to be seen as close enough for that. What His pleasure for Cyrus is, is described in Isaiah 45:1-4.
“Even saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt',
And to the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.' ”
While there may be an indirect indication here of Cyrus' connection with the building of the new Temple it is not specific, for these are the words of Yahweh. Isaiah 44:28 a and 28b are not necessarily directly parallel with each other (see analysis above), and it is significant that in what follows it is Cyrus' activities over the nations that are stressed and not the building of the new Temple. However, there is undoubtedly a link between the two. The coming of Cyrus did result in a new Temple.
But we must not limit Isaiah's thinking by seeing this as just the forecasting of a bland historical event. The coming of Cyrus at God's command is in order to introduce a new situation. It will result in a new beginning for the Servant with the foundation of a new, undefiled and pure Temple, and the rendering powerless of the nations by the ‘drying up of the deep'. It will forward the work of the Servant (Isaiah 45:4). Isaiah's vision of the new Temple here can be compared with that of Ezekiel 40-48. He has in mind a Temple raised up by God Himself which will fulfil the ministry of the Servant. It will be a new spiritual initiative.
This idea that the Temple must be replaced would come as a shock to Israel, but Isaiah, whose first inauguration as a prophet came in the old Temple where he had a glorious vision of Yahweh (Isaiah 6:1-6), has recognised that it has been defiled (Isaiah 43:28), as Ezekiel would after him, and therefore that it must be replaced. And this will spring out from the new beginning commenced as a result of the activity of Cyrus.
Like much prophecy this sees the short and the long view. In the short term a new Temple was built in the decades following the rise of Cyrus II. It was at a time of great expectation. Zechariah portrayed it in terms of the powerful activity of the Spirit (Zechariah 4:6-10), and Haggai saw it as resulting in the shaking of all nations and the coming of ‘the desire of the nations' (Haggai 2:7). The glory of this house would be greater than that of the former. And that Temple undoubtedly did continue the witness of the Servant and enable the reestablishment of the worship of Yahweh in the land, and its glory was greater because it retained its purity from idolatry. Moreover in His own way God did shake the nations through it and from it was proclaimed the Name of the One Who was the desire of all nations, with the result (we must not judge its accomplishments by men's standards) that His Law went out to the nations through the Dispersion. But that Temple also would fail, as would the one that followed, and ‘the princes of the Sanctuary' would once again be removed and be desanctified.
Neither, however, fulfilled Isaiah's dream, for this new Temple spoken of by Isaiah symbolised what he saw as the task to be accomplished through the Servant, and it therefore finds its ultimate fulfilment in the new Temple of the Servant through which, in accordance with Isaiah 2:1-4, His message was taken out to the world. This was the Temple of Jesus Himself (John 2:19-21) and of His people (1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:13-22). Yet its foundation was undoubtedly first laid by means of Yahweh's activity though Cyrus in restoring His people, His Servant.
No indication is given by Isaiah of why the Temple would need to be rebuilt. He does not see any need to explain it. To him it is as clear as day that until that has happened the work of the Servant cannot go forward. He may in his own mind have seen the old Temple as being destroyed in an earthquake or through the activities of invaders but he does not speculate on the matter. All that he is sure of is that there must be a new Temple. Like the period of thirty eight years in the wilderness inflicted on an unbelieving Israel, it was an indication that Yahweh was displeased with the present generation.
(Strictly speaking the language does not demand the destruction of the Temple, for it could be translated as ‘You will be firmly established.' But in view of what did happen the point need not be pressed further).
That the inauguration of the new era was to be brought about by Cyrus, a Persian king, was indeed a new prophecy and remarkable. And the question would be asked, why should a king of Persia be interested in such things? The brief answer given here is that it is because Yahweh the great Shepherd (Isaiah 40:11; Psalms 23:1; Psalms 80:1) has appointed him as His under-shepherd. He Who is sovereign over the nations can do what He will. He Who could use Assyria as the rod of His anger (Isaiah 10:5), could now use the house of Cyrus as His shepherd to watch over His people's interests.
“Even saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt', and to the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.' ” Was it God or Cyrus who said this? The first part is almost a repetition of Isaiah 44:26. It is therefore probably God Who is to be seen as speaking. Although some see it as indicating that Cyrus was made to speak and do the will of God.
But this must then raise the question as to who was this Cyrus? And with that question we must briefly stop at this point and consider the problem of Cyrus, a question which has filled many books and produced many theories.
Note on Cyrus (Hebrew Coresh).
The first question that arises is, whom did Isaiah have in mind when he spoke of Cyrus? Persia was situated east of the Persian Gulf in the Iranian plateau. Achaemenes ruled there from about 700 to 675 BC, being followed by his son Teispes (about 675-640 BC), who was again followed by one of his sons Cyrus I (about 640-600 BC). Cyrus was strong enough to oppose Ashurbanipal of Assyria for a time (a considerable feat), but in the end had to submit to him. Isaiah prophesied from the year of the death of Uzziah (about 740 BC) into the reign of Manasseh (687/6 BC to 642/1 BC, having been co-regent from 696/5 BC).
So if he lived to a good old age Isaiah may well have heard of the birth of the young Cyrus who would become Cyrus I, and may even have been present at celebrations accompanying his birth. It may have been then that through a flash of prophetic inspiration from God he saw him and his coming dynasty as the future hope of Israel, especially if Persia had made an offer of assistance if ever Israel required it. And as far as we know Persia was never involved in activities against Israel. It was probably the only powerful nation in the area in Isaiah's time not to be connected with military activity against Israel. Thus Persia would not be seen as an enemy. It may even have been that the aged Isaiah, as a highly respected and revered prophet, visited Persia and received assurances of support from Cyrus' father if ever such support was needed. Furthermore ‘Cyrus' may well have been the dynastic name, and could even have applied to the whole dynasty from Achaemenes onwards, although there is no archaeological evidence for such an idea. Thus by speaking of ‘Cyrus' Isaiah may have been referring to ‘the house of Cyrus', just as ‘David' could mean the Davidic heir (1 Kings 12:16). This would be even more in line with expectation if the Persian kings at this time revealed something of the same enlightened approach as Cyrus II would do later.
Cyrus I's son was Cambyses I (about 600-559 BC), who was followed by Cyrus II the Great (about 559-530 BC). It was Cyrus II the Great who established the Persian Empire, defeating the Medes, and then defeating Babylon in 539 BC and decreed the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple and the return of its vessels and paraphernalia (Ezra 1:1-4; Ezra 1:7-11; Ezra 6:3-12).
Cyrus II was a great believer in supporting local religions and their gods, and in supporting the restoration of exiled people to their homeland and of their stolen idols to their temples, his only requirement being that prayers be offered for him to their gods, and he regularly even provided money for the purpose. He restored the religion of Marduk in Babylon which gained him the support of the powerful priests of Marduk, and in the Cyrus cylinder he himself acknowledged the help of Marduk in his battles. In a text found at Ur it is Sin, the moon-god, whom he credited with his victories. He thus acknowledged all gods and saw them as on his side. This may well have been a known Persian policy even before his time.
So there are a number of possible views about the use of the name of Cyrus by Isaiah, of which we will briefly consider five:
1) That the prophecy was that of Isaiah, and the reference is to ‘the house of Cyrus' which was known to him through the prince who would become Cyrus I, or through his father.
2) That the prophecy was that of Isaiah and that the naming of Cyrus was prophetic foresight, with or without Isaiah having any other knowledge of the name of Cyrus (compare 1 Kings 13:2 for a similar idea re Josiah). Of course this could also be combined with 1).
3) That the prophecy was that of Isaiah but that the name of Cyrus was added by a scribe later once the name of the deliverer was known, possibly by way of marginal notes that became incorporated in the text. It is noted that the name of Cyrus could easily be an added postscript and if dropped out, would hardly disturb the remainder of the text. However, altering the text without manuscript evidence is always a dangerous procedure, and mainly unjustified.
4) That the prophecy was that of an Isaianic disciple in Babylon who saw in Cyrus a solution to the hopes of the exiles to return to the land and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. But in this case why does he limit his reference to the restoration of the Temple to five words throughout his whole book and his references to Babylon in 44-66 to three brief mentions and one chapter, and never clearly mention the exiles in Babylonia?
5) That the word coresh (Cyrus) should rather be read as ‘ caresh' meaning ‘the crushed one' (or something similar), and therefore as referring to the house of David in its humiliation, or even to the humiliation and subsequent glorification of the Servant (Isaiah 50:4-9; Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12). This would tie in with ‘coresh' being Israel's shepherd and Yahweh's anointed one. The main problem with this interpretation would be the coincidence of names, for coresh certainly indicates the name of Cyrus in the book of Ezra.
The fourth solution, while highly favoured by many scholars who read Babylon in everywhere in Isaiah 40-55, ignores the fact that Babylon does not feature strongly in the account at all. Indeed reading the immediate section one would not gain the impression that Babylon was in mind. It is strange that if someone was preaching in Babylon and anticipating deliverance they would only mention Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sabeans (Isaiah 45:14) and that the defeat of Babylon is nowhere connected directly with Cyrus. (Although those who support this view see it as described clearly in chapter 47. But that by itself is an unjustified assumption as there is no clear connection between that chapter and chapter 45).
Of the first three suggestions any is possible, but there is no actual good reason for eliminating the name of Cyrus, apart from the theory. Thus one of the first two would appear to be the more favourable. The fifth solution is not one that has as yet made much impact on commentators, but is very worth considering. How we make our decision will probably depend not so much on the evidence but on how we view prophecy. However, apart from 4). each is compatible with Isaianic authorship.
End of note.