WTW 2021
March 17
Isaiah 45
“This is what Yahweh says to his anointed (mashiach), to Koresh, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: I will raise up Koresh in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says Yahweh of Armies.” Isaiah 45:1, 13
Do you read & hear, understand & apply God’s WORD for what He says or do you always aim to come through your understanding? We understand the Good News. It is always best to humble ourselves under God’s mighty hand and to walk according to His WORD & by His mighty & Holy Spirit, Ruach Elohim.
Wisdom in the WORD 
Excerpt from
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/isaiah/44.htm
Isaiah 44:28
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
(28) That saith of Cyrus.—The Hebrew form is Koresh, answering to the Kur’us of the inscription of the king’s tomb in the Murghab valley. The prediction of the name of the future deliverer has its only parallel in that of Josiah (1Kings 13:2). Such a phenomenon admits of three possible explanations:—(1) That it is a prophecy after the event—i.e., that the whole of Isaiah, or this part of it, was written at the close of the exile. (2) That the name was revealed to the prophet in a way altogether supernatural. (3) That the name came within the horizon of the prophet’s vision from his natural stand-point, the supernatural element being found in the facts which he is led to connect with it. Of these, (3) seems to commend itself as most analogous with the methods of prophetic teaching. The main facts in the case are these—(1) Events had made Isaiah acquainted with the name of the Medes, and with a people bearing the name (Elam), afterwards given by the Jews to the Persians of the Greeks (Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 13:7; Isaiah 21:2; 2Kings 17:6; 2Kings 18:11). (2) Koresh or Kyros was the name of a river in that region, and the conqueror is said to have changed his previous name (Agradates) for it (Strab. Xv. 3, 6). (3) The name has been said to mean “the sun” (Plutarch, Ctesias), and this, though not accepted by many modern scholars as philologically accurate, at least indicates that the Greeks assigned that meaning to it. It would be a natural name for one who, as a worshipper of Ormuzd, saw in the sun the supreme symbol of the God of heaven. (4) The grandfather of the great Cyrus is said to have borne the same name (Herod. i. 111). (5) The facts point to the conclusion that the name Kursus; if not a titular epithet, like the Pharaoh of Egypt, may yet have had the prestige of antiquity and dignity, historical or mythical. (6) Is it altogether impossible that the prophecy, circulating among the Babylonian exiles, helped to bring about its own fulfilment, and that Agradates may have been led to take the name of Kur’us because he found his work described in connection with it (Josh. Ant., xii. 1, 2)?
My shepherd.—As guiding the flock of Jehovah, each to their own pasture.
Thou shalt be built.—Both verbs are better taken as imperatives, Let her be built; Let thy foundations be laid.
LikeLike
Excerpted from
https://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/isaiah/45.htm
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Verse 7. – I form the light, and create darkness. It has been recently denied that there is any allusion in these words, or in those which follow, to the Zoroastrian tenets; and it has even been asserted that the religion of the early Achaemenian kings was free from the taint of dualism. But according to some authorities, “a god of lies” is mentioned in the Behistun inscription; and the evidence is exceedingly strong that dualism was an essential part of the Zoroastrian religion long before the time of Cyrus (see ‘Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. 2. pp. 332, 333, 2nd edit.). It is quite reasonable to suppose that Isaiah would be acquainted with the belief of the Persians and Medes, who had come in contact with the Assyrians as early as B.C.. 830; and a warning against the chief error of their religion would be quite in place when he was holding up Cyrus to his countrymen as entitled to their respect and veneration. The nexus of the words, “I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness,” is such as naturally to suggest an intended antagonism to the Zoroastrian system. Under that, Ormuzd created “light” and “peace,” Ahriman “darkness” and “evil.” The two were eternal adversaries, engaged in an inter-ruinable contest. Ormuzd, it is true, claimed the undivided allegiance of mankind, since he was their maker; but Ahriman was a great power, terribly formidable – perhaps a god (diva) – certainly the chief of the devas. It was from Zoroastrianism that Manicheism derived its doctrine of the two principles, and to the same source may, with much probability, be traced the “devil-worshippers” of the Zagros mountain chain.
LikeLike
Cyrus II of Persia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
LikeLike