Cyrus-the-Achaemenian

P r e f a c e

2009-10-15T22:32:00.000-07:00

C Y R U S THE A C H A E M E N I A N

KING OF PERSIA and KING OF BABEL

M E S S I A H O F T H E L O R D

By

Dr. Asher Eder^©

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilize in any form or by any means, electronic or me- chanical, including ph- otocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.

Cyrus-the-Achaemenian

P r e f a c e

One of the most astonishing, indeed uniquely outstanding figures in human history is the Persian King Cyrus – mentioned by Prophet Isaiah as Shepherd and Messiah of the Lord.

The more so it is astounding that the confluence of mundane history and Scriptural teaching in that unique personality and its tremendous impact on history and culture go rather unnoticed in comparison to that of Caesar; Alexander; Napoleon; and others.

I have to admit that also my interest in King Cyrus was sparked off only in a conversation with a friend of mine, Ms Rahel Yarden ז"ל which took place more than 35 years ago. Unexpectedly she pointed at the ongoing 2500 years celebrations in Persia since King Cyrus. She said that we Jews ought to thank him not less than the Persians. For, besides releasing the Jewish captives from Babylon and providing for the rebuilding of the Temple, it is to his credit that the sages of then could dedicate themselves to the compilation of the Tanakh [=Hebrew Bible]; and that he was called, by Prophet Isaiah, Shepherd and Messiah of the Lord.

After I returned home from that conversation, I looked up the Book of Isaiah to see for myself what he had to say on the subject. To my surprise, the Hebrew text has indeed the Lord G-d of Israel speaking of Cyrus as “his shepherd”, and “his Messiah”. This fact had so far escaped me as I was used then to read the books of the prophets mainly in their English translations which render the Hebrew word Messiah as anointed.

Now my interest was aroused deeply. What are the criteria of a Messiah? What distinguishes a Messiah from a Prophet; from a redeemer; from a saviour? Or from a king? What was so special in Cyrus’ case that the Prophet, even Isaiah, spoke of him as Messiah, and for that matter spoke not his own mind but quoted the Lord God of Israel as speaking to “his Messiah, to Cyrus”?

A Gentile Messiah of the Lord G-d of Israel – neither a Christian, nor a Jew - how to understand that?

Now, as I am writing these lines, we commemorate the “3000 years of Jerusalem”, or, to be more accurate, King David’s transforming the Canaanite city of Salem into Yerushalayim [=Jerusalem] as the city of hope for peace among all mankind. Before this background, it seems quite appropriate to remember and honor also King Cyrus, Shepherd and Messiah of the Lord.

In our awkward world situation, there are many circles in Judaism, in Christianity, in Islam, as well as in other cultures, who expect the coming soon of a redeemer, or Messiah, or Mahdi, or Avatar, etc. Could an understanding of King Cyrus have some bearing on our respective expectations? I wanted to find out for myself. Now, after more than twenty years’ study of the subject, which I had to do besides my daily work, I think that the findings could well be of interest and of value to many readers.

Cyrus’ peerless personality, his skills as warrior and statesman, his benevolence and righteousness, were praised by friends and foes alike throughout the ages. Reflecting his true devotion, these features of his stood in glaring contrast to the widespread practice of unparalleled atrocities and open gloating therein which characterized the centuries before Cyrus’ rule.

While already this observation may justify adding another monograph to the long list of books written about him, it is the confluence of Biblical and mundane history in his person which calls for elucidation and for the attention so-far hardly anyone has paid

King Cyrus, well known in history as the founder of the Medo-Persian Empire but ignored as the Shepherd and Messiah of the Lord G-d of Heavens and Earth, could in that capacity of his well play the model role in elevating the present quandary and quarrel over Jerusalem into its universal acceptance as the “city of peace”, for the benefit of all.

After all, Cyrus gave history of mankind a new direction:

*Essential concepts, such as democracy and freedom of religion, trace back to Cyrus;

*Without Cyrus’ benevolent deportment and helping hand in restoring Jerusalem and in facilitating the building of the Second Temple destroyed by the Babylonian King Nebukadnezzar shortly before, we Jews would probably not be here; and our Book, spoken of as the Bible in English, would at best have remained a collection of poetically jot down hopes and wailings of another people vanquished in history; and Christianity and Islam would not have come into existence.

*Besides the Tanakh, the Koran praises him, to.

*Zecharaiah’s vision of the Menorah flanked by two olives, has one of its roots in King Cyrus’ stance. This vision carries a message for our time. The State of Israel, relating to that vision, has adopted the Menorah flanked by two olive branches, as the Symbol of State.

*The Sages said: “Prophecy that was needed for the generations to come was written down; that which was not needed for the generations to come was not written down” (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 14a). That is, incorporating Prophet Isaiah’s word about King Cyrus Shepherd and Messiah of the Lord; and Prophet Zechariah’s vision of the Menorah, were seen by the Sages as essential for the generations to come.

The book is an attempt to fuse the relatively sparse Biblical and historic records about Cyrus. It endeavors to shed light on the unparalleled personality of King Cyrus and on his times, as well as on those feats of his which made him truly a Messiah. In our reflections, necessarily so, it will be highly stimulating to look somewhat beyond the personality and the times of King Cyrus, and trace the influence of his stance on history and religions even unto our times.

The book is dedicated to all those who may in their own pondering about the quest of Jerusalem, find in Cyrus a thought provoking figure whose famous edict concerning Jews and Jerusalem has not lost anything of its actuality and validity.

The publication of the manuscript was delayed due to lack of interest in the subject. But now, in 2009, two facts encourage me yet to publish the manuscript:

a) the technical facility to bring it out as eBook;

b) in the last decades, numerous “Peace Nobel Prices” have been awarded to various politicians – Israeli; Arafat; Americans – put peace seems to be farther away than ever.

Hence, may this book show the common root of the three so-called “Abrahamic Religions” and the implication of that awareness as exemplified by King Cyrus.

CYRUS – List of Contents page

2009-10-15T22:31:00.000-07:00

A) Messiahship and Messiahs in the Tanakh 6

B) The historic setting 12

C) The forming of the Persian Empire 13

1) Zarathustra’s impact 14

2) The Achaemenians 15

D) Cyrus’ personality and feats

1) Cyrus’ birth and miraculous survival 16

2) Zarathustra and the possibility of his influence 18

3) Cyrus’ name and Divine call 18

4) Cyrus’ kingship 18

5) The Medes’ turning against Babylon 19

E) Babylon’s fall

1) The New Babylonian Empire 21

2) Belshazzar’s banquet 22

3) Cyrus’ edict to the Babylonians 23

4) Cyrus vis-a-vis the Jewish captives in Babylon 25

F) Cyrus’ Edict

1) Its text 29

2) Its brilliant formulation 30

3) The Edict’s arrangement for restitutions 32

4) Cyrus’ attitude beyond tolerance 33

5) Confirmation of the Edict by successor kings 33

6) A message throughout the ages 34

7) Objections to Cyrus’ messiahship refuted 35

G) More reflections on Cyrus’ unique personality and politics 36

H) Opposing forces in the Persian Court 39

I) The Samaritans’ rivalry 40

K) Haman’s plot – the Story of Purim 44

L) The Persian Kings and the Temple 52

M) The period of the Second Temple 52

N) The Jewish Community vis-a-vis Persia 54

1) A Jewish king during the period of the Second Temple? 55

2) A challenge 57

3) Direction of prayer 58

4) Compilation of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) 59

5) Translations of the Tanakh 59

6) Israel and the nations

O) The Fifth Century B.C.E. 62

P) Zechariah’s vision of the Menorah – reflected in symbol of the State of Israel 63

Q) Ezra’s celebration of Succoth and its far-reaching prophetic impact 68

R) Cyrus’ Tomb. Its inscription and bequest 69

S) Cyrus, Messiah of the Lord, and Alexander the Great 70

T) King Cyrus in the Koran 71

U) Some more reflections 72

V) Addendum 73

Notes 81

Back cover write up (suggestion):

2009-10-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

Cyrus the Great

King Cyrus is known as an outstanding, unparalleled figure in mankind's history. Even more startling is Prophet Isaiah's word calling him "Shepherd and Messiah" of the Lord. Surprisingly enough, not much attention was paid so far to the real meaning of giving these extraordinary titles to a Gentile king.

The author who pondered the subject for many years, endeavours to fill this gap. In this book, he acquaints the reader with fresh and amazing insights into the intricacy of Biblical and mundane history, and sheds light on King Cyrus' Messiahship.

The book presents the subject in a way which allows effortless to draw comparisons to our times. It may well answer the quest of many who look for a Redeemer, Messiah, Mahdi, Avatar, or by what other term peoples of different cultural backgrounds are used to think in view of that subject. This adds an extra aspect to the book's valuable findings.

The author presents the subject in remarkable lucidity and pleasant readability. He has traveled extensively in the Orient to make himself acquainted with its cultures, and this turned out to be an asset for writing this book.

Other publications of the author:

*The Star of David - an ancient symbol of integration

published by Reuben Mass, Jerusalem, 1987.

Also on:

http://star-of-david.blogspot.com/

*Peace is possible between Ishmael and Israel according to the Koran (A study of sayings of the Koran about Israel and her vocation), published by Root & Branch Assoc, P.O.Box 8672, Jerusalem/Israel, at www//rb&rb.org.il

1) Messiahship and Messianic personalities in the Tanakh

2009-10-15T22:27:00.000-07:00

The term Messiah, Anointed, is known to Jews, Christians, and Muslim. As each of them has his particular understanding of its meaning, it seems appropriate to elucidate its denotation in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, whence it originated.

Christians know only of Jesus as The Messiah (=The Christ, The Anointed), and expect his second coming as the redemption from the world’s confusion and troubles.

Jews focus on King David who is called Messiah of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible, and hope for a “Son of David” as the Redeemer.

Muslim speak, on the one hand, of Rassul Mohammed as the last, and final, one of the prophets – the “Seal of the Prophets” – yet are aware of a passage in the Koran which speaks of Jesus as Messiah; and of another passage which predicts the coming of a Comforter (Ahmed).

In non-Biblical religions, we meet the Hindus who expect an Avatar who would terminate the present Kali Yuga (=Age of Darkness), and would usher mankind into the Satya Yuga (=Age of Truth). And we meet the Parsees (“Zarathustrians”) whose scriptures foretell a re-appearance (“Second Coming”) of Zarathustra who would deliver the peoples of truth from the abyss, and establish righteousness and truth on earth.

While Hindus and Parsees do not apply the term Messiah in connection with their respective hopes, it is yet obvious that there is much in common with the hopes nourished by the three religions which relate to Abraham.

All of us became aware in the recent years that we are one mankind, living in one “global village” – either living together, or perishing together by the means developed by human brains and hands.

What can we in this situation learn from King Cyrus, an extraordinary world leader as well as an unique Biblical figure?

Since he is little known, even ignored, in that latter aspect, let us have a deeper look into the subject.

The Persian King Cyrus, known as Cyrus the Great, is called both Shepherd and Messiah (Anointed) of the Lord in the Book of Prophet Isaiah. It is important to note that the Prophet does not speak here is own mind, rather, he brings the word of the Lord, as follows1:

“Thus says the Lord thy redeemer... that says of Cyrus, he is my Shepherd, and shall perform all my desire: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the Temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus says the Lord to his Messiah [למשיחו], to Cyrus, whose right hand I have beholden..."

We should note that most English translations of the Bible render here the Hebrew word משיח (meshiah, Messiah) as anointed² , while this word as well as its Greek version Christos (Christ) got in the Western world solely applied to Jesus. At the same time, consequently so-to-speak, those figures who are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh, so-called OT) as Messiahs, are simply called anointed in the translations.

In our endeavor to understand the intrinsic denotation of the word Messiah, we have first of all to acknowledge that it is a unique and peculiar Hebrew term, and subsequently we have to deduce its basic meaning from the Hebrew Scriptures³. We have to find answers from there to the questions:

>Who is termed Messiah in these Scriptures?

>What were their specific qualities?

>What were the peculiarities which distinguished them from other great personalities known in the Tanakh or in the mundane world?

>What message do these Scriptures want to convey to us in this respect?

Especially mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures as Messiahs are:

The Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob)⁴

The Kings Saul and David⁵

King Cyrus

Speaking of Cyrus as Messiah is outstanding and remarkable insofar as

a) the term Messiah as title appears in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) only in connection with the Patriarchs, the Kings Saul and David, and King Cyrus. High Priests, other kings, and prophets who were anointed⁶, are nowhere called Messiahs. Since a gentile who engages sincerely in Torah, is considered like a High Priest in Jewish thinking, he could well be seen as anointed by the spirit of the Lord speaking through the Torah - which, of course, would not make such a Gentile a Messiah.

b) no non-Jew besides Cyrus was ever called Messiah;

c) Judaism did not acknowledge other personalities as Messiahs although some were called so by their followers (e.g. Jesus in the Gospels, and in the Koran⁷; Bar-Cokhba by Rabbi Akiba; Shabtai Zvi; and others).

The common denominator for the Messiahs mentioned in a) seems to be their walking in the spirit of the Lord, their acting accordingly, and their success therein:

"The spirit of wisdom and understanding,

the spirit of counsel and might,

the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord"⁸.

In general, it is apparently through the act of anointment that this spirit of the Lord comes upon the Anointed9. Explicitly mentioned in this regard are King Saul and King David:

"And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you -Saul- (...'וצלחה עליך רוח-ה ) and you shall prophesy with them, and shall be turned into another man".

“Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him [David] in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David (. אל-דוד.'(תצלח רוח-ה from the day forward."

Although there is no specific mentioning in the Tanakh, we may safely assume that the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who learned from Shem and 'Eber¹⁰, were also anointed by them.

Saul was anointed as Messiah by Prophet Samuel, but there is no mentioning in the Scriptures that the Prophet anointed him also as king¹¹. Yet many scholars understand Samuel's word to Saul: "Is it not because the Lord has anointed thee captain over is inheritance"¹², not as part of a question as the structure of the whole verse may suggest, but as a positive statement that Saul was indeed anointed ruler. If so, he was anointed directly by the Lord, without the intermission of a prophet or elder, as there is no mentioning whatsoever that Samuel actually performed the act of anointing him. Such a scriptural statement would have quite some bearing in our probing of Cyrus' anointment.

It seems that the sages acknowledged the possibility of such a direct anointment. When Rabbi Aqiba proclaimed Bar-Cokhba as Messiah, he did so although there was no prophet or Elder around who could perform an act of anointment.

In contrast, of David it is said that besides his spiritual anointment he was also anointed as king of Judah, and later on also as king of Israel by the Elders. Thus, David got anointed three times¹³.

While all these cases may lead to the conclusion that an act of anointing by the hand of a prophet or the Elders is the general rule for recognizing a person as Messiah, the case of Bar-Cokhba shows that this must not necessarily be so in Jewish thinking:

Apparently there is a difference in the respective positions of the Patriarchs, the High Priests, and the kings: the latter officiated also as rulers. The Tanakh hints at this differentiation. There the Patriarchs are called Anointed and the High Priests are spoken of as anointed, while the kings are in addition also mentioned as נגיד [nagid] which means ruler¹⁴.

The Kings of Judah after King David received only the anointment to be kings but were not called Messiah¹⁵.

Looking back at the chain of relevant events so far, we may say that the Patriarchs referred to as Messiahs in Ps. 105:15 re-introduced monotheism into mankind after Nimrod’s and Babel’s deviation¹⁶, and laid the spiritual and ethnical foundation for Israel¹⁷

King Saul, anointed by Prophet Samuel, discontinued Israel’s tribalism, and established the Kingship¹⁸;

King David, anointed by Prophet Samuel and the Elders of Judah and Israel, defeated the enemies around, secured peace for Israel, founded Zion, and proclaimed foremost in his Psalms the Kingship of the Lord over all mankind¹⁹.

These two Kings, Saul and David, introduced the period of the First Temple (which was then actually built by David’s son Solomon). The temple building itself may be seen as the visible and touchable focus of Zion, this term describing the linkage between the people, the land, and the Divine Teaching (Torah).

King Cyrus, then, made Jerusalem’s Divine status legal also in the realm of international politics, and introduced through his activities the period of the Second Temple¹⁹.

In fact, he set up a new era in man’s history altogether, as we will see in the following chapters.

From this we may infer that a crucial characteristic of a Messiah is the direct preparation for the Temple and what it stands for, even if these preparations involve wars. What is more, in their officiating as kings and in their preparations for the Temples, they introduced new epochs in the history of mankind. Each one of them brought a special aspect of the Divine into it, something which can be attributed also to the Patriarchs, whence also they were called Messiahs. These criteria certainly distinguish them from saviors or redeemers.

However, the First Temple was actually built by King Solomon who was not called Messiah. Likewise the construction of the Second Temple was actually begun by Sheshbazzar, Zerubabel, and Yehoshua²⁰, neither of whom is called Messiah; nor were Cyrus' successors called Messiah although the actual building of the Temple took place under their reign²¹.

We may infer that the successful preparation for the building of the Temple and what it stands for, is in respect to the title Messiah more important than its actual building. As said, the Messiahs introduced by their God-related activities new periods in the culture of mankind. In the following chapters we will see what that means in view of Cyrus.

The Jewish Temples are Houses of Peace with other nations, and not houses of war against them. This was true for the First and for the Second Temple, and more so will it be with the Third Temple. That means to say that the Messiahs who introduced the periods of peace symbolized by the Temple, are not merely warriors (as so many other kings of history were). By fighting wars of righteousness against evil forces they prepare the ground for building the Temple spiritually and materially (politically), but apparently it is not their task to actually build it. We may say the Temples were outer expressions and manifestations of a state of mind represented and pursued by these Messiahs. Jewish Temples are the visible and touchable residence for God's Name on earth amidst men prepared by men of His Will.

True, there were kings in history who fought wars and then introduced long periods of peace, however without being called Messiah. An outstanding example is Emperor Ashoka of the 2nd Century BCE who made India a Buddhist country with a long period of peace. We may conclude that he was not given the title of a Messiah as he was neither anointed by a prophet, nor did he prepare for a Temple (in this case, the Second Temple) and the Divine teaching (Torah) it stands for.

This shows us that peace in the meaning of absence of war is not the ultimate goal. It is the guidance of mankind in God's spirit of truth and righteousness which will eventually achieve peace as an expression of God’s glory on earth.

This explains also why Judaism could not recognize Jesus, Bar Cokhba, Shabtai Zvi, etc, as Messiahs: They did not bring about the conditions for restoring the Temple and what it stands for.

For the sake of clarification, we should reflect here briefly on the wide spread expectations of the Coming of the Messiah (or Second coming, in Christian thought). The Rambam formulated he Jewish expectations masterly in the respective passage of his 13 Articles of Faith. It reads:

אני מאמין באמונה שלמה בביאת המשיח...

“I believe in complete faith in the coming [of the] Messiah…”

The term ביאת המשיח, coming [of the] Messiah, is grammatically a gerund by intention, that is, it speaks of a readiness or openness of the people(s) in view of his coming; and simultaneously of a permanent presence and readiness of the Messiah to appear and take up rule – inasmuch as the people(s) are truly ready for it. In fact, he is much more waiting for us than we are waiting for him²². Let it here be mentioned for the readers of the Gospels that the latter express the very same idea, at least in their original Greek version²³.

In case the teaching of Jesus should ever induce the nations to ready spiritually, theologically and physically for the Third Temple and what it stands for, Judaism would probably have no qualms to recognize him as an anointed who helped preparing the coming of the Messiah, this in spite of all the spiritual and physical sufferings inflicted in his name on his people by Crusades, Inquisition, pogroms, Holocaust, etc. The reflections on Cyrus in the following chapters may help clarify the point in question.

Summing up our above findings, we may describe the bearing features of a Messiah-King as follows:

a) He is dyed in the Spirit of the Lord as outlined by Prophet Isaiah, and is subdued to it (in Hebrew, the word Messiah, , משיחderives from the word שחwhich means bent, bowed);

b) in that Spirit, he does not do away with the commandments, nor does he alter them; he rather helps to bring them to their fulfillment and fruition as symbolized by the Temple;

c) he saves the people of Israel from the lowest pits of degradation and lifts them up to their true status. King David saved Israel from the hands of the Philistines who had overpowered King Saul and his state; and King Cyrus saved Israel from its captivity in Babylon, even before the completion of the 70 years forewarned by Prophet Jeremiah²⁴;

d) he prepares for the actual building of the Temple;

e) he introduces by his activity a new period in the history of mankind;

f) apparently two Messiah-Kings cannot function side by side at the same time²⁵;

g) God in his absolute sovereignty can even from the Gentile nations call forth a Messiah;

h) while Cyrus had the full sovereignty of a king, he granted the Jews religious/cultural autonomy.

i) King Cyrus, in addition to the above, was called also "My Shepherd", besides Messiah, as mentioned. In the Holy Scriptures, we find this term nowhere applied to a human being except for Cyrus. A shepherd, by definition, provides for the flock and tries to protect it - that's just what Cyrus did in regard to the Jews, as well as to other peoples.

The above points provide also an answer to our question about the distinctive characteristics between a Messiah, a savior, or a prophet, notwithstanding the fact that there can be overlappings. King David, for instance, can well be seen as a savior, too; and he was definitely also a prophet²⁶. Many of his Psalms contain prophecies, and the Prophets after him from Isaiah to Malachi base upon them. On the other hand, King Cyrus did not speak as a prophet, although his famous edict implies prophetic aspects (as we will see in the following).

Why were the Persian Empire, nor the Second Temple, then not graced by a permanent state of peace although Cyrus and most of his successors endeavored to stride for that Divine righteousness which would bring about lasting peace? In the following, we will have to deal with that question, too.

B) The historic setting

2009-10-15T22:26:00.002-07:00

A brief look at the situation of the world of then may give us even a better understanding of Cyrus' Messiahship.

It is rather known that the empires of the area - Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Elam, Hittites, etc, - were constantly at war one with the other. These wars were fought with the utmost fierceness and brutality. All kind of cruelties and atrocities were committed for their own sakes as well as to strike terror into the hearts of men. Records of ancient historians (Herodot, Xenophon, etc) speak volumes thereabout. While one might be inclined to deem them as exaggerating, archeological findings are even more revealing. An inscription on a palace wall by an Assyrian king named Ashur Nezar Pal may illustrate this point. It reads:

"According to the commandments of Ashur and Asthar, the Great Gods, I attacked the city (of Ginyu) and conquered it in no time. Without hesitation I beheaded six hundred warriors of the enemy, three thousand prisoners were burnt alive and I did not leave alive a single one of them as hostage. I personally skinned alive the governor of the city, and from there I marched towards the city of Tila. The people of the city did not abjectly surrender to me. Consequently, I attacked their city and smashed the gates. I put three thousand persons to the sword; many others I roasted in fire; innumerable prisoners their tongues pulled out; their hands, fingers, ears and noses cut off and thousands of eyeballs were pulled out of their sockets. With the corpses of the dead I built barricades and their heads severed from their bodies, were hung on arches outside the city"1.

Assyria's most famous king, Tiglath-Pileser III, boasted likewise: "[Rezin, King of Damascus], in order to save his life [after his army was routed], fled alone, and entered the gate of his city like a lemur. His chief ministers I impaled alive and had his country behold them"2.

A clay prism, found in the ruins of Nebukadnezzar's palace, on which he describes his battle against Judea's King Hezekiah, shows him in the same vogue: "As for Hezekiah ... himself, like a caged bird I shut (him) up in Jerusalem his royal city ... Anyone coming out of the city gate, I turned into an abomination ...". Apparently those who trusted his offer to escape the siege and be brought into another land, as mentioned in 2.Kings 18:31,32, were "turned into an abomination".

Many more records of that type could be quoted, including passages from the Tanakh3.

Also peoples in farer away regions were absorbed in this frenzy. Herodot, describing the Massagetae, a people living in the area between Lake Aral and Afghanistan, tells us that families put their own children outdoors even in icy winters and gave them food enough only for half of them so that they would have to fight for it, and only the strongest would survive. Another "custom" of theirs was to kill an elder man once he was not able anymore to have his way with women, to butcher him and boil or roast the pieces, and the community including his family would savor them, together with other sacrificial offerings, in a festive meal. - More known is the practice of the Spartans who simply deposed weeklings, and amputated the right breasts of their womenfolk so that they could better draw the bow. Concomitant to these atrocities were, necessarily so, all kind of corruptions and treacheries. In short, mankind must have been in an unprecedented ethical, moral, and political low fanned and exploited by the rulers.

The Kingdoms of Israel and of Judah fell prey to them. The tribes of the former were deported in 722 B.C.E. by the Assyrians into the lands of the Medes4 and into other lands in the east. Shortly after, King Nebukadnezzar of Babel defeated the Southern Kingdom, destroyed the Temple (in 586 B.C.E.), and led the majority of the people into captivity, known as the Babylonian exile.

C) The forming of the Persian Empire

2009-10-15T22:26:00.001-07:00

The lands of what became later on known as Persia were at that time ruled by several local kings. Most of them were vassals to bigger neighboring powers. The Medes were subjected to the Assyrians, Elam to Babylonia, etc. Naturally so, these vassals tried to shake off their yokes, and occasionally succeeded.

The Medes, fierce fighters, were the first to gain independence from dominating Assur and, being in alliance with Babylonia, could eventually conquer Niniveh (625 B.C.E.). Media, under its kings Cyaxares and Astyages, achieved supremacy over Minor Asia and Iran, including the provinces of Persia, Anshan, and Elam, where local kinglets became vassals. It became a danger to Babylonia, then the mightiest power¹.

Cyrus, king of Persia, took advantage of the situation. He could count on Babylonia's King Nabunaid's suspicion of Media on the one hand, and on the mood of the Median nobility and army on the other hand. Astyages' extreme cruelty must have been too much even for them. Both army detachments which he sent against rebelling Cyrus, mutineered and went over to the latter, delivering even their king into his hands2. The Babylonians, although in alliance with Media, felt apparently relieved by seeing it crumbling, and looked on.

1) Zarathustra and his impact.

2009-10-15T22:25:00.003-07:00

Before this background we should see also the appearance of Zarathustra. Persian tradition knows either three different persons by the name, or title, Zarathustra, or relates to three different periods in which he appeared. In any case, the most likely period of the one who is commonly known as Zarathustra, is the 7^th or 6^th Century BCE. In one of his Gathas (Divine Songs, or Praises), he prays: “Grant Thou, O Aramaiti (=the unflinching faith in the love of God), strength to Vishtaspa the King, and to me. And Thou, O Mazda, give sovereign power that we Thy devotees may spread about Thy Holy Word” (Yasna 28:7; also 46:14). This Vishtaspa the King (or governor) of Bhaktria and patron of Zarathustra’s teaching, is also mentioned in the Behistun inscription as a contemporary and relative (uncle) of King Cyrus the Great.

The place of Zarathustra’s birth and activity was the land of the Medes. Ancient Persian and Greek traditions mention him as the Spitama Zarathustra, indicating that Spitama was his family name (cf Yasna 46:15), and Zarathustra his epithet.

It is not too far fetched to assume that the fame of the Kings David and Solomon which had reached the Queen of Sheba in the south, had certainly reached peoples in the north, too, and thus perhaps also Zarathustra.

In this context, we should take into account the brief mentioning of an episode from the time of King Ahab, of the (Northern) Kingdom of Israel before its destruction by the Assyrians. After he had routed thoroughly an attacking army of the Arameans (“Syrians” in many English Bibles), some servants of their fleeing King Ben-Hadad advised him: “We have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings: let us … put sack cloth on our loins … and go out to the king of Israel [=Ahab]: peradventure he will save thy life…”^2a. That is, the humaneness of the kings of Israel must have been a fact well known to the peoples of that time, notwithstanding the prevailing atmosphere of cruelties and atrocities mentioned above.

What is more, Zarathustra might have been influenced also by the culture of those tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who were exiled “into the lands of the Medes” shortly before by the Assyrians, as mentioned. The exile of these tribes, centuries after Abraham had sent his seven sons from Kethura "with gifts" to the east, was like a dissemination of Israel's message unto the nations, not only as a side effect by chance but by Divine intention as we may conclude from Hosea's words: "And I will sow her [Israel] unto me in the earth"3. And Zarathustra may well have been a fruit thereof. - There are traditions that even the famous city of Isfahan was founded by exiled Jews3a.

Notwithstanding the possibility of such influences, Zarathustra must have been quite an autonomous personality, deeply moved by his longing for God on the one hand, and by the awful conditions in which mankind was entangled at his times. A quotation from one of his discourses, or Gathas (songs), in Yasht 29 may illustrate this point, and his character as well4:

"Unto Thee, O Lord, the Soul of Creation cried:

'For whom didst thou create me, and who so fashioned me?

Feuds and fury, violence and the insolence of might

have oppressed me.

None have I to protect me save Thyself,

Command for me, then, the blessings of a settled, peaceful life'. (29-1)

"Thereupon, the Lord Ahura said to Truth:

'Whom wilt thou have as a chief for the world,

to be its protector and its ruler,

who, with his zealous energy, may bring prosperity to it?

Whom wilt thou have as its lord, who may drive off

violence and smite back the forces of Evil?' (29-2)

And thus to the Lord, does Truth reply:

"I know no chief who can give the world shelter from woes;

I know none who knows what moves and works thy lofty plans.

Mazda knows best what works have been wrought

by the followers of evil and by mortal men;

and He knows what shall be wrought for them forever hereafter.

The Lord Ahura is the discerning Judge.

To us let it be as He shall will" (29-3,4)

And thus, we two, my soul and the Soul of Creation,

prayed with hands outstretched to the Lord Ahura,

and thus, we two urged Mazda with entreaties:

"Let not destruction overtake the right-living,

let not the diligent good suffer at the hands of evil" (29-5)

In an ensuing stanza, Zarathustra then prays in a way which sounds like a prayer for a Cyrus type redeemer:

"O Ahura Mazda! Do Thou grant patience and strength to the Soul of Creation;

With the help of Truth and Good Mind,

give mankind power to bring rest and happiness to the world,

of which Thou, my Lord,

art indeed the first Possessor". (32-10).

2) The Achaemenians

2009-10-15T22:25:00.001-07:00

Cyrus, called the Achemenian after the dynasty of that name, must have had a very noble ancestry. Following the Behistun records of Darius I⁵, he was the fourth Achaemenian king after the founder of that dynasty, Achaemenes. Although there are no historic records about the early kings besides their names, it is the name Achaemenes which speaks volumes. It may be rendered as Friend of Men, or perhaps Brother of Men⁶. Wherefrom did the founder of that dynasty take the idea and the courage to style himself this way and to make it the guiding principle for rulership, in an era of extreme violence, brutality, and corruption, allover the world of then?

It is well possible that Achaemenes heard of the fame of the First Temple and what it stood for⁸; and that he was told about the fate of the Kingdom of Israel; or had even personal contact with some of its exiles. Whatever the case might have been, it is surely most remarkable that in that era of cruelty and violence a small local king in a remote province of Persia made it a principle of his government to rule as "Friend of Men".

This ancestral background of Cyrus II makes us aware that he did not come out from the nowhere but rather that he could build upon a solid foundation. The good ancestry, and the contact with Divine teachers, are by the way, other components he shares with King David Messiah of Israel.

However, it was only with Cyrus II that the Achaemenians made their impact on world history in a big and decisive scale.

D) Cyrus' personality and feats

2009-10-15T22:24:00.004-07:00

1) Cyrus' birth.

The personality of King Cyrus must have been extraordinary. Besides amazing events at his birth and upbringing, ancient historians stress the uniqueness of his character which must have been outstanding in many respects from the start (see below). Apparently he had a flare of anointment already in his early youth, perhaps comparable to that of David recorded in Ps. 89:21 which reads: "Then thou spakest in vision to thy pious ones, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen out of the people; I have found David my servant: with my holy oil have I anointed him" - and Prophet Samuel who was sent to Ishai (Jesse) had to anoint David, after he had to reject the elder brothers of the latter (1.Sam. 16:12,13). We may assume that Cyrus was likewise "found and exalted and anointed" by the Lord from birth, or even from before. To demonstrate this point, it seems appropriate to bring here in brief what the ancient Greek historian Herodot imparts to us:

Astyages, King of the Medes, dreamt one night that from his daughter Mandane came forth so much water that his capital and all of Asia were covered by it. Afraid that a child of hers would usurp the throne, he got her married not to a Mede nobleman as would have been customary, but to Cambysos, a quiet and good minded Persian of that vasall province. He thought he would have nothing to fear from this inferior tribe. Then, Astyages saw in a second dream that a vine grew from his daughter's womb which would cover all of Asia. Even more scared, he ordered Mandane who was already pregnant to be brought from Persia to his capital. Immediately after she gave there birth to Cyrus, Astyages called Harpagos, a relative of his and a high ranking official, and commanded him to take this child into his house, to kill it and burry it there. Harpagos, feeling duty bound yet hesitating to kill the child by his own hands, called for one of Astyages' shepherds who lived in the remote mountains, to take the child and to expose it there to the wild beasts. After returning home, his wife Spako (that is, beach), overwhelmed by the beauty of the child, suggested to him to expose and burry her recently still born child instead, and to raise Cyrus who then, already in his very young age, showed obvious traits of royalty. When Astyages found out that Harpagos had disobeyed the order to kill the child, he tricked the latter one's son into the royal palace, got him killed and cut into pieces. He then invited the unsuspecting father to a festive banquet where he was fed roasted parts of his son, and then given in a basket the remaining head and limbs. - Harpagos remained in office, outwardly faithful but secretively plotting against Astyages: He induced Cyrus to revolt against Astyages, and promised him to be on his side, together with many of the Medes' nobility. Herodot mentions then that Astyages sent an army under the command of Harpagos against the revolting Persians. We may infer that he saw nothing extraordinary in his previous treatment of Harpagos; or else how could he have expected the latter to remain faithful? Indeed, after a feign battle, Harpagos joined forces with Cyrus' Persians. Astyages, enraged, led personally another army against Cyrus. It mutineered, too, and Cyrus was made king over Media and Persia.

This story, quoted from Herodot's research and perspective, indicates that even according to his - the Greek's – understanding, Cyrus was destined to become the ruler of Asia.

Whether Cyrus had already in his early years contact with (Jewish/Israelite) prophets or sages, is rather doubtful. Such contacts could have come about with those exiled Israelites who founded Isfahan, and perhaps also other places in Persia. But Is.45:3,4 says:

"And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and the hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel...I have even called thee by thy name; I surnamed thee though thou hast not known me".

This seems to indicate that Cyrus had not known the Lord God of Israel, that is, he had not come in contact with a prophet or Hebrew teacher before he captured Babel, but that he was called upon directly by the Lord from his early youth - similar to young David, as we saw.

Cyrus' call got apparently confirmed in his encounter with Prophet Daniel (see below) as well as by the "treasures of darkness and the hidden riches of secret places" - most likely the sacred Temple utensils carried away by Nebukadnezzar to Babylonia and, at least partly, redeemed from there by Cyrus.

2) Zarathustra and the possibility of his influence

2009-10-15T22:24:00.003-07:00

Besides the education he got from his ancestors, Cyrus may have become familiarized with Zarathustra's teaching via an uncle of his, Vishtaspa (Hystaspes) the father of Darius I2, who was at that time governor of Bhaktria, a province east of the land of the Medes, and who was a disciple of that Iranian teacher, even a patron of his teaching, as mentioned.

3) Cyrus' name and Divine call

2009-10-15T22:24:00.001-07:00

The ancient historian Strabo suggests that the name Cyrus, or rather Kurush in the Persian language, was taken from a river of that name, but he does not bring any hint for what reason the king should have been named after a river which otherwise was not known either. Others propose that the word Kurush might be related to Sanskrit Kuru3 = field (as e.g. kurukshetra, field of the warriors or battlefield, known from the Bhagavadgita), and would thus describe him as the Man of the Field, or, in a wider sense, as shepherd. If such an etymological connection could be established, it would concur with Prophet Isaiah's word which reads: "He (i.e. the Lord) says to Cyrus: 'My Shepherd'; and all my desire shall he perform..." (43:28).

On the other hand, the name Cyrus was apparently not uncommon. One of his ancestors, Cyrus I, bore this name, too, as mentioned.

4) Cyrus' kingship

2009-10-15T22:23:00.000-07:00

Cyrus, king of a relatively small province called Persia, adopted in early years the title King of Anshan, a title originally used by Elamite kings. Anshan, if it was the name of a territory, was either the homeland of the once powerful kings of Elam; or it was conquered by them and incorporated into their kingdom. After Elam's final destruction by the hands of Assurbanipal, in 647/6 B.C.E., the province by that name may either have been conquered by one of Cyrus' ancestors who took then up the title King of Anshan (thus claiming succession to Elam); or it was given to the Achaemenians by the blood related powerful Medes in case they were contended with annexing the bigger part of Elam. Cyrus, then, inherited this title which must have expressed some importance for the Achaemenians. Some scholars hold that even the name Kurush is an Elamite word.

Anyway, he was then a vasall of the Medes. Approximately in 550 BCE, i.e. 37 years after the destruction of the First Temple by Nebukadnezzar, he overthrew them with the help of big parts of the Median nobility who cherished his noble character, as mentioned. Uniting the Persian and Median tribes, he founded the Medo-Persian Empire. In the following years he defeated declining Assyria, and swiftly conquered Minor Asia which was partly ruled by the Greeks, and partly by Croesus the famous king of the Lydians. Most of the peoples, taken in by Cyrus' humaneness and sense of righteousness, opened their gates and welcomed him as liberator.

5) The Medes’ turning against Babylon

2009-10-15T22:22:00.002-07:00

While Assyria was still the domineering empire, the quite mighty Medes and ascending Babylon entered a friendship and defense alliance. In 625 BCE they defeated Assyria decisively, and destroyed Niniveh the latter’s capital (according to another counting, it was destroyed in 612 BCE) – verifying Prophet Nahum’s prediction⁴⁾. Roughly 80 years later, Cyrus, the King of Media and Persia, after conquering Minor Asia, defeated finally what had remained of Assyria. Now he had to face Babylon the ally of old. He could do so with the full consent of the Medes as we may gather from history, and, strikingly enough, as alluded to by Prophet Isaiah, in his prophecy, the “Burden of Babylon”. There, in chpt 13:17, we read:

“Behold, I will stir up against them [=Babylon] the Medes which shall not regard silver, and as for gold, they shall not delight in it”

This prophecy, spoken by Isaiah some 200 years earlier, foresees not only the Medes’ assault on the domineering empire, Babylon (which did not exist yet a Isaiah’s days); it even says that they, the Medes, “stirred up” by the Lord, attacked her not for the sake of booty, “silver and gold”. Their motif was different, in fact unheard of so far in history. “Stirred up” by the Lord may well mean that they were imbued with a spirit similar to that of King Cyrus the Achaemenian who himself was called by the Lord, as we saw.

Here, we ought briefly to reflect on the meanings of the terms “stirred up” by the Lord, and being “called” by Him. The latter tells us of a direct and so-to-speak personal approach from on High.⁴⁾ In contrast, one can be stirred up by higher forces, and/or also through outer events as e.g. the meeting with an inspiring personality; the reading of an invigorating text; a striking disaster; etc. Cyrus was both called by the Lord; and then, after his conquest of Babylon, was stirred up by events to be dealt with later.

The stirring up of the Medes, although apparently effectuated by Cyrus’ personality, was part of the Lord’s work and invention in history. Yet, we should not think that this “stirring up” by the Lord turned the Medes docile or lenient. In history, they are known as fierce fighters. In Isaiah’s vision, they are even described as cruel: “Their bows shall dash the young men to pieces, and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children” (Is. 13:18).

This depicts quite accurately the situation as it prevailed in the times before Cyrus. We saw in a previous chapter how the Medien king Astyages dealt, apparently quite routinely so, with his army’s commander, Harpagos; and we looked briefly into the day-to-day cruelties of the Assyrians and of the Massagetes as examples of what was then the norm. Then this changed with the “stirring up” of Cyrus by the Lord. While the Medes (and Persians) remained formidable fighters, they did not take to cruelties for cruelty’s sake; nor were they motivated by gold and silver. Their motivation was changed, and along therewith their behavior. Peoples, instead of being terrified, welcomed them, and opened their gates to them, as mentioned. Isaiah says to this point: “… I will loose the loins of the kings, to open before him [=Cyrus] the two-winged portals; and the gates shall not be closed” (Is. 45:1).

With this background in mind, we may see now the turning of the Medo/Persians against Babylon.

f) A summing up reflection of the Lord’s actions toward Cyrus, and lessons derived from it, gleaned from the Book of Isaiah:

· He raised Cyrus from the east – Is. 41:2,25; 45:13;

· He called Cyrus by name – Is. 45:3,4; also 48:15

· He subjugated nations under Cyrus – Is. 41:2; 45:1-3;

· He makes all paths level before Cyrus – Is. 41:3; 45:2,13;

· He makes Cyrus doing His pleasure (i.e. subduing Babylon and releasing her captives, the Jews) – Is. 44:28; 46:10; 48:10;

· Cyrus is called and supported by the Lord on behalf of Israel – 45:3,4,8,10; 48:12-14; also 44:24-26; 46:9.

In direct connection therewith, the Prophet stresses

· the vanity of the gods of the nations, apparently to emphasize that it is the Lord God of Israel who ultimately governs history (e.g. Is. 41:6,7; 45:4-6;

· the creation theme as another proof that it is the Creator of heavens and earth who is their ultimate governor (e.g. Is. 41:4; 44:26-28). Quite in line therewith is also the application of the term “my shepherd” to Cyrus (in Is. 44:28): it rebuffs the then widespread custom of local rulers to present themselves as the “beloved shepherd” (e.g.. of Enlil; of Shamash; of Marduk, to mention a few examples thereof),

With this background in mind, we may now have a look at the turning of the Medo/Persians against Babylon:

E) Babylon’s fall

2009-10-15T22:22:00.001-07:00

After conquests also in the east, the Persian army deployed now against Babylon¹ and besieged her capital for several years (540-538).

Babylon was then still the dominating empire, In order to understand her quick fall and its implication, we should first have a closer look at its situation:

1) The New Babylonian Empire

2009-10-15T22:21:00.002-07:00

In 627 B.C.E., Nabopolassar succeeds with the help of he Medes to shake off the Assyrians’ yoke, and to establish the so-called New Babylonian Empire in more or less the same area where the ancient Babylonian kingdom existed for several hundred years (it was known then as the Kingdom of the Chaldeans, mentioned as Akkad and Sumer in Gen. 11:9). Under Nabopalassar’s son and successor, Nebukadnezzar II, Babylon became the ruling empire in the world of then, with him as a kind of world leader. Both he and his father had, like the Assyrian kings before them, the aspiration to crown their successes with the conquest of Egypt. In their campaigns against that country, the Kingdom of Judah (Kings Josia, Jehoyakhin, and Zedekiah) got in their way, and was sacked by Nebukadnezzar in 587 BCE. That year marks the destruction of the Judean Kingdom, the end of the First Temple, the begin of the Jewish captivity in Babel; and, as many see it, as the begin of the “Times of the Gentiles” (more on that latter subject see below).

As it happens so often in history, the military victory got hollowed out by the influence the victims exerted on their victors. We may safely assume that the contact with the captives of Judea on the one hand, and Cyrus' humaneness on the other hand, must have had effected the mighty and victorious Babylonians. There are several sources which indicate such effects:

"And the king (Nebukadnezzar) counseled with them (i.e. his advisers), and none among them was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Asariah, and so they served the king; and in every craft and understanding which the king looked for, he found them superior tenfold to all the magicians and astrologers of his kingdom"².

Even if this story should be fictitious, as some believe, it may very well depict the situation.

Another indication for a change of mind from terror and brutality to more humaneness is recorded in Jer. 52:31-34. There, we read about Nebukadnezzar’s successor, King Evil Merodach:

"And it happened in the seven and thirtieth year of the exile of King Jehojachin from Judah..., that Evil Merodach, King of Babel, in the first year of his ascension to the throne, lifted the head of Jehojakhin, King of Judah, and liberated him from the prison, and spoke well to him, and put this chair above the chairs of the other kings who were (captives) in Babel, and changed his prison robes, and fed him all the days of his life..."³

Interestingly enough, this Biblical record is corroborated by the inscription on a clay prism excavated in the ruins of Nebukadnezzar's palace.

King Evil Merodach's successor, Nabunaides, was a learned man. Perhaps stirred up through the contacts with the captive Jews, he began to pursue his own religious ideas, and tried to reduce Babel's many gods to one (Moon)god. As a result, he came to odds with the caste of the priests^3a. In order to avoid an open confrontation, and perhaps disappointed, he left his capital and, together with his court, moved to Tema in Northern Arabia. There are indications that he tried to make this trade center to the new capital of Babylonia. Before leaving, he had put his son Belshazzar in charge of the affairs of Babylon, and thus it was he who had to deal with the country's internal affairs, including the dissatisfaction of the caste of its priests, as well as with the assault of the Persians.

All this shows that Babylon had inwardly become morbid, and that she was at the end of her ways.

2) Belshazzar’s banquet

2009-10-15T22:21:00.001-07:00

Before this background, with Cyrus' army arrayed, we may see Belshazzar's famous banquet⁴ recorded in Daniel chapter⁵. There, Belshazzar had ordered to bring in vessels taken from the Temple in Jerusalem, and to drink from them. While doing so, an ominous writing appeared on the wall of the palace, a writing which the wise of Babel could neither read nor understand. Daniel, whom they brought in, and who was apparently fully aware of Baylonia's gloomy situation, deciphered it as "mene, mene, teqel u'pharsin", meaning Babel, being taken now to account, was found wanting, and would be given to the Persians. Odd as it sounds, Belshazzar and his men rewarded Daniel: they made him to the third man in the state (i.e. after the absent King Nabunaides; and Belshazzar), and adorned him with the due insignia.

We may ask, was the banquet in that situation, and the (mis)use of the Temple vessels, an act of sheer pride; or of utter despair; or of a kind of hope that these vessels would help magically; or played all these three motifs together? What was Belshazzar's motif to appoint Daniel to that office, after he and his retinue were rebuked by him, and the impending danger was made clear to them? Was it an attempt to bribe Daniel and acquiesce him over the misuse of the holy Temple vessels; and, perhaps, to win him over to intercede for them in case the Persians should enter the city? Whatever their reasons might have been, their tactics did not work out: Belshazzar was slain the same night, the Babylonians opened the gates of their city, and the Persian army could enter in summer 538 without actual fight. The citizens of Babel, apparently wearied of all the corruptions and cruelties, were ready for a salvation. Preferring the rule of a humane and just king, they subdued to Cyrus, as many other peoples had done so before them.

After Belshazzar slain, it must have been upon Daniel as the highest ranking official in Babylonia to negotiate her surrender to the entering Persians. Their commander, Gobryas, must have been surprised to have before him one of the captive Jews who had just been elevated to this new position of his. Gobryas consulted Cyrus the king, and it was decided that he would come personally to receive formally Babel's surrender. Meantime, Gobryas left Daniel in charge of Babel's affairs. One of his tasks was to prepare for Cyrus' arrival.

Cyrus arrived in autumn - a few days after the Jewish exiles had celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles once more in the country of their captivity. This time, however, they must have celebrated it already in the hope that Cyrus would liberate them as he had liberated other displaced peoples.

3) Cyrus’edict to the Babylonians

2009-10-15T22:20:00.002-07:00

After his arrival, Cyrus addressed the people of Babel. It seems appropriate to bring here some quotations from this edict of his which deals with the conquest of Babylonia and his attitude towards her inhabitants.

However, before looking at the text and message of his edict, we should for the sake of comparison remember here the inscription on the palace wall by Ashur Nezar Pal quoted above.

In striking contrast, Cyrus' proclamation to the inhabitants of Babel illustrates well his compassion and humaneness. It reads:

"I am Cyrus, the King of Kings..., the King of Babylon, the King of Sumer and Akkad …, from the eternal dynasty the progeny of which is the object of Divine love and whose government is loved by the people. When I entered Babel without any battle, people welcomed my arrival with rejoicings ... In the palace of the kings of Babylon I sat upon the royal throne. Marduk [=the chief god of the Babylonians] inclined the hearts of the noble people of Babylon favorably towards me because I looked upon him with love and respect. My large army entered Babylon comfortably. I did not allow any calamity or harm to befall the people of this city and this country. The internal conditions of Babel and its sacred places touched my heart. I ordered that all the people were free to worship their god - and irreligious persons should not harm them. I ordered that none of the houses of the people should be ruined. I ordered that none of the people should be put to death. The great God was pleased with me and bestowed upon me, Cyrus, and upon my son Cambujiyeh [Cambysos] and upon all my soldiers the gifts of his blessings. I ordered that all the temples of Babel, Susa, Akkad, and in the territory beyond the Euphrates which were built in ancient times and were closed should be reopened...I bestowed upon all the people peace and happiness"⁵.

Besides this edict, in which Cyrus speaks about himself and his attitude towards the citizens of Babylonia, archaeological digs brought a clay tablet to surface which due to its cylindrical shape became known as "Cyrus cylinder". Inscribed apparently by a local priest of Marduk, it tells us about Cyrus:

"Marduk, the great lord, a protector of his people, beheld with pleasure his (i.e. Cyrus') good deeds and his upright mind ... Without any battle he made him enter his town Babylon, sparing Babylon any calamity ... (Cyrus) king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters (of the earth)".

The author of this declaration takes up in a positive way the words of King Cyrus in which he had styled himself as “King of Kings, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad…”

Many are inclined to see in these words of his a kind of self aggrandizement, but why should the priest of Marduk (or whoever wrote that clay cylinder) have adopted them? No one forced him to pay such a lip service. Especially intriguing is the term “King of Sumer and Akkad”. Sumer and Akkad had ceased to exist hundreds of years ago, a fact which was certainly known to Cyrus. Calling them into remembrance in his declaration to the Babylonians, can have only one plausible reason: to give the defeated Babylonians a renewed feeling of self confidence and of continuous historical value; or, in other words, keep them happy even under Persian rule. As King Cyrus stressed, it was his top priority to “bestow upon all people peace and happiness”, and he, the Zarathustrian monotheist not by creed or dogma but in existenciality, was assured that the local gods saw “with pleasure his good deeds and his upright mind”. He acted truly as Achaemenian, Friend of Men.

The above descriptions of entering Babel without fight corroborate Is. 45:1-4 which reads:

"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed (Messiah), to Cyrus, whose right have I holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee, though thou hast not known me, that they may know me from the rising sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me, I am the Lord..."

4) Cyrus vis-a-vis the Jews in Babylon

2009-10-15T22:20:00.001-07:00

Whether the above words of Prophet Isaiah were prophetically written before the event, or afterwards with hindsight, is still disputed amongst scholars⁶. The fact remains that the mightiest empire in the Near & Mid East, Babylon, ceased to exist. Its surrender marked the beginning of a new era, led by Medo-Persia, the second of the four world empires, visualized by Prophet Daniel. Incidentally, it fell upon the latter to negotiate this transition which turned out to be a watershed in history. The initial talks he had with Gobryas, the commander of the Persian army; and then, after Sukkoth of that year, the decisive conversation with Cyrus himself.

We may assume that Daniel who certainly had attached Babylonian notables to the negotiating team, brought then to Cyrus' attention also the peculiarity and the fate of the Jewish captives in Babel. Yet, like Gobryas, it must have been breathtaking also for him to see surrendering Babylon being represented by one of her captives, Daniel, who was catapulted "by the circumstances" into the position of acting governor. Cyrus, by nature and education a devoted man, must have seen God's hand in these circumstances. In addition, Daniel's personality must have made its impression on him, too. On the other hand, also Daniel and the Elders of the Jewish community must have been overwhelmed both by Cyrus' personality and by the way things had worked out so far.

In this context, it seems appropriate to reflect somewhat on the situation.

In his message to the people of Babylonia, Cyrus had introduced himself with the words: "I am Cyrus, the King of Kings, the King of Babylon, the King of Sumer and Akkad...". He, originally the King of Anshan, had by taking over Media and other Persian countries united their kingdoms in his person. Now the crown of Babel had also fallen unto him, and he had become the bearer of two crowns, namely the crowns of Media/Persia, and of Babylon. This is reflected also in our Scriptures which refer to him as "King of Persia" as well as of "King of Babylon"⁷.

Along with Babylon, her Jewish captives including descendants of their royal family, were now in his hands, too. Should he adopt also the title "King of Judah"? The stories he had heard about King David and King Solomon, and about the falls of the Kingdoms of Israel and of Judah, had been tales so far. Even Gobryas' brief and military precise report about Babylon's surrender offered by a Jew named Daniel had not changed this picture dramatically. True, it was startling, but in war all kind of odd situations can arise. But now, in the first personal encounter with Daniel and other Jewish Elders, those stories became enlivened, and the fate of the Jewish captives gained another perspective. From the highest glory under David and Solomon the people had fallen into the deepest abyss. They had collapsed morally and militarily under the constant pressure of mighty and cruel enemies, most of them now subdued by him, Cyrus. And now, he found himself vis-a-vis Daniel.

These Jews, although held captive already for several decades, displayed a character and an attitude towards life quite different from that of other peoples.

Also the Temple vessels recovered so far and shown to him could not be compared to those of other sanctuaries. One of the hallmarks was that there were no figurines amongst them. What is more, didn't the events following the misuse of Temple vessels at Belshazzar's banquet speak volumes? As incredible as the story thereabout may sound to remote listeners, he himself was now discussing terms with Daniel, the hero of that story, a man, not a phantom. A man who represented not only his own people but now even that people which had defeated his people, and taken it into captivity. No doubt, an almighty, invisible force was directing events.

Then, among the recovered Temple vessels, there were also quite a number of metal sheets which looked very ordinary, not at all like something characteristic of a sanctuary. On his enquiry, he was told that these sheets which had once covered the altar, were made from the censers of Korah and his company: they were meant to be a sign unto the Children of Israel⁸ to remind them of the dire consequences of rebelling against God's ordinances and of discarding the Promised Land. That sounded a bit odd, but the deeper he thought of it the more it struck him.

There were also other thoughts. The Jewish prophets professed One God and Creator of all, and likewise did Zarathustra. He was acquainted with the latter one's instructions but what about the similar tenets of One God held by the Jews? Could it be that this One Source of All Life has messengers in different peoples and at different times? Why not? If they be true messengers, they could not contradict one the other. Their moral principles must harmonize, and the ritual practices should be supportive of them even if they differ. Why should, then, Israel's special call, stressed by their prophets, contradict or undo Zarathustra's general teaching; or vice versa? Indeed, if he would allow the Jews to return into their country, as he had allowed other dispersed peoples to return, than that should be not only an act of compassion and human justice: beyond that, it should further the cause of their prophets for the sake of the benefit of mankind altogether in the blessing of the Divine. Consequently, a mere return of the Jewish captives to their home country would not do. They should be allowed, even be encouraged and supported actively, to rebuild the Temple as an indispensable part of their service ordained from on High. Wouldn't such an active support be beneficial for the newly established, not yet consolidated Medo-Persian Empire, and on top, be the climax of being Achaemenian indeed?

This work would have to be protected, too. Hostile elements both inside and outside the empire did not cease to exist with Babel's surrender. Although most of the peoples had welcomed him as a true liberator, there were still all kind of antagonistic forces unwilling to cope with the rule of the Persians and with the new order - the Achaemenian principles - he tried to establish. There were certainly forces coveting the throne, and there were also those who opposed^8a Zarathustra's teaching, and even more so the Jews and what they stand for. Everything had to be done carefully, with wisdom. Granting the Jews too many rights at this stage, as e.g. restoring the whole country of Israel, or letting them install a scion from the line of David as king, would certainly trigger revolts right away. That would be in no one's interest.

There was also Egypt, still a force to be reckoned with. Throughout history, the ruling powers coveted that part of the world where Israel has her country. Located at the hub of the three Continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe; and at the seem between desert and urbanized land, its economic and strategic importance is of the highest rank, and controlling it is considered imperative by the ruling powers. And who knows, isn't there a special blessing upon that land, as evidenced by the Davidic monarchy which had lasted for four hundred years?

Since that area is now controlled not by Assur nor by Babylon but by Persia, a conflict with mighty Egypt might be in the offing. If Judea would be made an independent kingdom, small as it is, it might be too tempting for Egypt to wrest it from Persia. But if it is made an integral part of the latter, they might think twice to attack it. Also, who knows, whether a Judean king might side with Egypt, similar to King Josia's wrong and fatal judgment of the situation?

On the other hand, not granting the Jews at that stage to install a king of theirs, could not mean that he would be entitled to take their crown upon himself. Cyrus, King of Kings, and now also King of Babel, must have realized that no other nation, people, or creed, could ever inherit or usurp Israel's special position among mankind, irrespective of merits and achievements. Even as a redeemer, Messiah, and world ruler, he felt subdued to the Divine ordinances. The question whether he should adapt the title "King of Judah" had found its answer - he stayed away from doing so.

Considerations like these might have come up in Cyrus' mind after his first encounter with Daniel, furnishing the background for the working session in which the details for the liberation of the Jewish captives would have to be hammered out.

Most likely also the Jewish Elders had prepared themselves for a meeting with Cyrus. Would he be willing to listen to them? True, he had liberated and resettled other displaced peoples, and had even allowed them to rebuild their respective sanctuaries so that they would not have the feeling of being defeated and humiliated. Would he be willing to recognize and declare Jerusalem and its Temple as ordained from the One Creator of All? And not put it on par with those pagan sanctuaries? Would he be willing not only to allow the exiles to return but even to call upon them to do so; and, on top, encourage their return into their devastated land by offering them a helping hand? Like a shepherd providing for the flock? Had not Prophet Isaiah, pointedly indeed, spoken about Cyrus as the Lord's shepherd who would do His Will? What about Jeremiah's verdict that the land shall have its Shabbath for 70 years of which not yet 50 years had past since the destruction of the Temple? Would the present Cyrus be the one who was meant to terminate these ordained years of exile, or would that be the task of another Cyrus who would succeed the present one? Could the question of the exiled ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom be brought before him? Was he the right address for that? Prophet Ezekiel, himself a captive in Babylon, foresaw that "the tree of Joseph... shall be put with the tree of Judah... and (they) shall be made one tree" (Ezek. 37:19). The splitting of that tree into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah was an internal affair, and Cyrus could hardly be expected to solve this problem. But perhaps he could facilitate the beginning of a solution by formulating the hoped for edict of liberation in a way which would allow the return of those Israelites who feel still attracted to Jerusalem and the Temple there? Granted his positive response, he would indeed be the Messiah figure spoken of by Prophet Isaiah. If so, would he then be ready to accept the anointment as Messiah also ritually by the hands of a prophet in Jerusalem in order to respond to the Law? Not, of course, in its ruins, and not by the hands of the exiles who probably all of them have been defiled and contaminated by all kind of impurities in Babel/Babylon. That means to say, first of all the altar would have to be rebuild, and the ashes of the red heifer hidden away before Nebukadnezzar's onslaught, would have to be recovered for the prescribed purification and for the beginning of the new life in the spirit of the Divine. Given the facts on the ground, such a scenario was hardly feasible, even if Cyrus would understand these requests, and concede to them.

Instead, perhaps Hazael’s anointment as King over Syria by Prophet Elisha on the Lord’s command could serve as an example (1.Kings 19:15)? Or would the anointment by the Lord God of heavens and earth suffice, without a prophet administering it - perhaps to some degree comparable to the case of King Saul?

Whatever the case might be, we have before us a striking change of picture in that melodrama of recent history: Nebukadnezzar who saw himself as the head of the nations, had in one sweeping campaign rooted Israel's arch enemies, the Philistines; slew Egypt; and destroyed Jerusalem. In this inadvertent acting of his as God's key player, Prophet Jeremiah pointed him out as "servant of the Lord"⁹ -- and now, within a few decades, Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms and the beauty of the Chaldeans, was sacked by the Medo-Persians, as predicted by Prophet Isaiah¹⁰. The victorious king of the latter was now also King of Babylon and, what is more, he restored the Jews in their country acting truly as Messiah and Shepherd of the Lord.

While no information whatsoever about a working session dealing with the questions involved came down to us, we can be sure that it took place; for it is evidenced by two historic facts: the famous edict of King Cyrus; and in line therewith the beginning of the re-construction of the House which became known as the Second Temple. We can find support for this conclusion in Ezra 1:1 where we read:

"In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia... the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus ... that he made a proclamation..." - namely the proclamation, or edict, about the freeing of the Jewish captives, and the building of the House of the Lord in Jerusalem. Most likely, the term "the Lord stirred up" means to say that the spirit of Cyrus who was called upon by the Lord from his early youth¹¹, was now stirred up (העיר, lit. awakened, aroused) by the meeting with the Jewish Elders and prophet(s), as well as by the confrontation with the Temple vessels and what they conveyed.

F.) Cyrus' edict

2009-10-15T22:19:00.002-07:00

1) Its text.

One year after Babel's conquest, that is in 538 B.C.E., Cyrus issued this proclamation, the famous edict ordering the release of the Jews and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.

In the Tanakh, we find two versions thereof, one recorded in 2.Chron. 36:23, the other one in Ezra 1:2-4. The latter one seems to record it in length, for the purpose mentioned there. It reads:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia. The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he has charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people whose God is with him, may he go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel - he is the God - which is in Jerusalem. And whosoever remaineth in any place were he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, besides the freewill offerings for the house of God which is in Jerusalem".

The edict as recorded in 2.Chron. 36:22 apparently intends to address the Jewish captives, and perhaps to bring a message at large. Incidentally, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) whose arrangement of books and chapters is not followed by the translations into other languages, concludes with its citation, thus giving it special weight. There, it reads:

"Thus says Cyrus King of Persia: The Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he has charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among all his people whose God is with him, may he go up."

2) Its formulation

2009-10-15T22:19:00.001-07:00

Concerning the edict's general concept and the formulation of its details, we may safely assume that it was worked out in consultation with sages and Prophets, most likely with Daniel amongst them. Also Prophet Ezekiel, an exile in Babylonia, could have witnessed her surrender in case he lived up to an age of 80, and if so, could well have taken part in the consultations.

We may infer this from the very wording of the edict. When we compare it with Cyrus' proclamation in which he addressed the people of Babylonia after the conquest of their city (quoted above), we sense a different undercurrent altogether. In the latter, as well as in their proclamations dealing with the release of displaced peoples, he mentions the names of the respective local gods as those on whose behalf he claimed to liberate them, while in the above edict he applies the typical Hebrew epithet "Lord God of Heaven" as the supreme Being who has given him all the lands. The more explicit version given in the Book of Ezra goes even one step further and speaks pointedly of "the Lord God of Israel - he is t h e God". (Note the definitive article: He is t h e God; not simply one among others).

Likewise, the term “God of Heaven” is a typical Hebrew epithet. When Father Abraham commanded his servant to find a bride for son Isaac, he made him swear by “the Lord God of Heaven and God of the earth” (Gen. 24:3,7); and Prophet Jonah confessed: “I am a Hebrew (=son of Abraham the Hebrew, cf. Gen. 14:13), and fear the God of Heaven” (Jonah 1:9).

How could a Gentile have spoken of the "Lord God of Heaven" and "Lord God of Israel - he is the God", if it had not been communicated to him by one of the Prophets or one of the Elders of Israel?

Apparently in confirmation of the deep meaning of this epithet used by King Cyrus, does the Book of Nehemiah repeat it over and again (cf Nehem. 1:4,5,9; 2:4,20; 9:6,23).

Likewise, the term "may he go up" ((יעל is a typical Hebrew-Biblical phrase¹ which could not have come up in the mind of someone who is not familiar, or familiarized, with the thought it expresses. This the more so as the Persian plateau reaches an altitude much higher than Jerusalem, and so-to-speak looks down on it. The Persians who had Jerusalem now in their hands must have been aware thereof.

The term "house of the Lord" is typical Hebrew, too. But even more surprising is the phrase "Who is there among you of all his people whose God is with him, may he go up to Jerusalem". It is in fact a masterpiece of Divinely inspired formulation: It appeals to all those "of his people whose God is with" them, irrespective whether he is a Jew from the Southern Kingdom, an Israelite from the Northern Kingdom, or a Gentile from the nations. Whosoever feels called upon by the Lord God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob - that is, in the language of the edict, the "Lord God of Heaven" whom they confessed - may follow this inner call of his, and the Persian authorities would not object.

Based upon this declaration of Cyrus, King Artaxerxes I said then in his edict explicitly "that all of the people of Israel" may go up to Jerusalem^1a and to the land of Judah. The edicts of these two kings provided both the legal basis for the return of the exiles and for their mingling there as one people. In other words, the dispersions of Israel and of Judah, and then the possibility of their ingathering in the land of Judah, led to the termination of the tribal structure of the "people of Israel" consisting of twelve tribes. The "tree of Joseph" representing the Northern Kingdom and its tribes, and the "tree of Judah" with its affiliated tribes, began now to become "one tree" - a picture applied by Prophet Ezekiel in his vision of the –then far distant- future^1b. Although many individuals remembered for centuries to come, from which tribe they originated^1c, they formed now one people; and the land became known as the Land of Israel^1d.

The opening up of this development by Cyrus and Artaxerxes did of course not infringe on the authority of the Jews in Jerusalem to check the sincerity of any converting Gentile. The term "of his people" implies that it is not given to a foreigner to unilaterally style himself as being "of his people" - he rather has to be accepted by this people.

Yet, the term "whose God is with him" reflects the profound theological truth that the in-depth awareness of the one God and Creator of all may lead eventually all those in whom it comes profoundly alive, to Mount Moriah and what it stands for. If he is a foreigner, he will have to find out whether this inner call of his leads him either to become, as a proselyte, a newly accepted member of "his people"; or whether he, as a "Son of Noah", wants to bless Abraham's seed at least within the frame of the so-called "Seven Noahide Laws"2.

Truly, the edict, and specifically the term "whose God is with him", provide so-to-speak the legal frame also for those strangers who follow that inner call of which King Solomon had spoken in his prayer of inaugurating the First Temple:

"Moreover concerning a stranger, that is not of thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country for thy name's sake - for they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy outsretched arm - when he shall come and pray toward this house; hear thou in heaven..."³

On the other hand, a Jew who wants to stay on in Babel, or in Yemen, would not be compelled by the authorities to go up to Jerusalem. That remains a matter between him and "his God".

While the content of the Edict and its exact formulation must have been negotiated with the Persian authorities⁴, as said, it is most likely that it was issued, in accordance with the Persian practice, in the respective languages, that is in our case, Persian, Aramaic^4a, and Hebrew; and perhaps Babylonian, too. The official translations had to be co-ordinate, and were done by the scribes of the Court.

The edict was issued by King Cyrus himself: "Thus says Cyrus King of Persia...". This indicates, besides his authority and responsibility in that matter, that he was willing to heed the counsel of the Jewish sages as revealed by that genuine formulation which differed remarkably from other edicts he issued. He was not at unease to listen to their advice, and to give it public expression.

Cyrus' readiness to submit to the Divine verdict that the "House of the God of Heavens" is to be built by the Jews in Jerusalem, indicates another hallmark of Messiahship. While Prophet Isaiah (11:2) speaks of the fear of the Lord as one of the six features which characterize an anointed, it is the Hebrew word ,משיח mashiah, which points to it through its root word שח, shah, meaning to bend, bow, submit to the one who anoints; and not to do his own things.

However, only the Hebrew version of the edict came down to us⁵. It could certainly not deviate from the original Persian or Aramaic text - as e.g. we could not fabricate a Hebrew translation of the Balfour Declaration deviating from its original English text.

3) The edict's arrangements for restitutions and for paying expenses.

2009-10-15T22:18:00.004-07:00

Another outstanding act of Cyrus was his order to pay restitutions to the Jews. It seems that Cyrus, by accepting the title "King of Babel" besides his original title "King of Persia", acknowledged responsibility resulting from successorship⁶. It was apparently in this capacity that he felt obliged to restitute the Temple vessels robbed by the Babylonians, and ordered them being returned to the Jews as far as they could be recovered⁷.

Going one step further, he ordered that the expenses for the building material be given by the Persian treasury:

"...and let the expenses be given out of the king's house. And also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezar took forth out of the Temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought again unto the Temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to its place, and place them in the house of God"⁸

4) Cyrus' attitude beyond tolerance

2009-10-15T22:18:00.003-07:00

While the edict arranging for the return of the Jewish captives to Jerusalem might be seen in line with Cyrus' politics to allow the return of displaced peoples to their respective home countries, it is the above order which elevates his attitude towards the Jewish people from mere tolerance into the realm of the commandment of loving one's neighbor as one's own self.

Tolerance is a passive attitude in which one lets another one have his way, while love of neighbor is an active attitude in which one furthers and supports a neighbor in his way towards the Divine⁹ even if it differs from one's own way. That is just what Cyrus did. Unparalleled as this act of Cyrus is, it is outstanding even the more so as there is no record or hint in history that he gave similar orders of actively supporting the return of Gentile peoples whom he allowed to return home, not to speak of financing their sanctuaries. We may conclude that Cyrus must have recognized the peculiarity of the Jewish people and its ongoing mission which had not come to naught with the destruction of the First Temple and the exile.

Undauntedly, even willingly, he offered his support. This is certainly another, even crucial hallmark of Messiaship.

5) Confirmation of the edict by successor kings

2009-10-15T22:18:00.001-07:00

The Kings Artaxerxes (probably Artaxerxes I) and Darius (probably Darius II) who like Cyrus bore the title King of Kings¹⁰, took the same stance. Most likely after the Haman affair, they, too, recommended freewill offerings for "the house of their [=the Jews'] God which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 6:8,9; 7:11-20). Whether those freewill offerings to be given by an unprepared Gentile population were substantial, or scanty, allowing only for a modest building in comparison to the First Temple (vs. Haggai 2:3), is not the question here. Remarkable is the attitude of these kings (more on that see below in chapter "Addendum").

6) A message throughout the ages

2009-10-15T22:17:00.003-07:00

The repeated stressing of Jerusalem as the place of the House of God by Cyrus, Artaxerxes, and Darius, had - and still has -theological as well as political bearings. It confirmed juridically¹¹ the claim of the Jews to Mount Moriah and the Temple upon it, against the claims and the slander by other hostile peoples (see in the following chapter). In modern terms, we would say that Cyrus and the Persian kings after him as the highest world authority of that period established by their royal decrees binding international law which says that the Temple is to be built by the Jews in Jerusalem in accordance with the Divine ordinance ("the Lord God of Heavens", in the words of the edict). That means to say that the Persian kings, representing the second of the four World Empires envisioned by Prophet Daniel, acknowledged officially the binding overlordship of the "Lord God of Heavens". In line with King David, they accepted the Divine ordinance as a rule which has its bearings also in politics.

Concerning Jerusalem and its significance, this finds an appropriate reflection in the word of Prophet Zechariah, a contemporary of that period¹²:

"...Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem".

Jerusalem and what it stands for cannot be shifted to any other place.

Besides the royal decrees ordering the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, and supporting it financially, Darius II made an additional decree in which he put curses upon all those who should dare to alter these decrees, or dare to do damage to the House of God¹³.

The possibility of such an in-depth "Jewish connection" of the early Persian kings --besides the facts that Darius I made Daniel his chief overseer; that Mordecai served at the gate of the royal palace; that Nehemiah served Artaxerxes as his butler; and that Ezra found an open and willing ear in the king¹⁴ (and was perhaps even his scribe¹⁵) -- becomes even more obvious in a term which, too, has a very typical Hebrew connotation. It was used by King Darius II in his confirmation of Cyrus' edict, when he spoke of the "God that has caused his name to dwell" in Jerusalem¹⁵. While other peoples develop often the idea that their gods dwell in their respective sanctuaries, it is the Jews only who confess in compliance with King Solomon's prayer:

"See, the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less so the house I have built... be thine eyes upon this house day and night, upon this place of which thou hast said, 'My name shall dwell there'..."¹⁷.

Very revealing and worth mentioning in this context is another decree of that king. One of the papyrii found on the isle of Elephantine in Upper Egypt records his royal order that the Jews living there ought to observe their Feast of Pessah¹⁸, and should not be hindered doing so by hostile neighbors. We may see it in connection with his attitude toward the "God of Daniel"¹⁹. Daniel, as well as the rescue of the Jews by Esther/Mordecai, must have made a deep impression upon the Persian kings, so much so that several generations later it was still alive in Darius II.

7) Objections to Cyrus' Messiahship refuted

2009-10-15T22:17:00.001-07:00

a) After the destruction of the Second Temple, some sages and scholars raised doubts whether Cyrus acted truly as Messiah, and whether he still deserves to be called by this title.

The main objections are:

b) He did not bring all the Jews back to Jerusalem.

How could he have done so? Forcing the captive Jews of Babylonia back to Jerusalem would have meant to expel them from Persia. Such an act would have been inhumane, and unwise in many respects as well. It would have deprived men of their free will. Moreover, the ingathering of all the exiles is forecast for the Third Temple, and it was for this reason that the Jews exiled to Yemen did not hearken to Ezra's call to come up to Jerusalem.

c) The Second Temple did not last since its foundation was stained by the fact that it was based on the decree of a Gentile.

It could not have lasted anyway as only the Third of the three pre-ordained Temples is to be the final one.

Rabbi Shimon Bar-Yochai²⁰ gives the following reason for the destruction of the Second Temple:

"The Temple that was built by Herode, that was not equaled in beauty, splendor, and shining marble ... its High Priests were bought by money (i.e. Herode "bought" priests of is liking), had no Tabernacle, no Tables of Decalogue, and the Shekhinah did not dwell there". - How could such a Temple have lasted?

Rabbi Yohanan²¹ gives yet another reason for the destruction: The judgments of the courts did not go beyond the requirement of the law - that is, life was to be regulated by stringent and formulated laws^21a; and like in Roman Law the value of property was given priority over the value of humans and their social needs.

e) Another, in fact widely known reason for its destruction was שנאת חינם, "hatred without cause" between different factions of the Jewish people²².

In this context we should remember that the First Temple, too, was destroyed - not because of a Gentile's support for its building - but because of our own sinfulness.

However, some sages understood that it had to come to its end anyway in accordance with the prophecies. For instance, when Rabbi Akiva was told that foxes are roaming on the Temple Mount destroyed some 60 years earlier, he laughed. When asked about this puzzling behavior of his, he answered that he sees the fulfillment of that prophecy in Lament. 5:8 as a token for the future fulfillment of the prophecies about the final ingathering and restoration²³. That is, he understood the respective section of Lamentations as referring to the Second Temple. - Similar, when the Roman Turnus Rufus ploughed the Temple Mount after its destruction by Titus, the sages understood this as a fulfillment of Jer. 26:18. This, of course, does not postulate an unchangeable fate. Rather, the Almighty so-to-speak uses even our sins for furthering his plans with us, as pointed out already by King Solomon in his prayer: "...if they turn against thee - for there is no man that sinneth not - and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives into the land of the enemy..."²⁴

Christianity did apparently for its reasons not feel comfortable with Cyrus' Messiahship: In the translations it is obscured by merely mentioning him as anointed while the terms Messiah or Christ (which is the Greek word for Messiah²⁵) are exclusively reserved for Jesus (the Septuaginta, may it be mentioned, uses the term Christos in all the respective cases)...

G) More reflections on Cyrus' personality and politics

2009-10-15T22:16:00.000-07:00

After the conquest of Babel, no other offensive wars are recorded during Cyrus' reign. We may say that the conquest of Babel, complemented with the liberation of the Jewish captives and the support for the rebuilding of the Temple crowned his mission. Henceforth he dedicated himself to the consolidation of his huge empire, and to the education of his people and his successors (they were Cambysos, his son; and Darius the Great). Education was considered important like life itself¹. Working for the good of the whole was conceived as the highest spiritual value. For this end, mainly for the young, special games were introduced which were geared to evoke in them, besides bravery, the virtues of justice, righteousness, benevolence, and sympathy with the oppressed – and with the looser in the game.

Besides the reports of ancient historians, an archaeological find dating back to Darius I, may document this attitude. In the wall relief of Persepolis, the capital of ancient Persia, the fine faces of the Persian soldiers and peoples contrast remarkably those of Assyrian and Babylonian reliefes. Even if they have been idealized, they show the difference of the Persian ideals from those of the Babylonians or Assyrians.

One of the many episodes illustrating Cyrus' character and attitude towards his subjects, reported by Xenophon, is worthwhile to be mentioned here. After the conquest of Babel, some of his officers proposed to move down into its fertile plains and valleys, and make a better living there. Cyrus answered, since it were them who fought the battles and gained the victory, it is perfectly alright that they decide about their future. However, he bade them consider that leaving the high plateau of Iran and moving down into the plains would mean to give up its commanding position, and would within a few generations bring upon their descendants the fate of Babel, namely to be conquered by those who would then live on the plateau. The officers realized their shortsightedness, and kept their dwelling places in Iran.

In 530 Cyrus fell in battle against the Massagetae (mentioned above), an extremely wild and brutal people who had invaded at the north-east of his empire. He had laid its foundation, spiritually and politically, and he defended it; but it was then Darius I, known as the Great, who led it to its climax.

Contemporary as well as later historians (Herodot, Xenophon², Strabo, etc) praise him in every respect. Besides his unique birth and youth and the good influence of his uncle Hystaspes (Vishtaspa) upon him, they stress his skills as warrior and his exceeding competence as statesman besides his noble character which guided him to the liberation and repatriation of many peoples who were deported by the Assyrians, Babylonians, or other conquerers³.

Looking at the whole scenery of that age, we may say that Cyrus introduced a new kind of politics altogether. He recognized Man's dignity as a value in itself irrespective of ethnical or religious deportments; and made it a task of his empire to provide for it. The original idea of his ancestor Achaemenes, to reign as "Friend of Men", was now practiced not only in view of the own tribe; it became the core idea of his empire. Cyrus became truly the "king of the four quarters of the world", as a local priest had described him after the conquest of Babylonia.

However, we would be mistaken to see in Cyrus only an early representative of mere humanism or humanitarianism. Deeply devoted to his own religion, he observed the prescribed rituals, including the offerings of the sacrifices. What is more, he believed firmly in the Day of Judgment, the immortality of the soul, and life after death⁴. In any case, Cyrus contrasted sharply the cruelty and suppression which had characterized the period before him and, unfortunately, also many periods after him. In oriental fashion, some records about him may be exaggerated but the fact remains that he was welcomed and praised by the peoples and by historians. Even the Greeks, his enemies, had words of praises for him: They compared Darius the Great to a tradesman, and Cyrus to a father.

One of Cyrus' hallmarks, quite in line with his stance, was not to interfere with the religious affairs of his different subjects⁵. Although he was deeply devoted to his own religion, he stressed that he was called by their respective gods to care for righteousness and justice. Apparently this seemed to him more important than theological disputes.

Was he then a polytheist, seeing the God of Israel as one amongst many gods? Should the Lord God of Israel have taken advantage of a Gentile's polytheism to provide for the building of the Second Temple, and on top, call such a polytheist his shepherd and his Messiah?

As we saw already, Zarathustra's monotheistic teaching most likely influenced Cyrus. What is more, the Jewish sages acknowledge that a Gentile who puts the values of human life and humaneness on top of his priorities has in fact renounced idolatry, and by doing so is deemed equal to those who accept the entire Torah⁶. This principle was surely applied in regard of the Achaemenian kings. Quite in accordance therewith, the Prophets and sages of then were apparently not at all at unease to accept Cyrus' financial aid for building the Temple, as well as the free will offerings of the Persians suggested by him, by Artaxerxes, and by Darius. Obviously, they did not see in these kings and their subjects idolaters of whose hands it would have been forbidden to accept any contribution for the Temple and its building. Rather Prophet Maleachi, basing on Ps. 113:3, set the probity of their worship and incense burning as an example, and as acceptable to the Lord God of Israel who is the Omnipresent behind the different forms of appearance. These are his words⁷:

"...from the rise of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place there is incense burning unto my name, even pure sacrifices; for great is my name among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts".

In line therewith, the Jewish concept of the "Seven Laws of Noah" by which the nations ought to abide, admits that the nations develop their own religions provided they don't impugn the authority of the one Creator and his Law. Cyrus, along with Yethro the father-in-law of Moses, and Hiram King of Tyre, may have served as a model figure for developing the concept of these Seven Laws. However, Cyrus surpassed their friendly attitudes insofar as he, as the ruler of a world empire, gave out of his inner convictions a helping hand to the Jewish people when they were in their deepest abyss so far.

Prophet Isaiah, in view of him, puts this in the following words⁸:

"Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, They question me about my children, and concerning the work of my hands they command me? I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens; and I commanded all their hosts. I have aroused him in righteousness, and all his ways will I make straight: he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price not for reward", saith the Lord of Hosts".

Obviously, Cyrus, inspired by the Divine spirit, acted in awe, fairness and wisdom. He must have recognized that the task of true government is to provide cover for, and secure the rights of, the week⁹; and that the task of true religion is to prevail over tohu va'bohu; to serve the Divine in truth and joy; and thereby to establish peace on earth. In this train of thought he must have been aware that he as a human being, even as a king, could not force monotheism upon others if they were not ready for it. The Lord God of Israel wants to make known his name not through the decree of a government but through his ways with his people¹⁰. Cyrus acted in this spirit already before he took Babel, i.e. before he met with Daniel and/or other Jewish sages there, but the latter may have confirmed him in this attitude of his.

In this context we should note that the Persian Empire founded by this scion of the Achaemenians, was the first world empire in human history which did not rule through fear and terror, nor by oppressing, deporting, or uprooting conquered peoples, but rather by trying to establish a commonwealth in the true meaning of that word. In this attitude it was, not surprisingly, friendly also with the Jewish people and its vocation, so far not emulated by any other empire, nation, or religion. After having set an example, however, it declined soon, and some of its later kings resorted to fierceness and the politics of iron fist.

Apparently the Persian Empire had, foremost through its Kings Cyrus, Artaxerxes, and Darius, fulfilled its Divine mission in view of the restoration of the Second Temple. In his article "The servant of the Lord and Cyrus", Mr. Laato Anti¹¹observed:

> Cyrus raised by the Lord from the east

(Is. 41:2,25; 45:13f; cf also 46:12);

> Cyrus called by name by the Lord

(Is. 41:2,25; 45:3,4; 46:11; 48:15);

> The Lord subjugates nations under Cyrus' power

(Is. 41:2,25; 45:1-3);

> Cyrus will do the Lord's pleasure (by subduing Babylonia, releasing Israel, and providing for the Temple)

(Is. 44:28; 46:10; 48:14);

> Cyrus is called and supported by the Lord on behalf of Israel (Is. 44;24-26; 45:3-4; 45:9-10; 48:12);

> The vanity of idols (Is. 41:6,7,21-29; etc) is often stressed in connection with Cyrus' proclamation, apparently in order to emphasize that it is the Lord, not other gods, who governs the history of the world;

> likewise the creation theme in Is. 41:4; 44:24-28; 45:7,12; 48:13; emphasizes that it is the Creator of the world who is also its mighty governor.

H) Opposing forces in the Persian Court

2009-10-15T22:15:00.000-07:00

The benevolent attitude of the Persian kings was not shared by all their subjects. In fact, the throne was often threatened by opponents. Many of them pretended to act on behalf of ideological considerations, but mere coveting the throne was as common as in other empires. Both motives often intertwined. While the Achaemenian kings, naturally so, saw the Jews as partners in their endeavor to reign as "Friends of Man", those of their subjects who could not bring themselves to this attitude, and revolted to re-establish the previous system, hit often at the weaker of those two partners first. This, besides hostilities directed against the Court only and, on the other hand, those directed against the Jews only. We ought to reflect on some of them.

Perhaps the most known revolt of that kind was that of the Smerdis towards the end of Cambysos' reign. The revolt broke out while the king, after conquering Egypt, campaigned against Luv (Libya) and Cush (Ethiopia). It affected Western Asia (Near East, in modern language), and also Babylonia joined in.

It is interesting to note that Greek historians as well as Darius I in his still existing wall inscription of Behistun, describe the Smerdis¹ pointedly as Mogh (mogos, Magi). That means to say that Smerdis as a member of the priestly class of the ancient Mithra cult² who were known as Magi³, tried to resist the stance of the Achaemenians, overthrow them, and restore the previous order.

In this resistance of theirs, they might have felt warranted by Cambysos' odd behaviors. Anyway plagued by the "holy disease" (as Herodot says, probably meaning epilepsy), he was apparently not up to the true meaning of monotheism. In contrast to his father Cyrus, he showed no tolerance towards those subjects who clung still to their polytheistic traditions. He rather behaved like an iconoclast. In Egypt for instance, he personally smashed idols, pierced an Apis (holy bull of theirs), and called its priests fools and evildoers who want to make peoples believe that there are gods of flesh and blood, gods one could get one's hands on. On top, he transgressed even Persian laws by marrying his two sisters, and then killing one of them. On his death bed, however, he repented, and warned the Persian nobility of the impending dangers menacing from the Medes and the Magis.

It is only logic to conclude that these opposing forces targeted both the Achaemenians and the Jews. As already mentioned briefly, in the wake of this revolt, the building of the Temple in Jerusalem came to a halt, either on order of Cambysos in an attempt to neutralize one of the bones of content; or, more likely, due to the attacks of hostile neighbors who took advantage of the Smerdis revolt⁴. It raged for eight months till Darius I (the Great) could quell it.

The story told in Daniel chpt. 6, known as "Daniel in the lion's den", should be seen before this background. When Daniel was made the chief of the presidents appointed by King Darius I, the Great, they immediately plotted against him, bringing accusations "concerning the law of his [=Daniel’s} God". They tricked the king who was apparently still scared and suspicious of detrimental forces, into issuing a decree which should show that Daniel by his observation of the Law of Moses would by necessity become disloyal to the Court. When the king became aware of the falsity of the accusations, he put the plotters to the kind of death they had thought to bring upon Daniel. Most likely it was only then that he allowed the continuation of the work in Jerusalem⁵.

However, the opponents did not give up. Court intrigues by treasurer Mithradat⁶; the slandering of the Jews by hostile Samaritans, Ammonites, and Arabs⁷ who caused impediments⁸ of the building of the Temple; and many others not mentioned in the Tanakh, continued till the end of the Persian Empire.

I) The Samaritans' rivalry

2009-10-15T22:11:00.000-07:00

Mentioned already several times, we ought now to look closer into their hostile stance and its origin.

We are told¹ that the victorious Assyrians settled displaced peoples also in the territory of the (Northern) Kingdom of Israel, and put some Levites of the exiled Israelites over them to teach them law and order. The people which evolved, were called Samaritans (Hebrew: Shomronim) as they lived in the territory of Samaria² (Shomron, in Hebrew). They followed partly pagan rites and partly Divine orders "till our days"³, and were for this reason not recognized by the Jewish people of the (Southern) Kingdom of Judah as Israelites.

When King Cyrus issued his edict allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and build the Temple, the Samaritans who had not been exiled by Nebukadnezzar, and who had so far no central sanctuary of their own, may have felt it is a favorable time to form one people with the returning Jews. They may have been motivated by two thoughts:

a) Jerusalem, now confirmed by Cyrus' edict, would certainly gain importance; and forming one people with the returning exiles might give them more weight, this the more so as they would outnumber the Jews;

b) the phrase in Cyrus' edict, "...who among you is of his people, whose God is with him, let him go up", seemed to be tailored perfectly for their aspirations. The Samaritans considered themselves as Israelites, "of his people"; and as those "whose God is with him" (them), they would be entitled "to go up" to Jerusalem, take an active role in building the Temple; and form the new people of Israel.

In deed, a Samaritan delegation, coming up to Jerusalem, approached Zerubabel and the Jewish Elders, and said: "We want to build with you; for we are searching for your God as you do. We bring sacrifices unto him since the days of Ezzar Haddon, the King of Assyria, who brought us here"⁴.

But Zerubabel and Yeshua the High Priest and the Elders rejected their plea, and told them: "It is not fit for you to build with us the House of the Lord, for, we alone ought to build unto the Lord, the God of Israel, as we were commanded by Cyrus the King of Persia"⁵.

In this answer of theirs, the Jewish representatives rejected the two motives of the Samaritans: "It is not fit for you..." tells them that the mixture of pagan practices with Jewish rites deprives them of the required ritual purity, makes them unfit for taking part in the building of the Temple. And, "as we were commanded by Cyrus", tells them that from the political perspective, too, the Jews felt not entitled to make whole nations partners of the enterprise. Doing so, would certainly arouse Persian suspicions that the Jews were out to (re)build an empire of their own.

The Samaritans, anyway termed "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" in Ezra 1:1, turned actively hostile. First, they stirred up other local peoples against the Jews, then bribed counselors against them, and slandered them at the Court:

"And the peoples of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah and troubled them in building [of the Temple]. And they hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus, King of Persia, even until the reign of Darius, King of Persia"⁶.

The term "until the reign of Darius, King of Persia", mentioned here, refers apparently to King Darius II as we may gather from verse 23 which says that a copy of the letter of accusation was brought to the attention of King Artaxerxes I who preceded Darius II.

This understanding of the Scripture being correct, would mean that the controversy lasted till the reign of King Darius II, that is, from the return of the first group of exiles approximately 535 B.C.E. "in the days of King Cyrus", until King Darius II issued his edict⁷, quoted above, approximately in 420 B.C.E.

King Cyrus must have been stunned and deeply shocked when the hostilities of an "Israelite" people against the Jews, also an Israelite people, were recorded to him. True, he was aware that also in his own nation not all the tribes and peoples shared his stance of tolerance, nor did all of them accept Zarathustra's teachings. But the case here was somewhat different. Both the Jews and the Samaritans claimed to be followers of the Law of Moses, and both claimed Jerusalem as the city of their sanctuary. Was he, Cyrus, King of Kings and Messiah of the Lord, in a position to play the role of a judge between them? To decide who is ritually pure enough to take part in the building of the House of the Lord of Heavens? To find out "whose God is with him - let him go up"? At most he could quell riots, and see to it that his edict would be implemented. The edict itself, as we saw, did not infringe on the right of the Jewish authorities to decide whom to accept into the fold.

Perhaps the hostilities were brought to his notice while he was engaged in his war of defense against the invading Massagetes. As mentioned, he fell in battle against them in 529 B.C.E.

Unfortunately, there are no records which would tell us how Cyrus, and after him Cambysos, handled this odd situation. The latter, busy in his conquest of Egypt, may have halted the building in Jerusalem in order to eliminate the cause of the trouble and to have his rear undisturbed. Since no worldly power, not even the rulers of the huge Persian Empire, has a mandate to adjudicate a religious dispute like that of the Jews and the Samaritans, we may well conceive a stance of theirs, especially of Darius I, of "wait and see" whether these two claimants would settle their religious dispute without Persian interference. Such an attitude may well have encouraged the Samaritans to intensify their hostility. It reached a peak in the days of Haman:

"And under the reign of Ahasverus (Xerxes), at the beginning of his rule, did they write an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and of Jerusalem"⁸.

It is most revealing to notice that the accusations which the Samaritans brought up against the Jews, are identical in their content with those brought by Haman before Ahasverus/Xerxes. They wrote in their letter of accusation, addressed to the Court:

"... if this city [Jerusalem] be built and the walls set up again, they [the Jews] will not toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings... this city [Jerusalem] is a rebellious city and hurtful unto kings and their lands... for which cause was this city destroyed"⁹.

In comparison, Haman said to King Ahasverus/Xerxes: "There is a people dispersed and scattered among the nations ... their laws are different from those of each other nation, they do not obey the laws of the King and the King will not derive any profit from them if he lets them have their ways"¹⁰. This indicates the Samaritans joined Haman's plot, and provided the "ideological" reason with which to impress upon the king. He so-to-speak lobbied for them, using their hostility to further his own ends. Perhaps they even provided the money, "ten thousand Kikar silver", which he offered to put into the king's treasury as an incentive¹¹.

In the above quoted verse: "And under the reign of Ahasverus (Xerxes) … we should see the mentioning "at the beginning of his rule" in that historic context. Xerxes, in contrast to his predecessors Cyrus and Darius I, reigned as a despot, causing right away big revolts in Egypt and Babylonia. He crushed them cruelly, with an iron fist. Being suspicious, it may well be that he stopped the building in Jerusalem as a means of precaution and in an attempt to neutralize this trouble spot. Not unlikely, the local enemies, taking advantage thereof, undertook to hinder any activity in Jerusalem. They could do so with the consent of the King¹².

When Nehemiah got later on permission to go up to Jerusalem and to rebuild her¹³, he, too, was opposed by Samaritans, and by Ammonites and Arabs who followed the lead of Sanballat the Horonite¹⁴. That means to say the Samaritans did, even after the failure of Haman's plot, not refrain from their intrigues; nor did King Artaxerxes' confirmation of the rights of the Jews to build Jerusalem¹⁵, deter them from continuing their hostlities¹⁶. As a consequence, the Jews had to split their work force: Half of the men worked, protected by the other half who held spears, lances, and bows; and the builders had swords girded to their loins¹⁷. The hostilities continued, as we saw, till the reign of Darius II.

Before this background, we should see the marriage of the daughter of Sanballat, then the leading figure in the Samaritan community, with one of the sons of Joiada¹⁸, the High Priest of the Jewish community of then. The Jews, apparently tired by the endless hostilities, and burdened by the high taxes¹⁹, tried to achieve "peace" by intermarriages, and by arranging a special chamber in the court of the Temple for Tobiah the Ammonite²⁰.

Nehemiah who had told Sanballat the Samaritan, and Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab, that they had no part in Jerusalem, nor any right or claim on her²¹, stopped these practices and sent these hostile foreigners off²².

The Samaritans built then, in 420 B.C.E., their Temple on Mount Gerizim, next to Sichem, interpreting the Law of Moses as pointing to that spot as the place where the Name of the Lord was to dwell²³. We may assume that they could do so only with the consent of Darius II who must have been interested in diffusing the rivalry and hostilities of the two communities. To make sure that this permit of his would not be interpreted as infringing on the rights of the Jews laid down in Cyrus' edict, he confirmed the latter, as we saw.

K) Haman's plot, the story of Purim

2009-10-15T22:10:00.000-07:00

The story of Purim, as told in the Scroll of Esther, is usually rated as a kind of fairy tale included in the Tanakh for the sake of religious education. Like the stories of the Exodus from Egypt, of the Kings David and Solomon, of the Hashmonean wars, and even of the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, it is not presented as part of world history. Excluded from the latter, it is confined to the "history of salvation".

Yet as Israel exists also physically in time and space, its history is as real as the history of any other people even if archaeological and historical "hard facts" are often lacking. Odd as it sounds, it was only after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and after the Six Days War that peoples becoming aware of Israel's reality, coined the phrase "Israel is real".

Stories like that of Purim are certainly not meant to merely convey dry historical data. Written down and incorporated in the Tanakh as Divine teachings good for generations to come, they should be understood from the background of a real historic situation upon which they are built. Thus, even the story of Purim with its timeless religious message relates yet to facts known in world history. At this point, may I mention some of them: the Medo-Persian Empire; its extension from India to Cush (=Ethiopia), including Mediterranean islands; its capital Shushan; and one of its kings named Ahasuerus who ruled this huge empire. The Jews mentioned in the story are characterized as the captivity which had been carried away from Jerusalem by Nebukadnezzar.

It is from this perspective that the relations between King Ahasverus, called Xerxes by the Greeks, and the Jews as told in the Scroll of Esther, deserve here some deeper considerations.

First, we have to find out whether Ahasuerus and Xerxes are identical indeed.

1) Identifying Ahasuerus as Xerxes

Ancient sources relate the Ahasuerus of the Purim story to different kings of the Medo/Persian period.

Some hold that Ahasuerus and Queen Esther were the parents of King Cyrus¹. If so, Ahasuerus would have been a Median king, not a Persian king, as there was no Persian Empire before Cyrus. This version is ruled out also by the well-known, howbeit few, data of history and of archaeology, as well as by the Scroll of Esther itself. Sushan was never the capital of the Medes, nor did they rule from India to Cush, nor did they possess islands in the Mediterranean Sea².

This holds true also in view of other versions which speak of King Cyrus the Great or of King Darius I, the Great, as Ahasuerus³. The Persian Empire did not reach during their rule the huge extension just mentioned.

Flavius Josephus, apparently following the Septuaginta, has King Artaxerxes I in mind⁴. But in ancient sources, this king is described as kindhearted and wise. These descriptions do not match the picture of Ahasuerus we get from the Scroll of Esther; they fit quite well Xerxes.

H.Hefez, a contemporary scholar, thinks that Cyrus the Great and Ahasuerus reigned side by side as double kings⁵, ascribing the leading position to the latter. In that he does not do justice to the facts that the former is unequivocally acknowledged as "the Great" in history, and as Messiah of the Lord by Prophet Isaiah, while Ahasuerus/Xerxes is nowhere called “the Great”

Besides the above considerations, we should also take notice of Xerxes' Persian name, Kashayarsha, to which the Hebrew version Ahasuerus sounds relatively close, at least more so than the Greek word for it, Xerxes. We may take this as another indication that the Ahasuerus of the Scroll of Esther is Xerxes.

However, the mentioning in the Scroll that Mordecai was one of the exiles to Babylonia, poses quite some problem. The passage in which he is presented as Esther's stepfather, says that

"Mordecai the son of Jair, the son of Shimaei, the son of Kish, a Benjamenite, had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar ... had carried away"⁶ .

This so-called first Baylonian captivity occurred in 597 B.C.E., that is, 68 years before Cyrus took Babylon, and 112 years before Xerxes ascended the throne. In this case, Mordecai and Esther must have been quite some elderly people, and the latter not at all a young beauty queen. Attempting to solve this problem, I can only suggest to understand the phrase quoted above not in the way it is usually taken, namely that Mordecai himself had been carried away in the first Babylonian captivity, but rather that Mordecai was a descendant of that family of Kish who had been carried away together with King Jeconiah. In fact, the Hebrew text allows for such an interpretation. The term "who had been carried away", could refer to anyone of those mentioned. What is more, the term "son of Kish, a Benjamenite", suggests that the narrator had foremost in mind to show Mordecai's descent from Kish, the father also of King Saul, indicating thereby that Mordecai was now to make good for Saul's disobedience to the Lord's voice which coasted him the kingdom. This would explain also the incompleteness of the list of Mordecai's ancestors which leaves out the names of Mordecai's ancestors from Kish to Shimei: they are simply irrelevant in that context. The term "who had been carried away", could thus well refer to the latter, and not to Mordecai himself. If so, he and Esther would have been born in exile, some when during the reign of Darius I, the Great, and their age would not pose any problem in identifying Ahasuerus with Xerxes.

2) Developments under Xerxes.

Already in his days, the worship of nature forces in form of the Anahita cult next to Ahura Mazda (also called Ormazd since Darius I) came up again⁷. Zarathustra's monotheistic teaching with its high ethical and moral standards and the abstractions required by an invisible and incorporeal Godhood may have influenced a big part of the Empire's nobility, but was not shared by all its peoples, especially not by its foreign subjects. King Cyrus did not interfere in their respective religions, as we saw, and the Persian people as a whole did not undergo an educational training comparable to that of the people of Israel in Egypt and the forty years' desert experience. Even King Cambysos had not really absorbed the moral and ethical values required by monotheism, as we saw; nor did Ahasuerus/Xerxes adhere to them.

This scenario may explain to quite some degree the empathy of some Achaemenian rulers on the one hand, and the animosity of big and influential groups against the Jews and the Throne on the other hand.

While Kings Cyrus and Darius I were renowned for their high integrity, Xerxes' character was somewhat unbalanced, probably as a result of his strong inclination to grandiosity. The Scroll of Esther, here in line with ancient records on other items, depicts this unstable character of his quite vividly.

In this deficiency of his, of which he must have been aware, Xerxes tried to upkeep rather the forms than the spirit of the religion, sticking still to the Achaemenian principle that the kingship was endowed to them by Ahura Mazda. Since lying was considered the basest of all sins and the source of all evil, a word spoken by the king could not be altered as a matter of consequence.

While Cyrus subordinated himself to what he conceived as the Divine; and while Darius I made the Divine truth as perceived by him to his guiding principle; Xerxes, at the climax of Persia's and his personal glory⁸ apparently saw himself as the mouthpiece or even representative of the Divine, and words which came out of his mouth were to be taken as unalterable "Dat" (Law). This allowed others to sound the tone through him, and he conceded to his counselors' suggestions to declare the dethronement of Queen Vashti; and then, ten years later⁹ the hanging of the Jews, as Dat.

It is apparently not by mere chance that these events are mentioned in connection with the King's lavish feast, and *harem*. In the visions of Daniel, the Medo-Persian Empire is compared to a devouring bear¹⁰, a comparison which does not fit the rules and behaviors of Kings Cyrus and Darius I. The sages, apparently considering Ahasuerus/Xerxes, explain that base drives as those of that animal allowed adversary forces to grip it.

3) Haman Hammedatha the Agagite

Intrigues like that of Haman should be seen before this background. It is revealing to look closer at his name in this context. He is frequently called "Hammedata the Agagite"¹¹. The term Hammedatha is often interpreted as "Given by the Moon" (from Pers. mah and data = Moon-given, Ordained by the Moon). If so, it would indicate his close connection to the pre-Zarathustrian worhippers of nature forces. But this term could also be understood as "The Maker of dat", The Law-Maker, that is, as the one who issues laws which, although formally correct, do not necessarily reflect the overall spiritual principle they should codify. The King, unsure of his assumed god-like position, might have been charmed by the cleverness of this Hammedata/law-maker who, among others, was able to "legalize" the return of the ancient pagan Anahita cult (and later on the hanging of the Jews).

The term Agagite is usually understood as a reference to Haman's descendent from Agag, king of Amalek¹². Amalek was the tribe most hostile to Israel¹³, hostile for no other reason than for the sake of robbery and hostility. Most likely, Haman was not a Persian by birth but a stranger promoted by the king¹⁴. May be that he was physically of the tribe of Amalek, but it may also well be that that term describes him as one of Amalek's trait. His contempt for the Jews altogether is brought out in the phrase that "he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone ... he sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout all the kingdom ..."¹⁵. Mordecai's refusal to bow down before him and what he stood for, served him only as pretext.

Scenes like these clouded for the Jews the picture of the Persian Empire not less than the impediments of the construction of the Temple caused by other hostile peoples.

3) Esther and Ahasuerus.

According to the Targum of Esther, when Esther¹⁶ sought to see the king and plead on behalf of the menaced Jews, Ahasuerus/Xerxes first assumed that she wanted to get his permission to rebuild the Temple (meaning to allow the continuation of the impeded work), and did not want to grant this wish of hers. Apparently he was not aware of Cyrus' edict, and saw no possibility to grant Esther's (supposed) wish. Hostile court officials had managed to hide it away¹⁷. Haman apparently belonged to their faction18, perhaps even functioned as their leader. We would be mistaken, however, if we would think that they targeted only the Jews: their ambitions went much beyond vanquishing the latter.

The Scroll of Esther relates this scenery very vividly, however from a different angle. When the already suspicious King asked Haman how to honor a faithful man who had done a good service to the king, and Haman supposed that he would be the one to be honored, he suggested to be dressed with the royal apparel which the king uses to wear; to be put on the horse that the king rideth upon; and (even) the crown royal to be set upon his head¹⁹. Haman would not have dared to make such an inordinate, even insulting proposal if he had pursued merely personal ambitions, unsupported by others; or was only sour against unbending Mordecai and his people, the Jews. He must have thought that once he had the crown royal in public upon his head, he could take over with the help of the forces at his disposal.

Thus, the above quoted mentioning in the Targum, if we take it as historic record, shows us:

a) The building in Jerusalem had come to an halt because of Xerxes’ campaign against revolting Egypt and/or on instigations by hostile groups, or peoples, during the early years of his reign;

b) the king, aware of the impediment, did obviously not know Cyrus' edict. For, had he known it, he could not have disregarded it, as the "Dat (Law) of the Medes and the Persians could not be altered";

c) before this background, we can understand Mordecai's request that Esther should not reveal her kindred nor her people²⁰. He must have been aware of these hostile elements and their growing influence. The Jews were already slandered, and hiding her Jewishness might allow her finding out what is going on behind the scenes, perhaps even gaining some influence;

d) we don't know up to which degree Esther succeeded in concealing her Jewishness, but at least the King must have become aware of it in an earlier stage, or else he would not have suspected her -according to the Targum - of pleading for the renewal of the building in Jerusalem. He had come to "love Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti"²¹. Her integrity as a Jewess, finding expression in the depth of her mind and the warmth of her heart, must have affected him not less than her natural beauty and the cosmetics applied to her.

This, as well as her and the other Jews' fasts and prayers; the King's sleepless night and discovery from the Court annals about Mordecai's loyalty²², helped to bring about Haman's fall.

But King Ahasverus, even after he realized that he was duped by Haman, felt that he could not revoke his decree to hang Mordecai and the Jews; he rather issued a new decree which allowed the Jews to take care of themselves and fight their adversaries without interference on the part of the Persian authorities, even with their consent²³. It was surely also in the king's interest to get rid of the treacherous chancellor Haman and his clique without sending Persian forces against them. From the Scroll of Esther we may gather that Haman's henchmen, besides the five hundred in Shushan the capital, numbered some 75000²⁴ - indeed a formidable task force. They were ready to strike not only against the Jews but most likely to topple the king as well, and to re-establish the pre-Achemenian and pre-Zarathustrian regime²⁵.

In this context we ought to look closer into ancient sources. There, Haman is depicted as an agent on behalf of the Macedonians²⁶, i.e. Greeks who supported the Parthians, a people rivaling the Persians. Thus, Haman's fall saved not only the Jews, it saved Persia as well.

The people of the capital Shushan who were deeply disturbed when they heard about Haman's decree16, had now all the reason to be glad and rejoice together with the Jews "who had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour"²⁷.

This joy of theirs became even a Persian national event:

Haman had chosen Nowrooz (New Year's Day), in the middle of the month of Adar (approx. the month of March), as the day for carrying out the plot to kill the Jews²⁸ and to overthrow the Achaemenians. It was foiled by Mordecai's steadfastness and Esther's superb conduct. We can be sure that these comportments of theirs, as well as the three days' fast of the menaced Jews, caught the attention of Persians loyal to the Court, so that they could warn -perhaps in co-operation with Esther²⁹- the King of the impending danger, and prepare him for the meeting with Haman³⁰. Above all, it was Haman's own behavior which began to turn fate against him. His insolent demand "to set the crown royal upon his head" must have startled the king. Apparently sensing the danger, he gave order to dress the one to be honored, and put him on the king's horse, as per his request, but pointedly omitted mentioning the crown. The king, brought to his senses literally in the last minute, could thwart Haman, turn fate against him, and save the Jews and his throne as well.

In the wake of these events, Nowrooz took on an additional dimension. Besides the ancient traditions, the Persians celebrat(ed) on this joyful day also their preservation from Haman and his dark forces. The lot ("Pur") had fallen in favor of the Achaemenians as well as to that of the Jews. It contributed certainly to the Persians' esteem for the Jews in general, and for Mordecai in particular³¹. The Persians, considering the importance of the whole event, duly recorded it in their royal chronicles: "And all the acts of his power and might, and the full account of the high honor of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia"³².

We may understand now why both communities celebrate this event: the Jewish people annually as Purim,³³ while the Parsees³⁴ celebrate it as part of their Nowrooz. The foiling of Haman's plot had turned out to be a national event for Jews and Persians alike. The latter were accustomed since ancient times to celebrate in spring season the joyful day of New Year, known as Nowrooz, the "New Day", or "New Creation". It marks both the renewal of life after winter and, symbolized by it, the overcoming of the evil forces of darkness by truth and justice as the forces of light. Moreover, the Parsee’s celebrations give us another indication of Purim's historicity.

As mentioned, Ahasuerus/Xerxes conceded towards the end of his 20 years reign to the continuation of the building in Jerusalem. Most likely he did so in gratefulness to Queen Esther and Mordecai, not on ground of Cyrus' edict: Apparently the original of the latter did even then not come to his knowledge. It was still hidden away.

The Kings Artaxerxes I and Darius II who followed Ahasverus/ Xerxes on the throne, certainly impressed by this Purim/Nowrooz story, showed this esteem, too, as said.

However, it was only under the latter, when the original of Cyrus' edict was found after some lengthy search³⁵, that the permit for completion of the work at the Temple could be confirmed in accordance with the above mentioned principle that a word of a Persian king, including the edict of Cyrus, was an unchangeable "dat" (law).

There is still another important aspect of the story of Purim. At the first glance it is somewhat astonishing that the book which relates it, is named after Esther. It is not named after Mordecai the Jew, and not after its imposing subject, Purim. This conveys an important message. Looking at Esther's career, we notice a transition of hers from a beautiful but otherwise passive orphan girl who consents to her uncle's bids, to a self-assured, wise, and influential queen; and on top, to a leading, even prophetic figure in Israel whose "decree established these matters of Purim, and it was written in the book"³⁶, meaning they were to be incorporated in the Tanakh on her behest. The sages, after long debates, indeed heeded this decree; and Purim got observed the longer the more.

We may see Esther's story as a paradigm for womankind's call altogether. In the kingdom of Ahasuerus, depicted as a typical male society with all its caprices in which women are but objects, Esther brings her natural beauty and her wisdom to the fore, not to deceive men but to bring the king to his senses, for his own good and for the welfare of the Jews as an essential ingredient of the empire in its restoration to the Divine order.

This leads us to the core of the message the Scroll of Esther probably wants to convey. Debates are still going on as to why there is no mentioning of God's name, or of a Divine intervention on behalf of his menaced people, the Jews. Indeed, in this respect the Scroll contrasts sharply the rest of the Tanakh which records, often in detail, all kind of events we conceive as miracles: the plagues in Egypt; the splitting of the Red Sea; the collapse of the walls of Jericho; sun and moon standing still on Joshua's command; David's consultations of the Divine before going to battle; etc. True, the change of the "Pur" is not less miraculous. Yet it was brought about by apparently "natural" means as e.g. Queen Vashti's deposition and Esther's acceptance into the Court; the fasts and prayers of the frightened Jews; the King's sleepless night and his discovery of Mordecai's loyalty; Haman's impertinence (by which the evil helped to destroy itself); etc. Looking at these, we sense quite a difference to the before mentioned events. This shows us that with Cyrus' advent, an era began in which all mankind, Jews and non-Jews, are meant to take responsibility on behalf of the Divine, and to mature therein. Women, symbolized by Esther, are to play a decisive, even leading role in the course of redemption as indicated in passages like these: "Esther commanded Mordecai"; "Esther the Queen, the daughter of Avihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority..."; "the decree of Esther established these matters of Purim"³⁷. In this, Esther "compassed" Mordecai.

Even more so, she "compassed" King Ahasuerus. Originally chosen for him from among many beauties not even as a play girl but rather like an object, she gained access to his heart and mind, and was finally recognized by him truly as queen: "And the king said unto Esther the queen... what is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee; or what is thy request? and it shall be done"³⁸ (Note: he does not add here the paltry phrase "up to half of the kingdom, and it shall be granted thee").

It was the Divine hidden in her which she acted out in an inconspicuous way, and which wrought all these. This is indicated indeed by her very name: Esther, אסתר, in Hebrew means I'll hide, i.e. the Lord God of Heavens and Earth, is acting through her in a hidden way.

Esther may serve as a model figure for a prophecy Jeremiah made in view of the new covenant he foresaw in connection with the final ingathering of the people of Israel: "...For the Lord has created a new thing in the earth: Woman shall compass man".³⁹ Esther had indeed "compassed" Mordecai and Ahasuerus to their true destiny – on expense of being betrothed to a Gentile king – however a Gentile king who allowed then the continuation of the Temple’s building.

Expanding on the latter, we can still see an additional aspect of the Purim story: Esther and her uncle Mordechai may well represent the people of Israel and their role in world history; Haman the Amalekite standing for the dark opposing forces; and King Ahasuerus the world ruler first swaying between Amalek and Israel but finally acknowledging the latter’s Divine call, for the benefit of Israel and consequently for the welfare of the Empire altogether⁴⁰.

L) The Persian Kings and the Temple

2009-10-15T22:09:00.002-07:00

When considering all the friendly attitude of the Persian kings --from the edict of Cyrus; the financial support of the building of the Temple by the treasury; their call upon the people to give also their free will shares; down to Darius'II decision-- it is astounding the more that there is no record or even hint that anyone of them ever visited the Temple; or at least sent an official delegation (as was apparently done by the Ethiopians during the period of the First Temple, as we may gather from Acts 8:27). Cyrus himself could not have done so since there was no Temple yet in his days. But what about the kings after him, especially those who employed Jews in high ranking positions, and who, like Artaxerxes I and Darius II, supported the building of the "House of God which is in Jerusalem" by word and deed? Had the spirit waned which guided Cyrus, leaving his edict and the sequacious laws ("dat") merely a matter of jurisdiction? Or did they suspect that official visits of the Temple might trigger more Smerdis- and Haman-like intrigues from even bigger parts of the people who could not yet adapt to a conduct of life as required by monotheism? We saw already that Zarathustra's monotheism was soon replaced by an outspoken dualism, and that cults of nature worship crept up again. The Persian Court was anyway plagued by endless intrigues fueled by all kinds of diverging interests. While there are no records of a Persian king ever visiting the Temple, Ezra 6:9,10 tells us definitely that the treasury was ordered by King Darius to provide for the daily sacrifices "so that they (the priests) could offer the sacrifices to the God of the Heavens, and pray for the wellbeing of the king and his sons".

This introduced an entirely new practice into Jewish tradition, namely, to pray for the welfare of specific rulers, and for that matter, even of worldly rulers. During the time of the First Temple, there were only the prayer and the symbolic sacrifices for the seventy (anonymous) nations symbolized e.g. by the seventy bullocks to be sacrificed during Succoth, the Feast of Tabernacles¹.

The custom that the respective rulers gave provisions to the Temple (and exempted its priests from taxes), and that the priests sacrificed and prayed for them, was kept also during the ensuing Greek and Roman period, except for Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Then, its abolishment in 66 C.E. signaled officially the rebellion against Rome. Later on it became –again- a practice in synagogues to pray for the rulers of the respective host countries.

We may infer from the before mentioned edict of King Darius, concerning the royal provisions for the Temple and the prayers for the royal family, that it recognized the Jewish-Mosaic Law as royal Persian Law, and made the rulers worthy to be supplicated for.

M) The period of the Second Temple

2009-10-15T22:09:00.001-07:00

How long did the Second Temple last? Counting from Cyrus' edict and the first return of the exiles from Babel under Sheshbazzar's lead in 535 B.C.E. till the destruction in 70 C.E. by Titus, we come to somewhat over 600 years. But there is the saying of a famous sage, Rav Yossi, that the Second Temple stood for 420 years.¹

This discrepancy of 180 or so years led to all kind of disputes and attempts either to align the historic dates to this dictum, or to disqualify it as mere conjecture.

Deducting 420 years from 70 C.E. leads us to 350 B.C.E., that is, into the days of Artaxerxes III who reigned from 364 - 335 B.C.E. At that time, the Persian Empire showed already many signs of crumbling. He had to cope with widespread severe revolts, and he is known for crushing them with an iron fist, even with cruelty. The principle of the Achaemenians, to govern as "Friends of Man", had worn out. Probably he saw no other way to keep the collapsing Empire.

One of these revolts seems to be reflected in the apocryphal Book of Judith. Its central figure Holofernes may well be related to the Cappadocian/Greek general of that name who is mentioned by ancient historians in connection with King Artaxerxes' III campaign to subdue Egypt again, after she had broken away due to Persia's weakness. He regained Egypt in 350 B.C.E. It could well be that the forces of Holofernes, taking advantage of Artaxerxes' III military engagement in Egypt, joined a wide spread revolt against the Persian rule, and managed in its wake to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem².

If so, Rav Yossi's saying mentioned above, would refer to the reconstruction of the Temple in 350, and would not take into account the several buildings and destructions and re-buildings which had occurred between Cyrus' edict and that final reconstruction. The Second Temple stood then, undestroyed, for 420 years³.

N) The Jewish community vis-a-vis Persia

2009-10-15T22:08:00.002-07:00

1) A Jewish king during the period of the Second Temple?

We had already a brief look into that question when pondering about Cyrus' assumed reflections on the subject.

We may ask whether Daniel and/or the Jewish Elders brought the question of installing a king from the line of David at all before Cyrus and Cambysos when they negotiated the details of the release of the Jewish people from the Babylonian captivity? Did Cyrus reject out of hand such a possibility; or did he postpone it till matters would be more settled, that is, till the political and cultural situation of his empire would be conducive for doing so?

From the Scriptures we know only that he put Sheshbazzar, most likely a scion from the House of David, as the governor of the first returnees from the Babylonian exile¹. It was apparently he who actually laid the foundations of the Temple², but shortly after, perhaps due to the death of the aged Sheshbazzar, his office was given to Zerubabel, also a scion from the House of David³.

Whatever Cyrus' stance might have been in this matter, we ought certainly to look at this question also from the Jewish side. It is more than doubtful that the Prophets or Elders brought a request to install a Jewish king before the Persian kings. For, the right to decide in that matter cannot be put into the hands of a Gentile, not even into the hands of one who is called Shepherd and Messiah of the Lord. If a friendly Gentile king like Cyrus would be entitled to install a Jewish king, a hostile successor could easily claim that he is entitled to revoke, and cancel, this grant of right.

This the more so as the Medo-Persian Empire, notwithstanding the outspoken friendliness of some of its kings, was but one of the four world empires headed by Babel, as depicted in Daniel's vision mentioned above.

The issue of a Jewish king in Jerusalem was not merely hypothetical. We may assume that it was discussed in the Jewish community in connection with Zerubabel who, although being a scion from the House of David⁴, was given the position only of a governor⁵. What was the attitude of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah, Maleachi, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, in that matter? Did they ponder this question? Did they come to the above conclusion; or did they yet bring the subject before the Persian court? The matter was in the air at least because of the enemies who accused the Jews of aspirations to put up a king of their own⁶.

The question of instituting a Jewish King was certainly quite delicate. As mentioned, the Persian kings adopted the title King of Kings. Interestingly enough, the Tanakh does not take it up in connection with Cyrus but speaks of him merely as of King Cyrus, Cyrus the King, Cyrus King of Persia, Cyrus King of Babel; and similar of his followers - except for Artaxerxes (more thereon see below in chapter "Some more reflections"). Perhaps the prophets and sages did not want to apply the title King of Kings to a human being. Somewhat later, however, they attributed it to the Lord God of Hosts as the Divine King over the earthly kings.

Most likely, the title King of Kings, was first employed by the Babylonians and then by the Persians. It may simply have described the accumulation of kingships. In the latter case, the kingship over Media, Persia, Babel, Egypt, etc, was in the hands of Cyrus and his successors. Here we have to take into account the possibility that the title King of Kings describes its bearer as ruler over other kings, although there is nothing definitely known that the Persian rulers left defeated kings on their respective thrones. Whatever the case, should a Jewish king be then a kinglet under the Persian King of Kings? And, should such a Jewish king be on an equal footing with other kings of the empire, presided over by the Persian King of Kings, or Emperor (perhaps comparable to King Herod and his successors under the Roman Emperors)?

In case the title King of Kings described the Persian ruler as the representative of the Divine on earth, it would have put a Jewish king under his sovereignty not only politically but spiritually as well. True, there is only one Divine Being, the Creator of all, and his prophets may ordain specific rites for his different subjects showing up as different nations, creeds, rites, etc. But the Jewish people with its very specific call cannot be subjugated to the rites given to other nations. The Gentile seer Balaam recognized this fundamental truth already much earlier by saying that Israel "shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations"⁷.

With all this in mind, we can somewhat easier understand the silence of the prophets of that period on the subject. It was simply not opportune to bring it to the fore. That the more so when we apprehend that neither the Persian Empire nor the Second Temple were meant to last. As mentioned, the latter would have to give way finally to the Third Temple after another long exile, and the Persian Empire was to be superceded by two other empires as outlined already in Daniel's prophecy about the four world empires8. If that be so, there was no need to insist on setting up a king already then. Indeed, the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah give us unmistakable hints to that end:

"Thus said the Lord of Hosts: once more, a little while [is it], and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all the nations, and the desire of all the nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, said the Lord of Hosts... great will be the glory of this House, the latter above the former [liter. the last more than the first], said the Lord of Hosts; and in this place will I give peace..."⁹.

"And there was the Lord's word a second time to Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month [of Kislev], saying: Speak to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth; and I will overthrow the throne of the kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots and those that ride them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother. In that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee a signet; for I have chosen thee, said the Lord of Hosts"¹⁰.

In our context, we should consider the following:

* The shaking of all the nations, and their desire to come, points definitely to an event in the far future, and beyond the Persian Empire which did not comprise "all the nations" (e.g. Greece; the countries known now-a-days as Lybia and Ethiopia; Arabia; India; and many others, were outside its realm).

* The formulation "great will be the glory of this house, the last more than the first", speaks obviously of the three Temples of the House of the Lord, with the glory of the last (=Third Temple) being greater than the first (First Temple). Prophet Haggai did certainly not want to arouse vain hopes that the glory of the Second Temple would be greater than that of the First Temple, nor could he expect that "the desire of all the nations to come" would take shape during the period of the Second Temple. The latter was to be an intermediate, and preparatory, stage for the final one.

* The phrase "I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms" speaks of the latter in plural, that is, of all of them, not merely of the Persian kingdom.

* The phrase "and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother" alludes obviously to Prophet Ezekiel's similar prediction (Ezek. 38:21; also Ps. 37:14,15).

* Zerubbabel is described as the Lord's chosen, and signet, in this unfolding of events. Since these were not to occur in his days, it may well mean that the title and office of Messiah-King were reserved for a scion from his line in due time, meantime hidden away.

The whole concept is brought out clearly also by Prophet Zechariah:

"...This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord of hosts. Who are you, o great mountain? Before Zerubbabel [you are, or: shall become] a plain; and he shall bring forth the chief stone thereof - shoutings of Grace, Grace unto it"¹¹.

"And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord, and you shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God"¹²

In view of our subject, we should ponder the following:

* "Not by might, nor by power". When formulating this word which can surely be traced to passages in the Torah¹³, the Prophet may well have felt it confirmed --but not yet finally fulfilled!-- by the appearance of Cyrus who freed Israel from the Babylonian captivity without any need for Israel to take to might or power.

* "Who are you, o great mountain", in direct contrast to the preceding word "Not by might, nor by power", refers to opposing powers. Often we find in the Tanakh the word mount, or mountain, as a metaphor for teaching¹⁴. In our case, it refers to Babel, the "mother", "glory", "crown" and "golden head" of all subsequent kingdoms¹⁵ and their precepts, including that of the Medo-Persian Empire. While they were plain before Zerubabel from the start, at the end they shall visibly to all, become "plain before Zerubabel"¹⁶.

* "Grace, Grace" (Hebrew (חן חן appears in Apostle Paul's writings as a key word which would help to make "plain" in the end the destructive mountain of Babel¹⁷ , the latter being represented by the "tower with its head in heavens".

* "Before Zerubbabel (you are) a plain...". In comparison to the teaching of the Lord Creator of Heavens and Earth, i.e. the Torah from Mount Sinai, the teaching of Babel and its tower in all its different shades and versions is plain, flat. At the end, they will be recognized as such by all, "and all the mountains and all the hills shall be lowered... and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed¹⁸.

From this we may understand that the taking over of the throne by the Hasmoneans a few centuries later was not only an infringement on the dictum that the king would have to be a scion from the line of David (Zerubabel was of that line); it was also premature if seen from this angle. Inevitably, it led to a deep split within the Jewish community, with far-reaching consequences till our days.

2) A challenge

2009-10-15T22:08:00.001-07:00

The monotheism proclaimed by Zarathustra and its practices observed by many Persians challenged the Jewish community also in other ways. How are we to apprehend Prophet Maleachi's words in which he puts the devotion of contemporary Gentiles in sharp contrast to the ill-practices of some Jews? Rebuking the latter, he says¹⁹:

"...I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising sun even unto the going down of the same my name is great among (liter. with) the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of hosts".

One might argue that the Prophet, speaking pointedly in present tense (i.e. not in future tense, as many translations have it), exemplified the attitude of sincerity in the devotion of some Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, etc Gentile subjects of the Persian Empire who could even in their ritual worship of idols be seen as praising by their deeds, however unknowingly, the One Creator beyond them. But much more likely, the Prophet could well have had in mind those influenced by Zarathustra and the Achaemenians who like Cyrus showed their devotion to God the Almighty and All-wise Judge (Ahura Mazda) also in their incense burning, fire rituals, and pure offerings stressed in that rebuke. This shows that in the eyes of the Prophet the thoughts, words, and deeds of men, including their incense offerings, if born by the yearning for truth and righteousness, are acceptable to the Lord of Hosts as honoring his Name. (Note: the Hebrew word for “name” means also essence of the being referred to).

Prophet Zechariah, apparently expounding those words of Prophet Haggai, enjoins:

"These are the things that you shall do: Speak every man the truth to his neighbor; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates; and let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbor; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord"²⁰.

Quite in line therewith our sages gave priority to the ordinances ( (משפטים which regulate the social structure of society over those commandments which pertain to the ritual (i.e. Man - God) aspects of religion²¹.

In our present world, it seems to be secondary whether we in our limitations speak of the Divine Being as God, Lord, Dieux, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Brahm, or what else, provided we stay in awe and love of him and his creation in accordance with the instructions given to us by his prophets. It is only in the '... ,עולם הבא olam ha'ba, the coming world, that the Name of the Lord will become known and be praised by all²².

3) Direction of prayer

2009-10-15T22:07:00.003-07:00

If all this be so, it may solve still another question. King Solomon enjoined in his prayer for inauguration of the First Temple that the people of Israel as well as a stranger who had heard of God's great name, and would come, should pray in the direction of the house he built on Mount Moriah²³.

Did the Persian kings take to this behest? Was it altogether communicated to them? Or was it understood in its most narrow sense as applying only to those who would come, and pray, in the Land of Israel after they have "heard of thy great name, and thy strong hand, and thy outstretched arm" (ibid)? In this case, too, it would have to be implemented fully only in the days of the Third Temple, notwithstanding "first fruits" like Ruth the Moabite²⁴.

The same holds true in view of Prophet Zechariah's word that the (present) fast days of Israel shall become feasts of joy and gladness²⁵. Since he speaks here, too, in future tense, this word cannot be interpreted as a command given erroneously to his contemporaries. The transition from fasting and mourning to joy and gladness will occur in due time.

4) Compilation of the Tanakh

2009-10-15T22:07:00.001-07:00

Whatever the Persian kings' reason for not visiting the Temple (or for not visiting it publicly) might have been, we ought to say to their credit that not less important than the physical building of the Temple was the fact that under their rule the Jews, although often severely molested by hostile elements, could dedicate themselves to their spiritual call, and work on the compilation of the most influential book of mankind: the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Quite a number of Biblical books were composed during the Persian period, as e.g. the Books of Haggai, Zechariah, Maleachi; Ezra, Nehemiah; the Scroll of Esther; the ending of the Book of Chronicles; several Psalms. Of previous Prophets, at least the Book of Ezekiel as well as the closing chapters of the Book of Jeremiah, were written in that period²⁶, too. They form an integral part of the Tanakh which was canonized finally only in the Roman period.

The ancient type of Hebrew writing was then, under Ezra, officially replaced by the so-called square, or Aramaic, letter types in which we still write the Torah scrolls and the rest of the Hebrew Bible. But not only the style of writing got altered. In the days of the Prophets during the period of the First Temple and before, the main emphasis in teaching the Torah had been on the spoken word. Now, after the institution of Prophecy had come to an end - with Haggai, Zechariah and Maleachi terminating it - the voice of prophets was no longer heard, and the teaching of Torah was founded on the written word. The square script, easier to read, enabled a wider public - Jews and non-Jews - to get access to it. This latter point may find a negative proof in the fact that the Samaritans who stayed with the ancient Hebrew writing, remained an enclosed community.

5) Translations of the Tanakh

2009-10-15T22:06:00.000-07:00

It seems most likely that several portions of the Tanakh which existed already then --foremost Torah and the Psalms of David-- were translated already at the time of the Persian kings into Aramaic, the international language of then. These kings wanted certainly to know from the source what Israel and its House of God in Jerusalem is all about. This the more so as they had to deal with the Jewish quest for Jerusalem as well as with the slander of hostile peoples and with the claims of the Samaritans who wanted first to take part in the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, and then have their sanctuary be built on Mount Gerizim. When we read in Ezra 4:7 that the adversaries in the days of Artaxerxes sent the King letters "written in Aramaic characters and composed in the Aramaic language", we may safely assume that the Jews had to present their cause likewise. Also the fact that the Book of Ezra is partly written in Hebrew, partly in Aramaic, gives us a hint that the Jews themselves were already at that time accustomed to use both languages. Rav Abba, a leading scholar of the 3rd century C.E., held that the practice of his days of translating the Hebrew readings into Aramaic in the synagogues, traces back to Ezra.

So far, no copy of such an early translation has been found, but till now-a-days we say prayers in that ancient language, and quite some portions of the Books of Ezra and of Daniel, and of the Scroll of Esther are still in Aramaic (although a somewhat "Hebraisized" Aramaic). Such a likely early Aramaic translation might have served as the prototype for Greek translations, including the Septuagint, and for Onkolos as well.

Since then, the teaching of the Tanakh reached about half of mankind, although for the time being mostly in the Christian or Moslem versions. The Psalms, like the rest of its content, would have become archaic songs and poetry of another people vanished in history, had it not been for the restoration of this people and its Temple under the Persian kings.

The Persian period was not graced by peace and tranquility throughout. Not only the royal court was plagued by quite a number of upheavals and intrigues, as mentioned already. Many peoples were affected by them, too, and apparently even more so the Jews. The city of Jerusalem and the Temple they had started to build, were raided and even destroyed in the Persian period at least twice by hostile neighbors, as we saw already. Then, in the ensuing Greek period, when the Temple was occupied and desecrated in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes IV by his troops, "the books that had been scattered because of war, were collected again"²⁷. We must assume that valuable scrolls, including translations of Biblical texts into Aramaic, as well as other documents were destroyed in these incidents. This may account for our lack of profound knowledge about that period.

6) Israel and the nations

2009-10-15T12:24:00.002-07:00

The fact that the period of the Second Temple was inaugurated by a Gentile king, Cyrus the Achaemenian, is hardly appreciated while in fact can’t be overrated. While the “times of the Gentiles”, that is their political dominion over Israel, are headed by Babylonia’s King Nebukadnezzar – the golden head in Prophet Daniel’s vision – the Second Temple had within the frame of these “times of the Gentiles” three main functions:

* to manifest and guarantee Israel’s dependence on the

Lord God of the Fathers, and spiritual –not necessarily

political- independence from the nations;

* thus to retain Israel’s function as the Lord’s witness

among the nations;²⁸

* the turning towards, and opening up to, the nations in order to prepare them, too, for the eventual fulfillment of the vision of peace expounded by the Prophets, foremost Isaiah and Zechariah.

This opening to the nations necessitated, on the other hand, the implementation of stricter rules for the own people in order to avoid assimilation and disintegration.

For instance, till the end of the First Temple, strangers who agreed, or wanted, to join the people of Israel, were simply accepted. Examples are:

Potiphera, daughter of an Egyptian priest, married to Joseph;

Zipporah, daughter of a Midian priest, married to Moses;

The “mixed multitude” who joined in Israel’s exodus from Egypt;

Rahab of Jericho “who dwells in Israel unto this day”;

Ruth the Moabite lady, an ancestor of King David;

King Solomon's foreign wives.

In contrast, Ezra and Nehemiah stressed now family purity.²⁹ Foreigners could not anymore simple join Israel. The Samaritans who wanted to do so, were rejected, as we saw. On the other hand, we are told that “many of the people of the land(s of Persia) became Jews"³⁰, that is, were accepted into the fold in a process of guided conversion. This may well mark the inception of that process of official conversion known as ,גיור (gueeyoor). But conversion was to remain the exception. The Gentiles were not – and are not – expected to convert. The sages developed the concept that during the “times of the Gentiles” it is upon the latter, individuals as well as nations, to abide by the minimum restrictions of the “Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah” (Noahide Laws, in short).³¹

Personal prayers which were typical for King David and the Prophets as well as for the common people of Israel,³² were more and more superceded by standardized community prayers, foremost the obligatory Shemonah Esreh (the “18 benedictions”).

All these regulations as well as others, required an elaborate codification, or regulation, of the Jewish customs. In this wake, the Persian term dat, law, was adopted, even became a basic concept. However, in order to balance its severity and yet to upkeep Israel’s peculiarity, the Men of he Great Assembly enjoined: “Be moderate in (the application of) justice… and make a fence for the Torah”.³³

While that be so, we should yet be aware of the fact that the Persian Kings, foremost Cyrus and Artaxerxes (mentioned above) went much beyond the requirements of the “Seven Noahide Laws”, and thus set a standard still to be emulated: They acknowledged the “God of Israel” and His Torah also in regard of Israel’s connection to her land. In that, they adhered also to Noah’s charge after the Flood(Gen. 9:26,27):
“Blessed be the God of S(h)em,

and Yephet shall live in the tents of S(h)em…”

O) The Fifth Centuray B.C.E.

2009-10-15T12:24:00.001-07:00

We should see all these breathtaking events, namely:

*the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity;

*the fall of Babylonia;

*the liberation of the Jews as well as of other dispersed peoples;

*Cyrus' edict, including his order to support the building of the House of the Lord in Jerusalem;

*the building of the House in spite of all the hostilities of neighboring peoples;

*the compilation of the Tanakh and, along with it, the development of the so-called square (Assyrian)script in which its scrolls are still written;

before the background of the historic events of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. which are widely seen as a turning point in human history. As mentioned, the areas from the Near to the Far East suffered from terrifying cruelties and atrocities for which foremost the Assyrians and the Babylonians were notorious. The Kingdoms of Israel and of Judah with its Temple fell prey to these empires. Even worse conditions prevailed in India and China whose social and religious systems had become so corrupt and vile that escapist philosophies and religions like Jainism, Taoism, and early Buddhism (still preserved in Hinayana), could come forth and gain ground. It is very revealing to remember in this context that the latter is set upon the recognition of suffering as the basic one of the Four Noble Truths its founder proclaimed. All these teachings, sublime as they appear, saw no other way out than the individual's salvation by withdrawal from the respective societies and their gods, the latter ones having been employed to support corrupt regimes. This may even be the main reason why these three teachings refer neither to God nor to gods. On the other hand, the Greeks in the West who had brought forth a Solon in their polis society, began to develop science and philosophy, part of which turned quite soon cynical and ironical, under the laughter of their gods. When Greek and Roman paganism had come to the end of its wits around the 1st Century C.E., it was open to listen to Paul's teachings, and absorb modified and convenient parts thereof into its system.

Yet, the Tanakh still provides a message of hope for the individuals as well as for the nations ( עמים) notwithstanding the fact that many Jews confronted by continuous hostilities, despaired, as mentioned.

It should be pointed out here that he Hebrew word 'am (plural: עמים , ‘amim), rendered as nations, describes those peoples who join to form a nation governed by the Lord of Hosts, i.e. those who are with' עם) eem) him and through him with one another. Thus, the Hebrew language, and in its wake the Hebrew teaching, point out the importance of togetherness in matters of salvation, too. Hebrew thinking is not geared to an individual's salvation by withdrawal from society and its ills; it strives for "tikkun ha'olam", the restoration of the world to its Divine order.

Interestingly enough, this hope of the Prophets is strongly expressed exactly in those chapters of the Book of Isaiah which are often referred to as Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, and which commence with the reference to Cyrus as the Lord's Shepherd and Anointed.

Indeed, we can pin down this turning point in history of the sixth and fifth century BCE to King Cyrus.

P) Prophet Zechariah's vision of the Menorah

2009-10-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

How influential the Achaemenians' stance of justice and righteousness towards all their different subjects and their favorable attitude towards the Jews has been on the Tanakh itself, we may gather especially from Prophet Zechariah who lived in the Persian period. No other prophet concerned himself so much with Gentiles and their relations to the people of Israel in general, and to the Temple in Jerusalem as their focus in particular.

A striking feature in this regard is his vision of the Menorah flanked by two olive branches. Let’s focus now on his whole vision of the Menorah and its meaning. As it is of crucial importance, its text shall be given here in fullness:

And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep. And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick [Menorah] of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and its seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof: And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other on the left side thereof.

So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord?

Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these are? And I said, No, my lord.

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word unto Zerubabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubabel, a plain; and he shall bring forth the headstone [thereof] with shoutings, Grace, grace, unto it.

Moreover, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

The hands of Zerubabel have laid the foundation of this house; and his hands shall put it [liter. her] into effect; and thou shalt know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me unto you [אליכם; you plural].

For who has despised the day of the little things? They shall rejoice and see the plummet in the hand of Zerubabel. Those seven are the eyes of the Lord: they run to and fro through the whole earth.

Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? And I answered again and said unto him, What are these two olive branches which are in the hands of the two pipes of gold that empty from them the gold [golden oil]? And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord. Then he said, These are the two anointed [ ,בני-יצהרliter. sons of fresh olive oil] that stand by the Lord of the whole earth".¹

On the Prophet's astonished and repeated questions about the meaning of these two olive branches, the angel explained them as the ,בני-יצהר the two "sons of fresh olive oil" that stand by the Lord of the whole earth²

The term ,בני-יצהר often translated as the two anointed, is quite peculiar. The usual interpretation sees these two "sons of fresh olive oil" as referring to the High Priest Yehoshua (Joshua) and to Zerubabel the political leader of the returnees from Babylonia This, however, would not explain the bewilderment of the Prophet and his repeated questions about the meaning thereof, nor would it explain why the answering angel invented the term בני-יצהר instead of simply describing them as משיחים , meshihim, anointed; or as , בני-משיחים bnei meshihim, liter. “sons anointed”; or: sons of olive oil.

The common term “olive oil” stands for oil pressed one or even several years ago, while the term יצהר describes always the oil which comes freshly out of the olive press. In this respect, it contrasts old, perhaps even rancid oil. Although coming from the same olive tree(s), in its allegoric meaning it stands for the renewed perkiness and vividness of the Divine spirit and light. We may understand it as a parallel term for Jeremiah's "New Covenant"³ which does not speak of a new law but of renewed hearts enlivened by the Spirit of the eternal Law. Likewise here, in Zechariah's vision, the term , יצהרizhar, indicates the perkiness and vividness gained from a new harvest so-to-speak of the eternal Divine wisdom symbolized by the olives.

While Jeremiah speaks in the above vision of the House of Judah and the House of Israel only, Zechariah's vision includes obviously also those of the nations who would join them, and stand side by side with them4. If so, the two olive branches flanking the Menorah could stand for the healed and renewed spirits both of Israel and of the nations enlightened by, and focused on, the spirit of the Lord symbolized by the Menorah. Zechariah's vision links up to Zephaniah's word: "...then I will turn to the peoples a pure [liter. purified] language that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent"⁵.

This clarifies also why the Prophet speaks of ,בני-יצהר sons of fresh olive oil, and not of משיחים , Messiahs: These "sons of fresh olive oil" may well be enlivened by the Divine wisdom which the olive oil symbolizes; but they are not Messiahs. In a previous chapter we saw that anyway two Messiahs cannot function side by side at the same time. It should also be mentioned that these two sons of fresh olive oil do not replace or substitute THE MESSIAH whose coming we are expecting towards the end of days. They rather will be preparing for it and will, in a Cyrus-like manner, show sympathy and support for the Jewish people and its call as symbolized by the Menorah.

The nations would have to be prepared for this end by means of explaining the Lord's way with his people, Israel; and by instructing the nations^5a for their way. This age-old concept of the Prophets is summarized by the words in Zechariah's vision:

"Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit,

says the Lord of Hosts".

If so, this would explain also the meaning of the two בני יצהר symbolized by the two olives. It seems of significance that the Prophet conceived them first as two olive trees, but when he asked for the third time about their meaning, he realized that they were not olive trees but merely olive branches. Only after he specified his question about their meaning accordingly, he received the answer that "these are the two בני יצהר (liter. sons of fresh olive oil) that stand by the Lord of the whole earth". Speaking here of the Lord God of Israel, symbolized by the Seven-Branched Candlestick, as "the Lord ((אדון) of the whole earth", tells us that we ought to see these two בני יצהר not as an internal affair of Israel but as concerning the whole earth, i.e. all the nations.

From the point of grammar, these two בני יצהר =bnei izhar, could symbolically stand for Israel and the nations called upon and awakened directly by the Lord’s spirit, and –consequently- grouped around the Menorah as their common center.

While such a direct call is conceivable theoretically (perhaps pre-figured by the call of Cyrus), it is much more likely that the peoples will have to be prepared by messengers. Thus, these two בני יצהר could well stand for two messengers who would prepare the nations for receiving the spirit symbolized by the Menorah, the eternal Divine Light.

From Abraham, the father of monotheistic faith, came forth three main descendants: Jacob/Israel, and Esau, from Isaac the son of promise he had from Sarah; and Ishmael he had from Hagar. Each of these three descendants has his own task and respective blessing^5a). Taking the Menorah in Zechariah’s vision as symbolizing Israel and its Temple, the two בני יצהר flanking it could well stand for two messengers to be sent to the descendants of Esau and Ishmael respectively; and through them eventually also to those nations which otherwise came from Noah’s sons Japhet and Ham.

So far, only two historic personalities match that picture: Apostle Paul who worked in Greece and Rome; and Rassul Mohammed, a descendant from Ishmael, who worked foremost among the tribes who derived from the latter, and who then in turn appealed mainly to the Hamite peoples. (India, China, and Japan, which are neither Christian nor Muslim, are apparently influenced by those sons of Abraham he had from Kethura – a subject which cannot be dealt with here).

Objections that Christianity and Islam turned hostile against Israel (and now also one against the other), do not hold as these hostilities are due to misunderstandings and even willful interpretations of the respective messages (that is, they are not genuine neither to the “NT” nor to the Koran).

With the return of the people of Israel to the country of its origin and of its destiny, the dispute flared up to an open confrontation over the question “Whose Land”, with Jerusalem as a “burdensome stone”; a “cup of trembling”; a “test stone” – terms incidentally coined by the very Prophets :Isaiah and Zechariah – from whom we learned about

Cyrus as the “shepherd of the Lord”;

and about the two בני יצהר “bnei izhar flanking the

Menorah.

The nations, after realizing that all their other efforts and crafts are in vain, and that they have followed false gods⁶, would eventually come to understand that "there -in Zion/Jerusalem- the Lord has commanded the blessing, even life for evermore"⁷, and would "come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem"⁸. Like Cyrus, they would, guided by the Lord’s spirit - depicted by the Menorah - once stand side by side with Israel: "And many nations, גויים) goyim) shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall become unto me a people , עם)"aam)⁹. The nations would then neither try to do away with the throne of David and its manifestation in Zion, nor would they try to usurp it. They would rather realize that they will bless themselves by blessing Abraham's seed, as foretold:

"...and all the nations on earth shall bless themselves

in thy seed”והתברכו בזרעך).)¹⁰

In Cyrus, history proved that the Lord God of Israel, the Creator and Lord of All, is, unlike other local deities, not confined to the borders of the respective worshippers. Rather, He can, and does, work in human history. Thus, the ancient hopes for peace on earth under the kingship of the Lord God confessed by Israel, need not remain utopian, notwithstanding the fact that of the four world empires¹¹, so far only the Persian Empire was friendly with the Jewish people and what it represents.

Might and power may change the course of history, but if it is not to remain an endless zig-zag course of the "revolt of the oppressed against the oppressors"¹², it will see its decisive improvement as that result of change of mind and of understanding which the Prophets foretold.

Prophet Zechariah, probably with that change of mind in view, describes the future KING MESSIAH as צדיק ונושע = righteous and redeemed”¹³, and not as a miraculous wonder worker. He may have to fight wars, perhaps similar to the wars of Joshua, of King David, and of King Cyrus, but more decisive than such wars will be the turn of hearts by which the peoples will acknowledge him as the King of Righteousness. Laws of nature need not to be bent for bringing about that turn of hearts. Rather it is the natural and true sense for the Good innate in all peoples created in God's image which will eventually lead them to emancipate from false ideals ("false gods"), and mature; and, recognizing the righteous one, will come to his help ("redeem" him). In fact, this is not a novel idea. It rather has its models in King David and King Cyrus: The peoples recognized their righteousness and helped them.

While Zechariah's vision roots certainly in sayings like "the Lord saveth his anointed"¹⁴, the Prophet was apparently also influenced, at least to some degree, by the advent of Cyrus "whose right I have holden" (says the Lord), i.e. whose heart he has directed and who, consequently, was welcomed (that is: helped, redeemed) by the peoples who opened their gates to him in appreciation of his righteousness and compassion.

We may see these historic events as a token for that future turn-about which the Prophets describe as:

"For then will I turn to the peoples a pure [liter.

purified] language, that they may all call upon the name

of the Lord, to serve him with one consent"¹⁵

"And it shall come to pass, that everyone that is left of all the nations which came up against Jerusalem, shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles"¹⁶

"Even them [=the strangers] will I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations"¹⁷

"Pray for the glory of the Lord that it will be redeemed", is an appropriate saying of the sages to the point¹⁸. And the Psalm urges each and all: "Ask for Jerusalem-Peace"¹⁹

Q) Ezra's celebration of Succoth

2009-10-15T12:22:00.000-07:00

After the construction of the essential parts of the Temple was completed, the vision of Prophet Zechariah was given symbolic expression already then, on Succoth (the Feast of Tabernacles) celebrated under the guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah. Since both of them were contemporaries of the Prophet¹, we may safely assume that they conferred with him, and took up his visions.

Succoth, like the two other Biblical convocations Pessach and Shavuoth, has besides the historic/religious and the agricultural aspects also a prophetic bearing, in this case that of the ingathering of all the peoples, Jews and others, so-to-say as the last harvest into the Third Temple². Succoth stands thus also for the feast of peace on earth, for the time being at least symbolically and as a sign of hope³.

Ezra^3a and Nehemiah gave expression to this hope by specially ordering the people "to go forth unto the mount and fetch branches of the (wild) olive tree and of the goodly olive tree"⁴ besides the other commanded varieties of branches (palm branches, myrrh, willow). The order to fetch branches of both the wild olive tree and of the goodly olive tree is peculiar indeed, and the interpretation of the Torah given by Ezra and Nehemiah on that day must have included the explanation of the meaning of the two varieties of olive branches, and of this peculiar order as being derived from the law⁵. When hearing that, the people wept. Apparently they had hoped for a feast of joy and peace among themselves, now and forever – and were rather shown that others symbolized by the wild olive branches would become associated. In response to their weeping, Ezra encouraged them: "Be not sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength"⁶

Prophet Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, must have realized by then that monotheism with its high ethical and moral standards cannot be brought into mankind neither by acts of a government, not even by a well-disposed one like that of Cyrus and Darius; nor could that be done by the nation of Israel, at least not as long as the peoples are not prepared for it and become ready to accept it. This preparation would have to be done in a way modeled after the “mixing of leaven into the dough” (Matth. 13:33); and/or by “mingling clay into the iron” (as per Dan. 2:41-43).

Zechariah's vision of the Menorah flanked by two olive branches, if seen in connection with Hos. 14:6,7 and Ezra's above order for Succoth, must have served as a fulcrum in Paul's message to the Gentiles in which he depicts them as wild olive branches grafted "in violation of nature" onto the goodly olive tree, Israel⁷. By adhering to this spirit they would, according to Paul, eventually become co-fellows, co-citizens, co-heirs with the Jews⁸.

In our times, the State of Israel reborn after the destruction of the Second Temple roughly 1900 years ago, made the Menorah flanked by two olive branches its official emblem of state; and a stylized Menorah presented by some Members of the (British) House of Commons to the new State of Israel, shows in one of its branches Prophet Zechariah's famous word⁹: "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord", a word which still expresses the hopes of many people, Jews and non-Jews alike.

Although there is much theological, political, and even violent resistance against Israel’s rebirth and what it stands for, there is yet good hope that the prophecies will come true, for the benefit and the blessing of all men of His Will.

We may indeed see the rebirth of Israel in 1948 as a token for the eventual fulfillment of the ancient hope for peace on earth, namely that "nation shall not lift up sword against nation", and that "they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain"¹⁰ Wonderusly enough, this rebirth occurred in the very same decade which saw the devastating and unparalleled havocs of Auschwitz and Hiroshima.

R) Cyrus' tomb. Its inscription and bequest

2009-10-15T12:16:00.002-07:00

Cyrus not only facilitated the Second Temple. As we saw, he serves also as a token that these prophecies can come true. His simple tomb bore, according to Herodot, the inscription:

I, Cyrus, the Achaemenian

(Literally translated, it means: I, Cyrus, the Friend of Men)

Cyrus lived truly up to this epithet. In his person, this Persian title was confluent with the Hebrew term Messiah, Anointed of the Lord. Submitted to the spirit of the Lord, he was genuinely a friend of men. He introduced in deed a new epoch in mankind's history. He proved that a true friend of men is by virtue also a friend of the Jews, and vice versa that a true friend of the Jews is by virtue a friend of men. For, all of us form as the descendants of Adam the family of mankind.

A fundamental aspect of Cyrus' attitude was that he, truly an Achaemenian, did not rule as a despot; he rather counseled with his officers and was willing to adhere to their advice if it seemed to be better. By that he laid the foundation for what the Greeks developed then as the idea of democracy, and what in recent time became known as team work.

In this context it is surely remarkable that in Judaism the institution of the Prophets was superceded by the Sanhedrin in the Persian period¹.

Since prophecy is seen as an expression of the special and unique relationship between God and his people, with the Prophet as one who imparts the Divine message, its cessation is often felt as part of the spiritual punishment that Israel must endure for its sins². It seems to me that this cessation was, and still is, a logical necessity in that grand scheme in which the period of the Second Temple introduced by King Cyrus, and the sequacious long-lasting dispersion of the Jewish people among the nations gives the latter the chance to accept the "Torah from Mount Sinai" and to live up to its instructions. The Divine - חן חן grace, grace - extended to them, provides for them the gifts of heaven. It allows them to choose between continuing in the footsteps of Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, and the "heroes of faith" mentioned in the Epistle of Hebrews³; or in those of Haman, Antiochus Epiphanes IV, Nero, Hadrian, Justinian, Tomas de Torquemada, Mufti Amin el-Husseini, etc, climaxing in Shoah and Jihad. Prophet Zechariah says in this respect: "...with great wrath I am wroth with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little wroth (over my people) but they (the nations) helped forward the disaster"⁴.

By either rejecting or accepting the Divine Revelation from Mount Sinai they prove the justification of Israel's election.

These "Times of the Gentiles" commence by date with Nebukadnezzar who, as the "servant of the Lord"⁵, had to bring the era of the First Temple to its end. While King David, the founder of Zion, proclaimed foremost in his Psalms the Lord God of Israel as the Divine King over all mankind; and while we may perceive Prophet Isaiah with his extended prophecies of a new world peacefully united under the Lord God of Israel⁵ as its chief visionary advocate, it was Cyrus who began to implement this ideal in world politics. He generated a new gist in human history, gave it a positive turn. His premature death on the battlefield may be taken as an indication that also symbolically his work remains unfinished till to-day.

The inscription on his original tomb is both his confession and his legacy to mankind.

S) Cyrus, Messiah of the Lord, and Alexander the Great

2009-10-15T12:16:00.001-07:00

Alexander admired Cyrus greatly, and wanted to emulate, even outdo him. While he may have surpassed him by the sweeping victories his genius led him to achieve, he certainly lacked behind in other deportments. True, his father, King Phillip the Macedonian, prepared him for his task by procuring the best means of education available then, but his way to the top leadership was marked by a number of murders of opponents, even of relatives. He did not succeed in laying a solid foundation for the consolidation of the vast empire he had conquered within a few years. True, in his idealism, he developed the idea to establish settlements in the conquered areas to bring Greek culture there. He hoped to eliminate further wars by suggesting his soldiers to make love with the local girls, and even demanded from his top officers to marry ladies of high ranking local families, mainly so in Persia which he admired. While Greek culture made its impact on the different societies, it was not up to the task envisaged by Alexander. More often than not, it led to demoralization, and his soldiers destroyed profoundly Persian palaces, libraries, and cultural places. These destructions included the Law of the Persians which was written upon the famous "twelve thousand cow hides", and the tomb of King Cyrus. The latter, it is said, got than rebuild in its original shape on Alexander's order. He may have regretted these destructions, but granted that this was so, it shows that he did not succeed to imbue his army with his ideals. His huge empire split up with his untimely death.

While he himself seems to have respected the Temple in Jerusalem, one of his successors, the Diadoch king Antiochus IV, who hoped to make the world more enlightened and happy in the way of the Greek god Dionysos, forbade learning Torah, performing circumcision, keeping Shabbat, etc, clashed with the Jews, and was defeated by the Maccabees, an event which we still celebrate in Hanukkah. May it be mentioned here that the Maccabees' victory over Antiochus and what he stood for, laid the foundation for what became eventually known as "Freedom of Religion" – one of the four principles of the "Atlantic Charter" after Word War II.

Alexander and his idealism was a one-time, comet like event. True, Greek philosophy and sciences made their impact on the Western world, but that was not due to him.

T) King Cyrus in the Koran

2009-10-15T12:14:00.000-07:00

Should we be astonished that Cyrus is honorably mentioned in the Koran¹, however not by his name Cyrus but as "Dhool-Qarnain" (verses 82ff), literally the Lord of the Two Horns? This title cannot refer to Alexander the Great, as suggested by Western scholars and partly taken up by Moslems, too. The description of the wars the Dhool-Qarnain of the Koran waged, does not fit at all Alexander's wars. It depicts accurately Cyrus' wars. Moreover, the title "Lord of the Two Horns" does not make any sense in connection with Alexander, but it may well refer to Cyrus' kingship of the Medo-Persian double monarchy²; or to his accepting the title "King of Babel(Babylon)" besides "King of Persia".

Relating the term "Dhool-Qarnain" to the two titles "King of Persia" and "King of Babel (Babylon)" would have also a spiritual dimension: Babel was founded as a spiritual kingdom in confrontation to what Shem and 'Eber represent. Since Babylon represented at that time also what is known in English as Babel, Babylon's surrender to Cyrus who prepared for restoring the Temple could be interpreted as an admittance of his political and spiritual supremacy. The term "Dhool-Qarnain", or "Lord of the Two Horns", would then describe his kingship of the two spiritual entities, i.e. the kingdom of Persia which supported Israel, and of Israel's antagonist, Babylon, now subdued.

However, the latter was subdued militarily and politically only. The ill spiritual endeavor of Babel's adherents, "to build a tower with its head in the heavens", so as to "make a name unto themselves"³, continued throughout history, till our days. History proved that Alexander's Greece, and later on Rome, linked much more up to Babel than to Cyrus' Persia. As this was known at the time Rassul Muhammed referred to him as Dhool-Qarnain, we may safely conclude that this term describes him as King of Persia and King of Media.

It seems to me there is significance to the fact that "Dhool Qarnain" is mentioned in a Sura entitled "The Cave". As its predominant subject appears the story of some men, he amongst them, who got hidden in a cave for several hundred years and who, after they came out, were not recognized by the new generation nor could they familiarize therewith. Isn't that – perhaps intentionally – accurately depicting what happened with Cyrus? True, he is known in history as The Great, but he is quite unknown as "Anointed of the Lord": in that nomination of his he is like hidden away in a cave; and unrecognized even when he comes out from it. Besides Prophet Isaiah, it is the Koran’s intention to remind us of him. – May it be mentioned here that the Koran is in line with the Hebrew Bible in all respects, including Ishmael’s specific call.

U) Some more reflections

2009-10-15T12:13:00.000-07:00

Reflecting on important episodes in Israel's history, we can discern three very peculiar events:

a) The Lord redeemed his people from Egypt, and gave them the Torah, not through a learned Jewish scholar but through a Moses who was brought up in Pharaoh's court, and then resided with the Midianite priest Jethro – i.e. by outer circumstances alienated from the people of Israel yet one with them;

b) He established Jerusalem and Zion through a shepherd boy, David. One of his ancestors was Ruth the Moabite lady, a stranger with a heart for Israel;

c) He "held him (Cyrus) by his hand" and made him instrumental in freeing the Jews from Babel's captivity and in preparing for the Second Temple.

In each of these three basic events of Israel's history, outsiders played a key role in the respective unfolding.

While we know of Moses and of King David only from the records in the Tanakh, Cyrus is documented both in the Tanakh and in mundane history. He and the Persian kings after him underlined the validity of the Tanakh also in the realm of the politics of the nations, beyond the sphere of metaphysical religion. He, the Gentile king and Messiah, serves as an unsuspected witness for Israel's destiny, namely her destiny in which she is “chosen” to serve as Kingdom of Priests for the benefit of all mankind.

The three events mentioned above, show also that Israel's call is not one of her own aspirations and likings, as often alleged. In fact, she is rather passive in this respect, a passivity which is expressed even by the grammatical form of the word “chosen”. Her main activity is her faithfulness to the covenant of Abraham.

In addition to the three peculiar events mentioned above, we can evaluate as another surprising feature the fact that it is the Koran which reminds us of King Cyrus the Anointed of the Lord, as mentioned.

Let us recollect his edict:

"Thus says Cyrus King of Persia: The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he has charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem which is in Judah.

Who is there among all his people whose God is with him, may he go up".

Cyrus proved to be a true savior of Jerusalem and of Zion as well as a model for any future savior

Cyrus-the-Achaemenian

P r e f a c e

C Y R U S THE A C H A E M E N I A N

M E S S I A H O F T H E L O R D

By

Dr. Asher Eder©

CYRUS – List of Contents page

Back cover write up (suggestion):

1) Messiahship and Messianic personalities in the Tanakh

The term Messiah, Anointed, is known to Jews, Christians, and Muslim. As each of them has his particular understanding of its meaning, it seems appropriate to elucidate its denotation in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, whence it originated.

B) The historic setting

C) The forming of the Persian Empire

1) Zarathustra and his impact.

2) The Achaemenians

D) Cyrus' personality and feats

1) Cyrus' birth.

2) Zarathustra and the possibility of his influence

3) Cyrus' name and Divine call

4) Cyrus' kingship

5) The Medes’ turning against Babylon

E) Babylon’s fall

1) The New Babylonian Empire

2) Belshazzar’s banquet

3) Cyrus’edict to the Babylonians

4) Cyrus vis-a-vis the Jews in Babylon

F.) Cyrus' edict

2) Its formulation

3) The edict's arrangements for restitutions and for paying expenses.

4) Cyrus' attitude beyond tolerance

5) Confirmation of the edict by successor kings

6) A message throughout the ages

7) Objections to Cyrus' Messiahship refuted

G) More reflections on Cyrus' personality and politics

H) Opposing forces in the Persian Court

I) The Samaritans' rivalry

K) Haman's plot, the story of Purim

L) The Persian Kings and the Temple

M) The period of the Second Temple

N) The Jewish community vis-a-vis Persia

2) A challenge

3) Direction of prayer

4) Compilation of the Tanakh

5) Translations of the Tanakh

6) Israel and the nations

O) The Fifth Centuray B.C.E.

P) Prophet Zechariah's vision of the Menorah

Q) Ezra's celebration of Succoth

R) Cyrus' tomb. Its inscription and bequest

I, Cyrus, the Achaemenian

S) Cyrus, Messiah of the Lord, and Alexander the Great

T) King Cyrus in the Koran

U) Some more reflections

Dr. Asher Eder^©