Historical Context of the Comparison
In 2018, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised President Donald Trump for his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In doing so, he drew a striking parallel between Trump and three figures remembered for their pivotal support of Jewish restoration: King Cyrus of Persia, Lord Arthur Balfour, and President Harry Truman. Each of these leaders, though not Jewish themselves, is remembered for decisive actions that advanced Jewish sovereignty and restoration.
Most recently, during Trump’s address to the Knesset following a ceasefire agreement with Hamas and the return of hostages, Netanyahu reiterated the Trump and Cyrus analogy. This raises the question: what exactly is the Prime Minister referring to?
The Basis of the Analogy
The comparison rests on the idea that both Cyrus and Trump acted as outsiders who nonetheless played decisive roles in advancing Jewish restoration and sovereignty in Jerusalem. Cyrus authorized the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian exile; Trump affirmed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In both Jewish and Christian thought, these leaders are remembered as instruments of divine purpose, despite their personal imperfections.
Evangelical Interpretation of Cyrus
The analogy gains further depth when viewed through the lens of evangelical theology. In Isaiah 45, Cyrus is described as God’s “anointed” (messiah in Hebrew), even though he was a pagan king. Evangelicals emphasize that God can use unlikely or imperfect leaders to fulfill divine purposes.
Many evangelicals argued that, like Cyrus, Trump was not a model of personal holiness but was nonetheless chosen to advance God’s plan, particularly regarding Israel and religious freedom. This raises an important theological nuance: holiness, in ANE and Old Testament understanding, is not merely a matter of purity or morality. Holiness is ontological. For example, to the pagans and idol worshippers, the gods were considered holy because they were believed to exist beyond this realm. In Christian theology, only God is truly holy, and human holiness derives from reflecting the holiness of God.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem in 2017 was interpreted as a prophetic act, echoing Cyrus’s decree to rebuild the Temple. Evangelical leaders framed this decision as aligning with biblical prophecy and eschatological expectation.
Instrumentality Over Morality
The key takeaway in evangelical theology is that the Cyrus and Trump parallel is not about personal virtue but about divine instrumentality. The analogy underscores two central themes:
- Instrumentality over morality: God uses leaders for His purposes regardless of their flaws.
- Prophetic fulfillment: Trump’s actions are often connected to eschatological expectations, with the restoration of Israel seen as a step toward end-times prophecy.
For many evangelicals, this analogy became a theological justification for supporting Trump, portraying him as divinely appointed despite controversies. It helped solidify his backing among evangelical communities, who viewed him as a vessel for God’s plan.
Critiques and Cautions
Not all observers embraced this interpretation. Some theologians and commentators cautioned that the analogy risked politicizing biblical prophecy, turning scripture into a tool for partisan endorsement. Critics argued that such comparisons blur the line between theological reflection and political expediency, potentially undermining the integrity of both.
Conclusion
The Trump–Cyrus analogy illustrates how religious narratives can shape political discourse and mobilize support. For evangelicals, it reinforced the belief that God works through unexpected leaders to accomplish divine purposes. For critics, it raised concerns about the politicization of sacred texts. Ultimately, the analogy reflects the enduring power of biblical imagery to frame contemporary events considering ancient precedent.
copentecost 