IN THE FIRST year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing:
23“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
“‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you—may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.’”
Original Meaning
THE CLOSING PASSAGE of Chronicles is an excerpt from the decree of Cyrus recorded in Ezra 1:1–3 (cf. 6:3–5).1 By way of genre analysis, the unit is generally considered a report (i.e., a self-contained prose narrative about a single event or situation in the past).2 Scholars stand divided on the question as to whether the concluding paragraph of the book is an appendix (i.e., a later expansion of the Chronicler’s work) or an epilogue (i.e., a formal finale original to the Chronicler).3 It is clear that the quotation of Cyrus’s decree functions as a coda, offering a hopeful summary statement to the Chronicler’s history and directing the audience (or reader) to the continuation of the story of the repatriation of Jerusalem found in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah. It seems only logical to regard the epilogue as the work of the Chronicler since he retells the history of Israel as a theology of hope for his postexilic audience.
The Chronicler deliberately breaks off the text of the decree and concludes abruptly with the clause “and let him go up” (36:23; cf. Ezra 1:3).4 This repetition of the Cyrus decree in Chronicles serves to splice together two documents originally separate (Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah). This permits the later reader to make the transition historically to the accounts of the aftermath of Cyrus’s edict, namely, the eventual rebuilding of God’s temple in Jerusalem (cf. Ezra 3:7–13; 6:14–15).
According to Selman, this dangling quotation is designed to emphasize the reader’s (or audience’s) response to the book—namely, “to exercise faith in God’s promises.”5 While this may be the case implicitly, it seems that the wordplay on the last word of the quotation (and the book, 36:23) calls attention to the activity of worship. The verb “go up” (ʿalah) is also the primary root for the “burnt offering” (ʿolah), one of the animal sacrifices required by the law for atoning for sin (cf. Lev. 1:3–17). Thus, the Chronicler’s closing paragraph becomes a directive to his own audience to “go up” to the temple now built, “offer up” appropriate worship to God, and in this way rebuild Judah and Jerusalem spiritually. Israel’s hope for the future lies both in an unswerving faith to the promises of God and in the proper worship of God.
The epilogue includes a date formula, “the first year of Cyrus king of Persia” (36:22; the year is 538 B.C.). The famous clay barrel or inscribed cylinder of Cyrus records his conquest of Babylon without a battle and his overturning of the foreign policy of previous regimes.6 The ancient superpowers of Assyria and Babylonia practiced a policy of deporting select elements of conquered populations to Mesopotamia. Local deities were absorbed into the Mesopotamian pantheon, and the religious custom of the empire was imposed on the subjugated nation or people group (cf. 2 Kings 16:10–14). Persian policy implemented by Cyrus permitted displaced people groups to repatriate their homelands if they so desired. In addition, he sought to placate the gods of these people groups by encouraging the traditional worship of local deities.
Although the Hebrews are not specifically mentioned in the text of the Cyrus Cylinder, the decree includes those Israelites previously exiled by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The document cited by the Chronicler is most likely a formal extension of the original decree for this specific people group. Such authorization from the central government would have been necessary before the governor of the province in question for relocation approved resettlement.7 The Chronicler calls attention to widespread publication of this decree to emphasize the fact that this is not an isolated event in the transition from Babylonian to Persian control of Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine. The emphasis on the writing or documentation of the proclamation signifies that the edict is vested with the full weight of Persian statecraft.
According to Ezra 1, King Cyrus restores numerous articles taken by the Babylonians as booty from the temple of Yahweh to the first band of returnees under the leadership of Sheshbazzar. This is yet another way in which God “moves the heart of Cyrus” for the benefit of his chosen people (2 Chron. 36:22). No doubt the threefold repetition of “Cyrus king of Persia” is intended to call to mind Isaiah’s word about Cyrus as God’s “shepherd” for Israel (Isa. 44:28). Well in advance of the fact, God through the prophet Isaiah named Cyrus as the subduer of nations and deliverer of the exiles from the land of Judah (Isa. 45:1–4, 13).
This echo of the oracles of Isaiah is yet another reminder from the Chronicler that God’s word is sure. Even more, the restoration community in Jerusalem can be assured of God’s ongoing sovereignty over the nations. By the time of the Chronicler, King Cyrus is long dead and little more than a fading memory as a symbol of Persia’s past greatness. Yet the temple is now rebuilt in Jerusalem and God’s people are once again settled in their land.8 Although still under Persian control, postexilic Judah has the guarantee of God’s word for complete restoration and the historical evidence that Israel’s God controls the destinies of the nations.
Jeremiah is a prominent figure in the last chapter of Chronicles. Three times he is identified as the prophet who spoke the word of the Lord (36:12, 21, 22). In two of these instances, emphasis is placed on the divine fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophetic word (36:21, 22). Jeremiah was a prophet to the Judean monarchy from 627 B.C. until sometime after 586 B.C. The Chronicler credits him for the prominent role he played in the reforms of King Josiah after the discovery of the Book of the Law in 622 B.C. (cf. 2 Chron. 34:14–33). He is also an eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the likely composer of the book of Lamentations.
More important, Jeremiah announces the new covenant promised by God for the restoration of Israel after the judgment of the Babylonian exile (cf. Jer. 31:31–34). In view of this, the Chronicler’s accent on this prophet becomes a stroke of genius as the conclusion to his theology of hope for postexilic Judah. His litany of the divine fulfillment of the word of Jeremiah concerning judgment, exile, and restoration to the land serves as a subtle reminder that God will indeed work to fulfill the rest of Jeremiah’s oracles—especially that word of the new covenant!
The excerpt from Cyrus’s edict calling for the rebuilding of Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem is probably a veiled reference to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prediction that Cyrus will be God’s agent for restoring Jerusalem after the Exile (Isa. 44:28). Cyrus the Great was king of Persia from 539–530 B.C. The unexpected phrase “king of Persia” is used of Cyrus three times in the epilogue. Rather than assume the interpolation of a later editor or narrator, it seems more likely the expression is original to the Chronicler as an intratextual echo to the visions of Daniel. There “kings of Persia” are mentioned within Daniel’s scheme of four world empires that must appear on the stage of history before God establishes his kingdom (Dan. 8:20; 11:2; cf. 2:39). The emphasis on Cyrus as the “king of Persia” reminds the postexilic community that the second of those four Mediterranean basin superpowers is already on the scene and that God’s irrepressible plan for the nations continues to move forward.
The title “God of heaven” is a postexilic epithet for the God of Israel.9 There is some question as to what Cyrus means by it—whether a reference to one of the several great gods who brought him to power or a statement of Yahweh’s uniqueness among the deities of the ancient world.10 Based on the Chronicler’s affirmation of the inability of the highest heavens to contain God, it seems likely he expects his audience to understand the latter (cf. 2:6; 6:18).
This suggestion is confirmed in the use of the standard messenger formula (“this is what [Cyrus king of Persia] says”) typically found as an introduction to prophetic speech in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 44:6, 24; 45:1). In one sense, not only is King Cyrus Yahweh’s “shepherd,” but he is also Yahweh’s “prophet” in his proclamation permitting the restoration of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. The aftermath of Cyrus’s decree—the waves of Jews emigrating from Mesopotamia to Palestine as a type of second exodus and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple—is recorded in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah.
THE KINGDOM AND THE WORD OF GOD. The Hebrew worldview as portrayed in the Old Testament tends to reduce human experience and the issues of life to polar opposites such as good or evil (Amos 5:14), life or death (Deut. 30:15), justice or oppression (Isa. 1:17), wisdom or folly (Eccl. 2:13), and so on. The Chronicler’s epilogue offers another such antithesis in the juxtaposition of the phrases “the God of heaven” and “all the kingdoms of the earth” embedded in the speech of Cyrus (2 Chron. 36:23). These categories establish contrasts between the divine and human realms, between one Realm and many realms.
Charles Colson has updated the Chronicler’s discussion in his contemporary analysis of kingdoms in conflict, the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world.11 He aptly reminds us that as human beings we are irresistibly “religious” and “political” and that any mediation of the conflict between the rival kingdoms must seriously consider both “the nature of [hu]man[ity] and the nature of God and His rule over the world.”12 According to Colson, the Bible is the primary source for information about who we are as human beings and who God is as our Creator and Redeemer.
The Chronicler also understands that rival kingdoms are in competition for the loyalty of men and women, vying for control of the human heart and intellect. He also recognizes that the only effective means for mediating the polarity of the divine and human realms is the Word of God. This is evidenced, in part, by the repetition of the so-called “prophetic word formula,” emphasizing “the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah” (2 Chron. 36:21, 22).
In fact, variations of this prophetic word formula occur more than a dozen times in the Chronicles (1 Chron. 10:13; 17:3; 22:8; etc.). This has prompted Allen to comment that the epilogue attests the Chronicler’s “tremendous regard for the Word of God,” affirming Isaiah’s declaration that the “word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:8).13 This premium on the surety of God’s Word is a foundational principle in the Chronicler’s theology of hope for the restoration community. What better way to validate those promises for the restoration of Israel and a new covenant relationship with Yahweh spoken prior to the Exile by that same prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 31:31–34)?
But what if there is no “word of the LORD spoken” by some divinely appointed prophetic figure? By the time of the Chronicler the prophetic voice has been silent in the Jewish community. No messenger from God is prefacing oracles with the prophetic word formula. How are the faithful in restoration Judah to mediate the conflict between the two realms, the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world? Perhaps Rabbi Heschel is correct in his observation that “no word is God’s final word” (i.e., “the word of God never comes to an end”).14 I suspect the Chronicler might agree with Rabbi Heschel on at least two accounts.
(1) The Chronicler’s message is largely “borrowed” from the written works of earlier prophets and kings who spoke “the word of the LORD.” The Chronicler truly believes that the word of the Lord stands forever (Isa. 40:8) because he assumes the words of God once spoken and preserved command equal authority when “preached” to a later generation of God’s people (see further the Chronicles as “sermon” in the introduction).
(2) The Chronicler recognizes God’s Word is not the exclusive domain of the Hebrew prophets, kings, or sages. Interestingly, he utilizes a variation of the prophetic word formula to introduce the decree of Cyrus in his epilogue (“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says,” 36:23). The Chronicler knows that in his sovereignty God has innumerable “mouthpieces” at his disposal, including rulers of kingdoms like Cyrus the Great. This leads Wilcock to conclude that “to know the Chronicler’s God is to know the God of all history.”15 The Chronicler wants to make certain his audience knows this truth as well. The Jewish community needs to be reminded that the God of all history is still appointing rulers to do his bidding in fulfilling his promises for the complete restoration of his people, even as he spoke through King Cyrus of Persia to rebuild the Jerusalem temple.
Contemporary Significance
DIVINE PRESENCE. The crisis in practical theology experienced by the Chronicler, given the disparity between the rule of “the God of heaven” and the rule of “the kingdoms of the earth,” remains an unresolved issue for the faithful of God today. The nations still conspire against the Lord (Ps. 2:1–2), and stories of wars and rumors of wars around our globe are still front-page news (Matt. 24:6).
On the one hand, the Bible declares with certainty that God is the sovereign Lord of the nations (cf. Ps. 22:28; 30:10; Isa. 40:15, 17). Yet on the other hand, the “Assyrias, Babylonias” and “Persias” of contemporary history still rage against God and persecute the church of Jesus Christ. This side of the second advent of our Lord, the Chronicler’s solution for reconciling the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty with the political reality of the nations roaring like the waves of the sea as they churn up the mud and mire of wickedness and rebellion against God is still worthy of careful consideration (cf. Isa. 17:12–13; 57:20–21).
(1) The Chronicler affirms God’s presence among his people (36:23). God is with those who trust his Word and pledge loyalty and obedience to him, those whose hearts are “fully committed to him” (16:9). In fact, Allen suggests that the Chronicler’s rephrasing of Ezra 1:3 is intentional, designed expressly to emphasize the “enabling presence” of God.16
This truth of the divine presence in the midst of the faithful is the great hope of the postexilic restoration community, namely, the Lord’s returning and dwelling among his people again (Hag. 2:4–5, 7; Zech. 1:16–17). All this is in fulfillment of the promise of Ezekiel’s temple vision, renaming the city of Jerusalem “the LORD is there” (Ezek. 48:35). The idea of God’s presence is perhaps the great theme of the Bible, beginning with the intimate fellowship with God experienced by that first human pair (cf. Gen. 3:8–9) and ending with paradise regained when God himself will live with his people (Rev. 21:3). More than this, we experience what the Chronicler could only anticipate through the word of the prophets as Immanuel has indeed come (John 1:14; cf. Isa. 7:14) and the deposit of the Holy Spirit has been given as the pledge that God will once again have an “address” among his people (Eph. 1:13–14).
(2) The epilogue of Chronicles concludes with the clause “and let him go up” (36:23). The quotation of King Cyrus’s proclamation is broken off in mid-sentence. Again, Allen conjectures that this is the Chronicler’s way to say “the end” or “but that’s another story.”17 This may well be the case. What better way for the Chronicler to conclude his sermons and prepare his audience for “the rest of the story” found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah?
(3) But there is something even more significant in the incomplete citation of Ezra 1:3 in the Chronicler’s epilogue. The expression “let him go up” is both an invitation and a directive to participate in temple worship. The psalmist uses the verb “go up” (ʿlh) to depict ascending the Temple Mount and worshiping in God’s holy place (Ps. 24:3; 122:4). Like the psalmist, the Chronicler recognizes that the formal worship of Yahweh is the integrating component of life lived in a fallen world. It is only as the psalmist (here Asaph) experiences God in temple worship that he can gain perspective on the seeming incongruities between the experiences of the wicked and the righteous (cf. 73:13–17).
There is a sense in which the Chronicler’s epilogue brings closure to the discussion of theodicy in the previous section that recounts the exile of Judah (36:2–21). It is almost as if he has sensed his audience cannot let go of the memory of that tragic event or the corporate blame they harbor toward God for allowing it to happen.
Just prior to the Babylonian exile the prophet Habakkuk called the people of Judah to a similar experience. Given the impending invasion of King Nebuchadnezzar and his marauding hordes, Habbakuk encouraged the people to gain perspective on God’s plan for Israel and the nations by acknowledging his presence in his holy temple and revering him in silence (Hab. 2:20). Only as the finite contemplates the Infinite One, only as the creature ponders the Creator, only as the filthy consider the Holy One, can the temporal take on meaning in the light of the eternal. The Chronicler’s call for postexilic Judah to “go up” to the temple and worship makes the apostle Peter’s words all the more penetrating when he says:
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9)