_CYRUS._
EZRA i. I.
The remarkable words with which the Second Book of Chronicles closes,
and which are repeated in the opening verses of the Book of Ezra,
afford the most striking instance on record of that peculiar
connection between the destinies of the little Hebrew nation and the
movements of great World Empires which frequently emerges in history.
We cannot altogether set it down to the vanity of their writers, or to
the lack of perspective accompanying a contracted, provincial
education, that the Jews are represented in the Old Testament as
playing a more prominent part on the world's stage than one to which
the size of their territory--little bigger than Wales--or their
military prowess would entitle them. The fact is indisputable. No
doubt it is to be attributed in part to the geographical position of
Palestine on the highway of the march of armies to and fro between
Asia and Africa; but it must spring also in some measure from the
unique qualities of the strange people who have given their religion
to the most civilised societies of mankind.
In the case before us the greatest man of his age, one of the
half-dozen Founders of Empires, who constitute a lofty aristocracy
even among sovereigns, is manifestly concerning himself very specially
with the restoration of one of the smallest of the many subject races
that fell into his hands when he seized the garnered spoils of
previous conquerors. Whatever we may think of the precise words of his
decree as this is now reported to us by a Hebrew scribe, it is
unquestionable that he issued some such orders as are contained in it.
Cyrus, as it now appears, was originally king of Elam, the modern
Khuzistan, not of Persia, although the royal family from which he
sprang was of Persian extraction. After making himself master of
Persia and building up an empire in Asia Minor and the north, he swept
down on to the plains of Chaldæa and captured Babylon in the year B.C.
538. To the Jews this would be the first year of his reign, because it
was the first year of his rule over them, just as the year A.D. 1603
is reckoned by Englishmen as the first year of James I., because the
king of Scotland then inherited the English throne. In this year the
new sovereign, of his own initiative, released the Hebrew exiles, and
even assisted them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their ruined
temple. Such an astounding act of generosity was contrary to the
precedent of other conquerors, who accepted as a matter of course the
arrangement of subject races left by their predecessors; and we are
naturally curious to discover the motives that prompted it.
Like our mythical King Arthur, the Cyrus of legend is credited with a
singularly attractive disposition. Herodotus says the Persians
regarded him as their "father" and their "shepherd." In Xenophon's
romance he appears as a very kindly character. Cicero calls him the
most just, wise, and amiable of rulers. Although it cannot be
dignified with the name of history, this universally accepted
tradition seems to point to some foundation in fact. It is entirely in
accord with the Jewish picture of the Great King. There is some reason
for believing that the privilege Cyrus offered to the Jews was one in
which other nations shared. On a small, broken, clay cylinder, some
four inches in diameter, discovered quite recently and now deposited
in the British Museum, Cyrus is represented as saying, "I assembled
all those nations, and I caused them to go back to their countries."
Thus the return of the Jews may be regarded as a part of a general
centrifugal movement in the new Empire.
Nevertheless, the peculiar favour indicated by the decree issued to
the Jews suggests something special in their case, and this must be
accounted for before the action of Cyrus can be well understood.
Little or no weight can be attached to the statement of Josephus, who
inserts in the very language of the decree a reference to the
foretelling of the name of Cyrus by "the prophets," as a prime motive
for issuing it, and adds that this was known to Cyrus by his reading
the book of Isaiah.[4] Always more or less untrustworthy whenever he
touches the relations between his people and foreigners, the Jewish
historian is even exceptionally unsatisfactory in his treatment of the
Persian Period. It may be, as Ewald asserts, that Josephus is here
following some Hellenistic writer; but we know nothing of his
authority. There is no reference to this in our one authority, the
Book of Ezra; and if it had been true there would have been every
reason to publish it. Some Jews at court may have shown Cyrus the
prophecies in question indeed it is most probable that men who wished
to please him would have done so. Plato in the "Laws" represents Cyrus
as honouring those who knew how to give good advice. But it is
scarcely reasonable to suppose, without a particle of evidence, that a
great monarch flushed with victory would set himself to carry out a
prediction purporting to emanate from the Deity of one of the
conquered peoples, when that prediction was distinctly in their
interest, unless he was first actuated by some other considerations.
[4] _Ant._, XI. i. 1, 2.
Until a few years ago it was commonly supposed that Cyrus was a
Zoroastrian, who was disgusted at the cruel and lustful idolatry of
the Babylonians, and that when he discovered a monotheistic people
oppressed by vicious heathen polytheists, he claimed religious
brotherhood with them, and so came to show them singular favour.
Unfortunately for his fame, this fascinating theory has been recently
shattered by the discovery of the little cylinder already referred to.
Here Cyrus is represented as saying that "the gods" have deserted
Nabonidas--the last king of Babylon--because he has neglected their
service; and that Merodach, the national divinity of Babylon, has
transferred his favour to Cyrus; who now honours him with many
praises. An attempt has been made to refute the evidence of this
ancient record by attributing the cylinder to some priest of Bel, who,
it is said, may have drawn up the inscription without the knowledge of
the king, and even in direct opposition to his religious views. A most
improbable hypothesis! especially as we have absolutely no grounds for
the opinion that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian. The Avesta, the sacred
collection of hymns which forms the basis of the Parsee scriptures,
came from the far East, close to India, and it was written in a
language almost identical with Sanscrit and quite different from the
Old Persian of Western Persia. We have no ground for supposing that as
yet it had been adopted in the remote south-western region of Elam,
where Cyrus was brought up. That monarch, it would seem, was a
liberal-minded syncretist, as ready to make himself at home with the
gods of the peoples he conquered as with their territories. Such a man
would be astute enough to represent the indigenous divinities as
diverting their favour from the fallen and therefore discredited kings
he had overthrown, and transferring it to the new victor. We must
therefore descend from the highlands of theology in our search for an
explanation of the conduct of Cyrus. Can we find this in some
department of state policy?
We learn from the latter portion of our Book of Isaiah that the Jewish
captives suffered persecution under Nabonidas. It is not difficult to
guess the cause of the embitterment of this king against them after
they had been allowed to live in peace and prosperity under his
predecessors. Evidently the policy of Nebuchadnezzar, which may have
succeeded with some other races, had broken down in its application to
a people with such tough national vitality as that of the Jews. It was
found to be impossible to eradicate their patriotism--or rather the
patriotism of the faithful nucleus of the nation, impossible to make
Jerusalem forgotten by the waters of Babylon. This ancient "Semitic
question" was the very reverse of that which now vexes Eastern Europe,
because in the case of the Jews at Babylon the troublesome aliens were
only desirous of liberty to depart; but it sprang from the same
essential cause--the separateness of the Hebrew race.
Now things often present themselves in a true light to a new-comer
who approaches them with a certain mental detachment, although they
may have been grievously misapprehended by those people among whom
they have slowly shaped themselves. Cyrus was a man of real genius;
and immediately he came upon the scene he must have perceived the
mistake of retaining a restless, disaffected population, like a
foreign body rankling in the very heart of his empire. Moreover, to
allow the Jews to return home would serve a double purpose. While it
would free the Euphrates Valley from a constant source of distress, it
would plant a grateful, and therefore loyal, people on the western
confines of the empire--perhaps, as some have thought, to be used as
outworks and a basis of operations in a projected campaign against
Egypt. Thus a far-sighted statesman might regard the liberation of the
Jews as a stroke of wise policy. But we must not make too much of
this. The restored Jews were a mere handful of religious devotees,
scarcely able to hold their own against the attacks of neighbouring
villages; and while they were permitted to build their temple, nothing
was said in the royal rescript about fortifying their city. So feeble
a colony could not have been accounted of much strategic importance by
such a master of armies as Cyrus. Again, we know from the "Second
Isaiah" that, when the Persian war-cloud was hovering on the horizon,
the Jewish exiles hailed it as the sign of deliverance from
persecution. The invader who brought destruction to Babylon promised
relief to her victims; and the lofty strains of the prophet bespeak an
inspired perception of the situation which encouraged higher hopes. A
second discovery in the buried library of bricks is that of a small
flat tablet, also recently unearthed like the cylinder of Cyrus,
which records this very section of the history of Babylon. Here it is
stated that Cyrus intrigued with a disaffected party within the city.
Who would be so likely as the persecuted Jews to play this part?
Further, the newly found Babylonian record makes it clear that
Herodotus was mistaken in his famous account of the siege of Babylon
where he connected it with the coming of Cyrus. He must have
misapprehended a report of one of the two sieges under Darius, when
the city had revolted and was recaptured by force, for we now know
that after a battle fought in the open country Cyrus was received into
the city without striking another blow. He would be likely to be in a
gracious mood then, and if he knew there were exiles, languishing in
captivity, who hailed his advent as that of a deliverer, even apart
from the question whether they had previously opened up negotiations
with him, he could not but look favourably upon them; so that
generosity and perhaps gratitude combined with good policy to govern
his conduct. Lastly, although he was not a theological reformer, he
seems to have been of a religious character, according to his light,
and therefore it is not unnatural to suppose that he may have heartily
thrown himself into a movement of which his wisdom approved, and with
which all his generous instincts sympathised. Thus, after all, there
may be something in the old view, if only we combine it with our newer
information. Under the peculiar political circumstances of his day,
Cyrus may have been prepared to welcome the prophetic assurance that
he was a heaven-sent shepherd, if some of the Jews had shown it him.
Even without any such assurance, other conquerors have been only too
ready to flatter themselves that they were executing a sacred
mission.
These considerations do not in the least degree limit the Divine
element of the narrative as that is brought forward by the Hebrew
historian. On the contrary, they give additional importance to it. The
chronicler sees in the decree of Cyrus and its issues an
accomplishment of the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah.
Literally he says that what happens is in order that the word of the
Lord may _be brought to an end_. It is in the "_fulness_ of the time,"
as the advent of Christ was later in another relation.[5] The writer
seems to have in mind the passage--"And this whole land shall be a
desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the
king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy
years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and
that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the
Chaldeans; and I will make it desolate for ever";[6] as well as
another prophecy--"For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be
accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform My good word
toward you, in causing you to return to this place."[7] Now if we do
not accept the notion of Josephus that Cyrus was consciously and
purposely fulfilling these predictions, we do not in any way diminish
the fact that the deliverance came from God. If we are driven to the
conclusion that Cyrus was not solely or chiefly actuated by religious
motives, or even if we take his action to be _purely_ one of state
policy, the ascription of this inferior position to Cyrus only
heightens the wonderful glory of God's overruling providence.
Nebuchadnezzar was described as God's "servant"[8] because, although
he was a bad man, only pursuing his own wicked way, yet, all unknown
to him, that way was made to serve God's purposes. Similarly Cyrus,
who is not a bad man, is God's "Shepherd," when he delivers the
suffering flock from the wolf and sends it back to the fold, whether
he aims at obeying the will of God or not. It is part of the great
revelation of God in history, that He is seen working out His supreme
purposes in spite of the ignorance and sometimes even by means of the
malice of men. Was not this the case in the supreme event of history,
the crucifixion of our Lord? If the cruelty of Nebuchadnezzar and the
feebleness of Pilate could serve God, so could the generosity of
Cyrus.
[5] Gal. iv. 4.
[6] Jer. xxv. 11, 12.
[7] Jer. xxix. 10.
[8] Jer. xxvii. 6.
The question of the chronological exactness of this fulfilment of
prophecy troubles some minds that are anxious about Biblical
arithmetic. The difficulty is to arrive at the period of seventy
years. It would seem that this could only be done by some stretching
at both ends of the exile. We must begin with Nebuchadnezzar's first
capture of Jerusalem and the first carrying away of a small body of
royal hostages to Babylon in the year B.C. 606. Even then we have only
sixty-eight years to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, which happened
in B.C. 538. Therefore to get the full seventy years it is proposed to
extend the exile till the year B.C. 536, which is the date of the
commencement of Cyrus's sole rule. But there are serious difficulties
in these suggestions. In his prediction of the seventy years Jeremiah
plainly refers to the complete overthrow of the nation with the strong
words, "This whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment." As
a matter of fact, the exile only began in earnest with the final
siege of Jerusalem, which took place in B.C. 588. Then Cyrus actually
began his reign over the Jews in B.C. 538, when he took Babylon, and
he issued his edict in his first year. Thus the real exile as a
national trouble seems to have occupied fifty years, or, reckoning a
year for the issuing and execution of the edict, fifty-one years.
Instead of straining at dates, is it not more simple and natural to
suppose that Jeremiah gave a round figure to signify a period which
would cover the lifetime of his contemporaries, at all events? However
this may be, nobody can make a grievance out of the fact that the
captivity may not have been quite so lengthy as the previous warnings
of it foreshadowed. Tillotson wisely remarked that there is this
difference between the Divine promises and the Divine threatenings,
that while God pledges His faithfulness to the full extent of the
former, He is not equally bound to the perfect accomplishment of the
latter. If the question of dates shows a little discrepancy, what does
this mean but that God is so merciful as not always to exact the last
farthing? Moreover it should be remarked that the point of Jeremiah's
prophecy is not the exact length of the captivity, but the certain
termination of it after a long while. The time is fulfilled when the
end has come.
But the action of Cyrus is not only regarded as the accomplishment of
prophecy; it is also attributed to the direct influence of God
exercised on the Great King, for we read "the Lord stirred up the
spirit of Cyrus king of Persia," etc. It would indicate the radical
scepticism which is too often hidden under the guise of a rigorous
regard for correct belief, to maintain that because we now know Cyrus
to have been a polytheist his spirit could not have been stirred up
by the true God. It is not the teaching of the Bible that God confines
His influence on the hearts of men to Jews and Christians. Surely we
cannot suppose that the Father of all mankind rigidly refuses to hold
any intercourse with the great majority of His children--never
whispers them a guiding word in their anxiety and perplexity, never
breathes into them a helpful impulse, even in their best moments, when
they are earnestly striving to do right. In writing to the Romans St.
Paul distinctly argues on the ground that God has revealed Himself to
the heathen world,[9] and in the presence of Cornelius St. Peter as
distinctly asserts that God accepts the devout and upright of all
nations.[10] Here even in the Old Testament it is recognised that God
moves the king of Persia. This affords a singular encouragement for
prayer, because it suggests that God has access to those who are far
out of our reach; that He quite sets aside the obstruction of
intermediaries--secretaries, chamberlains, grand-viziers, and all the
_entourage_ of a court; that He goes straight into the audience
chamber, making direct for the inmost thoughts and feelings of the man
whom He would influence. The wonder of it is that God condescends to
do this even with men who know little of Him; but it should be
remembered that though He is strange to many men, none of them are
strange to Him. The Father knows the children who do not know Him. It
may be remarked, finally, on this point, that the special Divine
influence now referred to is dynamic rather than illuminating. To stir
up the spirit is to move to activity. God not only teaches; He
quickens. In the case of Cyrus, the king used his own judgment and
acted on his own opinions; yet the impulse which drove him was from
God. That was everything. We live in a God-haunted world: why then are
we slow to take the first article of our creed in its full meaning? Is
it so difficult to believe in God when all history is alive with His
presence?
[9] Rom. i. 19.
[10] Acts x. 34, 35.