The
idea of the shepherd of the Lord’s people, in the context of the deep becoming
dry, has a parallel in Isaiah, in chapter sixty-three, verses eleven through
thirteen, which are cross referenced there in the margin. There, it is Moses
who is called the Lord’s shepherd. And there, it also mentions the deep becoming
dry. “Then his people recalled, as in the days of Moses of old—Where is he who
brought them up of the Sea, like a shepherd of his flock? Where is he who put
into him his Holy Spirit? Who made his glorious arm proceed at the right hand
of Moses, who divided the waters before them, making an everlasting name for
himself when he led them through the deep?” Here, Isaiah is drawing on a Moses
typology. And he’s linking that typology with the shepherd and the deep
becoming dry, to Cyrus, or to the name Cyrus. Why is Cyrus mentioned by name,
here? Because whenever anyone is mentioned by name, it means that person has
set some kind of precedent in Israel’s history. And what did Cyrus set a precedent
for, in Israel’s history? It answers that in the next line.
“He
will say of Jerusalem that is must be rebuilt, its temple foundations relaid.”
Cyrus,
the Persian anciently—after the Jews had gone captive into Babylon—allowed the
Jews to come back to Palestine, and to rebuild the cities and the temple. Cyrus
made a decree that the Jews could do that, and that all nations which had been
held captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians could go back to their lands of
origins, if they chose to do so, at that time. Co Cyrus becomes a type, here,
for what the Servant is going to do, because the Servant is going to say to all
nations that they can go back to the Promised Land. All the nations of the Lord’s
people can go back to the Promised Land and rebuild it and build the temple.
And that will be the time that they can do so, at the time of the Servant’s
mission.
So
he’s like a new Cyrus, in that respect. And he follows the ancient type of Cyrus.
Because whatever anyone did, that et some kind of precedent in Israel’s
history, also became a type for the future. Isaiah drew upon those types, to
predict the future. He predicted new versions of old events, and so he had to
draw upon Cyrus, as of what will happen again. But it’s not a purely-Cyrus
figure, is it? It is a Cyrus figure mixed with a Moses figure. The two are
fused, here.
The
shepherd, in the context of the deep becoming dry, is a Moses typology, and the
rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple is a Cyrus typology, and here they are
made into a compound, or fused. This has tripped up scholars because they say, “Oh,
Cyrus.” So they pounce upon the name of Cyrus, and say, “Well, Isaiah was
predicting Cyrus, but he couldn’t really predict it because prophets don’t
really prophesy the future. They can’t name people a hundred years in the
future. So this must have been written by somebody in the days of Cyrus,
somebody called Second Isaiah, and he was the one who wrote this.” So scholars
totally miss the message of what is being said here. This is not a pure Cyrus
figure. If Isaiah could prophesy of the latter days, he certainly could
prophesy a hundred years from his own time. And he certainly could name people
if he saw things in vision and heard things, and he claims he did. Why did he
have to mention Cyrus, at all? He had to mention his name because Cyrus set a
precedent, as a figure a hundred years from Isaiah’s time would set that
precedent. And that precedent would become a type for the end time.
Cyrus
is a compound figure, not a pure, historical Cyrus. The Moses typology is what
I call an “a” historical element—it’s not an historical element—that is linked
to the historical type of Cyrus. The point is, when the Servant comes along, he
will be like Cyrus, and he’ll be like a Moses—at one and the same time. Both
will be his types. Even that, in itself, is only half of the equation, because,
earlier, we saw a Spirit-endowed Servant who led, or caused Israel to wander
through the wilderness. We saw the “blind” coming through the wilderness, and
they became acquainted with his law, and repented of their transgressions, and
they were taught his laws in the wilderness and became illustrious—or they
could become so. And that is all the spiritual part of the equation. And here,
we have the physical part of the equation—the idea that when they do that then
they can physically come out on the exodus. And they are spiritually and
tutored by the Servant, then they can come on the exodus. So we have a division
here, in chapter forty-two, and in succeeding chapters we have more the
spiritual aspect, and here, we have more the temporal aspect of God’s
deliverance. They come and actually restore ruins. That’s physical. They restore
the temple. They lay the temple’s foundation, that’s physical or temporal. (Jacob
Nelson, Book of Isaiah Of the Old Testament [Lulu Books, n.d.], 444-46)
