In Isaiah 44:28 - 45:1, a very specific prophecy was made about Cyrus, King of Persia. In these verses, he was named twice as anointed of God, destined to deliver Israel from captivity, and reserved to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple.
I will argue that aside from literally fulfilling this prophecy, by freeing the Jews from Babylonian bondage, Cyrus was used as a type and shadow of a far greater deliverance… the deliverance of all humankind from the bondage of sin by a coming Messiah. I will argue that Cyrus himself was a messiah, and like Christ, he fulfilled the words of Isaiah. I will present this study to you using a typological method from the perspective of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
The reader should be aware that most LDS scholars hold the belief that the entire Book of Isaiah was authored by Isaiah himself. The reason this belief is held, is because the Book of Mormon, a canonical record in the LDS faith tradition, quotes from parts of second Isaiah and attributes those writings to that prophet. More importantly, though, is that the original record from which the Book of Mormon quoted Isaiah dates back to 600 B.C.E., over 100 years after Isaiah and approximately 60 years before Cyrus delivered Israel. This is unusual, since the mainstream belief is that second and third Isaiah (chapters 40-66) were written some 200 or more years after the first 39 chapters, and therefore not written by Isaiah. The reaction of most scholars to a book of the Bible containing a specific prediction, is to call it an afterthought rather than a genuine prophecy.
Surely, it was written long after the fact, by someone who wanted the world to believe it was an authentic Isaianic prophecy. The modern claim is that Isaiah could not have foreseen such a specific event, nor could he have foretold the very name of the person who would fulfill the prophecy. In other words, Isaiah could not have been an authentic prophet. Obviously, the arguments both for and against this perspective cannot be sufficiently addressed in this paper. I will proceed with the assumption that chapters 40-66 were authored by Isaiah.
The first verse of chapter 45 reads in part, “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus”. The fact that Cyrus was called the Lord’s “anointed” has bothered many Bible scholars. In fact, Cyrus is the only Gentile king who as been called God’s “anointed”. The word “anointed” here in the Hebrew text is מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ), which is where we get the English ‘messiah’. The Septuagint translates it as Χριστός (khristós), which is where we get the English ‘Christ’. So was Cyrus the Lord’s Messiah? Was he His Christ? Given the theologically sacred nature of these titles, you can see why Isaiah’s word choice might be troubling to some. At the expense of sounding irreverent, I submit that Cyrus was indeed, in the literal senses of these words, a messiah, or rather, a type of Christ.
A type is a prophetic symbol, usually representing Jesus, and can be found throughout the Hebrew Bible. When I call Cyrus a type, I do not mean to say that he was like Jesus in every respect. He was merely a simplified and almost tangible representation of a far greater deliverer. I also find it curious that if these verses were not written by Isaiah, but by persons who witnessed Israel’s deliverance by the hand of Cyrus, why would they have chosen a word like ‘anointed’ (מָשִׁיחַ)? They witnessed for themselves that he wasn’t the Messiah, and there is no evidence to support the idea that one of the Lord’s prophets literally anointed Cyrus in a position of political power as Samuel did Saul and David. Isaiah’s prophetic word choice was to use Cyrus as a messianic symbol, thus pointing his audience toward the coming of the great Messiah.
Although this word study is helpful in looking at this passage in a new light, there is still more typology to mention. Cyrus was the King of Persia. He held a great deal of power and because of this, he was the only person capable of delivering Israel from Babylonian bondage at that time. Christ was called the King of Israel and the King of the Jews. His kingdom and power was not an earthly one, but a divine one. His divine sonship made him the only one capable of redeeming humankind from the bondage of sin. Not only did both fulfill their divine callings, but if they hadn’t, no one else could have.
Josephus, a Jewish historian, quoted an edict from Cyrus which says that YHWH appointed him to be king of the earth, and that “indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem…” Josephus claims that after reading the prophecies of Isaiah, Cyrus admired the power of the Israelite God, and had an earnest desire to fulfill what was written. Similarly, on one occasion, Christ went to read in the synagogue at Nazareth. The book of the prophet Esaias (Isaiah) was given to him, and he read these words, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me… to let the oppressed go free”. (Luke 4:18, Isaiah 61:1) Jesus, claiming to be this anointed one, said, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled”. (Luke 4:21) This is significant in a number of ways. First, the word ‘anointed’ here comes from the same word found in Isaiah 45:1, as explained above. Second, as mentioned in Isaiah 44:28, Christ, like Cyrus, was also to free the oppressed. Third, both Cyrus and Christ read the words of Isaiah and used them to announce and justify their ministries. Each had a desire to not only fulfill the words of Isaiah but, more importantly, also the will of God.
The parallels here are stark. If Cyrus wasn’t a type of Christ, the coincidences are quite remarkable, to say the least. Most readers will have read this paper with an opinion already formed, whether that opinion is about the validity of the LDS faith and their canon, the unity of the Book of Isaiah, or the idea that Cyrus was a type of Christ. In any case it is difficult to persuade someone of something they are already convinced about. But I don’t believe that is always the point of scholarship, at least not for me. I believe the goal is to present someone with a new context and perspective to approach the text. It is a privilege to hear one another’s readings and to see what is guiding them. I believe what I have presented here should be of interest to critics in many different fields.
