_If it be assumed that the second part was composed during the exile,

then those passages are incomprehensible, in which the Prophet proves

that the God of Israel is the true God, from His predicting the

appearance of the conqueror from the east, and the deliverance of the

people to be wrought by Him in connection with the fulfilment of these

predictions._ The supernatural character of this announcement which the

Prophet asserts, and which forms the ground of its probative power,

took place, only if it proceeded from Isaiah, but not if it was uttered

only about the end of the exile, at a time when Cyrus had already

entered upon the stage of history. These passages, at all events, admit

only the alternative,--either that Isaiah was the real author, or that

they were forged at a later period by some deceiver; and this latter

alternative is so decidedly opposed to the whole spirit of the second

part, that scarcely any one among the opponents will resolve to adopt

it. Considering the very great and decisive importance of these

passages, we must still allow them to pass in review one by one. In

chap. xli. 1-7, the Lord addresses those who are serving idols, summons

them triumphantly to defend themselves against the mighty attack which

He was just executing against them, and describes the futility of their

attempts at so doing. The address to the Gentiles is a mere form; to

work upon Israel is the real purpose. To secure them from the

allurements of the world's religion, the Prophet points to [Pg 183] the

great confusion which the Future will bring upon it. This confusion

consists in this:--that the prophecy of the conqueror from the East, as

the messenger and instrument of the Lord--a prediction which the

Prophet had uttered in the power of the Lord--is fulfilled without the

idolators being able to prevent it. The answer on the words in ver. 2:

"Who hath raised up from the East him whom righteousness calleth

whither he goes, giveth the nations before him, and maketh kings

subject to him, maketh his sword like dust, and his bow like driven

stubble?" is this: According to the agreement of prophecy and

fulfilment, it is none other than the Lord, who is, therefore, the only

true God, to whose glory and majesty every deed of His servant Koresh

bears witness. The argumentation is unintelligible, as soon as,

assuming that it was Isaiah who wrote down the prophecy, it is not

admitted that he, losing sight of the _real_ Present, takes his

stand-point in an _ideal_ Present, viz., the time of the appearance of

the conqueror from the East, by which it becomes possible to him to

draw his arguments from the prophecy in connection with the fulfilment.

It is altogether absurd, when it is asserted that the second part is

spurious, and was composed at a time when Cyrus was already standing

before Babylon. It would indeed have required an immense amount of

impudence on the part of the Prophet to bring forward, as an

unassailable proof of the omniscience and omnipotence of God, an event

which every one saw with his bodily eyes. By such argumentation, he

would have exposed himself to general _ridicule_.--In chap. xli. 21-29,

the discourse is formally addressed to the Gentiles; but in point of

fact, the Prophet here, too, has to do with Judah driven into exile, to

whom he was called by God to offer the means to remain stedfast under

the temptations from the idolators by whom they were surrounded. Before

the eyes, and in the hearing of Israel, the Lord convinces the Gentiles

of the nothingness of their cause. They are to prove the divinity of

their idols by showing forth the announcements of the Future which

proceeded from them. But they are not able to comply with this demand.

It is only the Lord, the living God, who can do that. Long before the

appearance of the conqueror from the North and East, He caused it to be

_foretold_, and comforted His Church with the view of the Future.

Hence, He alone is [Pg 184] God, and vanity are all those who are put

beside Him. It is said in ver. 22: "Let them bring forth and shew to us

what shall happen; the former things, what they be, show and we will

consider them and know the latter end of them; or the coming (events

make us to hear)." _The former things_ are those which are prior on

this territory; hence the former prophecies, as the comparison of the

parallel passage, chap. xlii 9, clearly shows. The _end_ of prophecy is

its fulfilment. [Hebrew: hbavt] "the coming, or future," are the events

of the more distant Future. As the Prophet demands from the idols and

their servants that only which the true God has already performed by

His servants, we have here, on the one hand, a reference to the whole

cycle of prophecies formerly fulfilled, as _e.g._, that of the

overthrow of the kingdoms of Damascus and Ephraim, and the defeat of

Asshur,--and, on the other hand, to the prophecy of the conqueror from

the East, &c., contained in the second part. The _former_ prophecies,

however, are here mentioned altogether incidentally only; the real

demand refers, as is shown by the words: "What shall happen," only to

the prophecies in reference to the Future, corresponding to those of

our Prophet regarding the conqueror from the East, whose appearance is

here represented as belonging altogether to the _Future_, and not to be

known by any human ingenuity. In ver. 26: "Who hath declared (such

things) from the beginning, that we may know, and long beforehand, that

we may say: he is righteous?" the [Hebrew: mraw] "from the beginning"

puts insurmountable obstacles in the way of the opponents of the

genuineness. If the second part of Isaiah be _spurious_, then the

idolaters might put the same scornful question to the God of Israel.

The [Hebrew: mraw] denotes just the opposite of a _vaticinium post

eventum_.--In chap. xlii. 9: "The former (things), behold, they are

come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth, I

let you hear," the Prophet proves the true divinity of the Lord, from

the circumstance that, having already proved himself by prophecies

fulfilled, He declares here, in the second part, the future events

before they spring forth, before the facts begin to sprout forth from

the soil of the Present, and hence could have been known and predicted

by human combination. The words, "before they spring forth," become

completely enigmatical, if it be denied that Isaiah [Pg 185] wrote the

second part; inasmuch as, in that case, it would have in a great part,

to do with things which did not belong to the territory of prophetic

foresight, but of what was plainly visible.--In chap. xliii. 8-13, the

Prophet again proves the nothingness of idolatry, and the sole divinity

of the God of Israel, from the great work, declared beforehand by the

Lord, of the deliverance of Israel, and of the overthrow of their

enemies. He is so deeply convinced of the striking force of this

argument, that he ever anew reverts to it. After having called upon the

Gentiles to prove the divinity of their idols by true prophecies given

by them, he says in ver. 9: "Let them bring forth their witnesses, that

they may be justified." By the witnesses it is to be proved, by whom,

to whom, and at what time the prophecies were given, in order that the

Gentiles may not refer to deceitfully forged prophecies, to _vaticinia

post eventum_. According to the hypothesis of the spuriousness of the

second part, the author pronounced his own condemnation by thus calling

for witnesses. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and witness is my

Servant whom I have chosen," is said in ver. 10. While the Gentiles are

in vain called upon to bring forward witnesses for the divinity of

their idols, the true God has, for His witnesses, just those whose

services he claimed. The prophecies which lie at the foundation of

their testimony, which are to be borne witness to, are those of the

second part. The Prophet may safely appeal to the testimony of the

whole nation, that they were uttered at a time, when their contents

could not be derived from human combination. "The great unknown"

(_Ewald_), could not by any possibility have spoken thus.--In chap.

xlv. 19-21, it is proved from the prophecy, in connection with the

fulfilment, that Jehovah alone is God,--the like of which no Gentile

nation can show of their idols. The argumentation is followed by the

call to all the Gentiles to be converted to this God, and thus to

become partakers of His salvation--a call resting on the striking force

of this argumentation--and with this call is, in ver. 23-25, connected

the solemn declaration of God, that, at some future time, this shall

take place; that, at some future time, there shall be one shepherd and

one flock. How would these high, solemn, words have been spoken in

vain, if "the great unknown" had spoken them! In ver. 19 [Pg 186] it is

said: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I

said not unto the seed of Jacob: Seek ye me in vain; I the Lord speak

righteousness, I declare rectitude." The Lord here says, first, in

reference to His prophecies, those namely which He gave through our

Prophet, that _they were made known publicly_, that, hence, there could

not be any doubt of their genuineness,--altogether different from what

is the case with the prophecies of idolatrous nations which make their

appearance _post eventum_ only, _no one knowing whence_. Every one

might convince himself of their truth and divinity. This is expressed

by the words: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the

earth." Then he says that the Lord had not deceived His people, like

the idols who leave their servants without disclosures regarding: the

Future; but that, by the prophecies granted to our Prophet, He had met

the longings of his people for revelations of the Future. While the

gods of the world leave them in the lurch, just when their help is

required, and never answer when they are asked, the Lord, in reference

to prophecies, as well as in every other respect, has not spoken: "Seek

ye me in vain," but rather: When ye seek, ye shall find me. And,

finally, he says that his prophecies are true and right; that the

heathenish prophets commit an _unrighteousness_ by performing something

else than that which they promised to perform. To declare

_righteousness_ is to declare that which is righteous, which does not

conceal internal emptiness and rottenness under a fair outside. The

words: "I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare rectitude," could not

but have died on the lips of the "great unknown."--In chap. xlvi. 8-13

the apostates in Israel are addressed. They are exhorted to return to

the true God, and to be mindful, 1. of the nothingness of idols, ver.

8; 2. of the proofs of His sole divinity which the Lord had given

throughout the whole of the past history; 3. of the new manifestation

of it in announcing and sending Koresh (Cyrus), ver. 10, 11; "Declaring

the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are

not yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my

pleasure. Calling from the East an eagle, from a far country the man of

His counsel; I have spoken it, and will also bring it to pass; I have

formed it, and will also do it." To the [Hebrew: rawnvt], the former

[Pg 187] events, the fulfilled prophecies from former times (comp.

xlii. 9), here the new proof of the sole divinity of the God of Israel

is added, in that He sends Koresh: God _now_ declares. The Prophet, by

designating the time in which the announcement was issued as [Hebrew:

rawit] and [Hebrew: qdM], as beginning and ancient times, and by

founding the proof of the divinity of the Lord just upon the high age

of the announcement, again puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way

of the opponents of the genuineness. The announcement and declaration

prove any thing in connection with the execution only; the bringing

to pass, therefore, is connected with the declaring, the doing with

the speaking. These words are _now_ spoken, since, from the ideal

stand-point, the carrying out is at hand; they form the antecedent to

the _calling_, of which ver. 11 treats. [Hebrew: qvM] properly "to

rise," opposed to the laying down, means "to bring to stand," "to bring

about," "to be fulfilled." "The counsel," _i.e._, the contents of the

prediction which was spoken of before; it is the divine counsel and

decree to which Koresh served as an instrument.--_Finally_--In chap.

xlviii., the same subject is treated of; the divinity of the Lord is

proved from His prophecies, in three sections, ver. 1-11, ver. 12-16,

ver. 22. Here, at the close of the first book of the second part, the

argumentation occurs once more in a very strong accumulation, because

the Prophet is now about to leave it, and, in general, the whole

territory of the lower salvation. First, in ver. 1-11: Israel should

return to the Lord, who formerly had manifested and proved His sole

divinity by a series of prophecies and their fulfilments, and _now_ was

granting new and remarkable disclosures regarding the Future. Ver. 6:

"New things I shew thee from this time, hidden things, and thou didst

not know them, ver. 7. Now they have been created and not of old, and

before this day thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say:

Behold, I knew them." The deliverance of Israel by Cyrus--an

announcement uttered in the preceding, and to be repeated immediately

afterwards--is called _new_ in contrast to the old prophecies of the

Lord already fulfilled; _hidden_ in contrast to the facts which are

already subjects of history, or may be known beforehand by natural

ingenuity. _To be created_ is equivalent to being made manifest,

inasmuch as the hidden Divine counsel enters into life, only by being

manifested, and [Pg 188] the prophesied events are created for Israel,

only by the prophecy. Ver. 8: "Thou didst not hear it, nor didst thou

know it, likewise thine ear was not opened beforehand; for I knew that

thou art faithless, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." I

have, says the Lord, communicated to thee the knowledge of events of

the Future which are altogether unheard of, of which, before, thou

didst not know the least, nor couldst know. The reason of this

communication is stated in the words: "for I knew," &c. It is the same

reason which, according to vers. 4, 5, called forth also the former

definite prophecies regarding the Future, now already fulfilled, viz.,

the unbelief of the people, which requires a _palpable_ proof that the

Lord alone is God, because it is but too ingenious in finding out

seeming reasons for justifying its apostacy. All that is perfectly in

keeping with, and suitable to the stand-point of Isaiah, but not to

that of "the great unknown," at whose time the conqueror from the East

was already beheld with the bodily eye; and Habakkuk had long ago

prophesied the destruction of the Babylonish world's power, and

Israel's deliverance; and Jeremiah had announced the destruction of

Babylon by the Modes much more distinctly and definitely than is done

here in the second part of Isaiah. In ver. 16 it is said: "Come ye near

unto me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret;

from the time that it was, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent

me and His Spirit." The sense is: Ever since the foundation of the

people, I have given them the most distinct prophecies, and made them

publicly known (referring to the whole chain of events, from the

calling of Abraham and onward, which had been objects of prophecy); by

mine omnipotence I have fulfilled them; and now I have sent my servant

Isaiah, and filled him with my Spirit, in order that, by a new

distinguished prophecy, he may bear witness to my sole divinity. It is

only the accompanying mission of the Spirit which gives its importance

to that of the Prophet. It is from God's Spirit searching the depths of

the Godhead, and knowing His most hidden counsels, that those

prophecies of the second part, going beyond the natural consciousness,

have proceeded.

We believe we have incontrovertibly proved that we are not entitled to

draw any arguments against Isaiah's being the [Pg 189] author of the

second part, from the circumstance "that the exile is not announced,

but that the author takes his stand in it, as well as in that of

Isaiah's time, inasmuch as this stand-point is an assumed and ideal

one. But if the _form_, can prove nothing, far less can the _prophetic

contents_." It is true that these contents cannot be explained from the

natural consciousness of Isaiah; but it is not to be overlooked, that

the assailed prophecies of Isaiah are even as directly as possible

opposed to the rationalistic notion of prophetism, which is arbitrary,

and goes in the face of all facts, and from which the arguments against

their genuineness are drawn. In a whole series of passages of the

second part (the same which we have just been discussing), the Prophet

intimates that he gives disclosures which lie beyond the horizon of his

time; and draws from this circumstance the arguments for his own divine

mission, and the divinity of the God of Israel. He considers it as the

disgrace of idolatry that it cannot give any definite prophecies, and

with a noble scorn, challenges it to vindicate itself by such

prophecies. That rationalistic notion of prophetism removes the

boundaries which, according to the express statements of our Prophet,

separate the Kingdom of God from heathenism. The rationalistic

_notional_ God, however, it is true, can as little prophesy as the

heathenish gods of stone and wood, of whom the Psalmist says: "They

have ears, but they hear not, _neither speak they through their

throat_."

It is farther to be considered that the predictions of the Future, in

those portions of Isaiah which are assailed just on account of them,

are not so destitute of a foundation as is commonly assumed. There

existed, in the present time and circumstances of the Prophet,

important actual points of connection for them. They farther rest on

the foundation of ideal views and conceptions of eternal truths, which

had been familiar to the Church of the Lord from its very beginnings.

They only enlarge what had already been prophesied by former prophets;

and well secured and ascertained parallels in the prophetic

announcement are not wanting for them.

The carrying away of the covenant-people into exile had been actually

prophesied by the fact, that the land had spued out its former

inhabitants on account of their sins. The threatening of the exile

pervades the whole Pentateuch from [Pg 190] beginning to end; compare

_Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, _p._ 270 _ff._ It is found in the

Decalogue also: "That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord

thy God giveth thee." David shows a clear knowledge of the sufferings

impending over his family, and hence also over the people of God; comp.

my Commentary on Song of Sol. S. 243. Solomon points to the future

carrying away in his prayer at the consecration of the temple. Amos,

the predecessor of Isaiah, foresees with absolute clearness, that,

before the salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel,

but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction, compare Vol. i.

p. 357. In like manner, too, Hosea prophesies not only the destruction

of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also that Judah shall be carried

away into exile, comp. Vol. i. p. 176. In Isaiah, the foreknowledge

of the entire devastation of the city and land, and the carrying away

into captivity of its inhabitants--a foreknowledge which stands in

close connection with the energy of the knowledge of sin with the

Prophets--meets us from the very beginning of his ministry, and also in

those prophecies, the genuineness of which no one ventures to assail,

as, _e.g._, in chap. i.-vi. After the severity of God had been

manifested before the bodily eyes of the Prophet in the carrying away

of the ten tribes, it could not, even from human considerations, be

doubtful to him, what was the fate in store for Judah.

The knowledge, that the impending carrying away of Judah would take

place by the Chaldeans, and that Babylon would be the place of their

banishment, was not destitute of a certain natural foundation. In the

germ, the Chaldean power actually existed even at that time. Decidedly

erroneous is the view of _Hitzig_, that a Chaldean power in Babylon

could be spoken of only since the time of Nabopolassar. This power, on

the contrary, was very old; compare the proofs in _Delitzsch's_

Commentary on Habakkuk, S. 21. The Assyrian power, although, when

outwardly considered, at its height, when more closely examined, began,

even at that time, already to sink. A weakening of the Assyrian power

is intimated also by the circumstance, that Hezekiah ventured to rebel

against the Assyrians, and the embassy of the Chaldean Merodach Baladan

to Hezekiah, implies that, even at that time, many things gave a title

to expect the speedy downfal of the Assyrian [Pg 191] Empire. But the

fact that Isaiah possessed the clear knowledge that, in some future

period, the dominion of the world would pass over to Babylon and the

Chaldeans,--that they would be the executors of the judgment upon

Judah, we have already proved, in our remarks on chaps. xiii., xiv.,

from the prophecies of the first part,--from chap. xxiii. 13, where the

Chaldeans are mentioned as the executors of the judgment upon the

neighbouring people, the Tyrians, and as the destroyers of the Assyrian

dominion,--and from chap. xxxix. The attempt of dispossessing him of

this knowledge is so much the more futile, that his contemporary Micah

undeniably possesses it; comp. Vol. i. p. 464. So also does Habakkuk,

between whose time and that of Isaiah, circumstances had not

essentially changed, and who likewise still prophesied before the

Chaldean monarchy had been established.

While this foreknowledge of the future _elevation_ of Babylon had a

_historical_ foundation, the foreknowledge of its _humiliation and

fate_, following soon after, rested on a _theological_ foundation. With

a heathenish people, elevation is always followed by haughtiness, with

all its consequences; and, according to the eternal laws of the divine

government of the world, haughtiness is a matter-of-fact prophecy of

destruction. Proceeding from this view, the downfal of the Chaldean

monarchy was prophesied by Habakkuk also, at a time when it was still

developing, and was far from having attained to the zenith of its

power. In the same manner, the foreknowledge of the future _deliverance

of Israel_ rises on a theological foundation, and is not at all to be

considered in the same light as if _e.g._, the Prophet had foretold to

Moab its deliverance. That which the Prophet here predicts is only the

individualization of a general truth which meets us at the very

beginnings of the covenant-people. The principle which St. Paul

advances in Rom. xi. 2: "God hath not cast away His people whom He

foreknew," and ver. 29: "For the gifts and calling of God are without

repentance," meets us, clearly and distinctly, as early as in the books

of Moses. In Levit. xxvi. 42-45, the deliverance from the land of

captivity is announced on the ground of the election of Israel, and of

the covenant with the fathers, and as a fulfilment of the promise of

future election, which was given by the fact of Israel's being

delivered from [Pg 192] Egypt. And according to Deut. iv. 30, 31, xxx.

ff., and the close of chap. xxxii., the end of all the catastrophes

which are inflicted upon the covenant-people is always Israel's

conversion and reception into favour; behind the judgment, mercy is

always concealed. In the prayer of Solomon, the carrying away goes hand

in hand with the reception into favour. But it will be altogether

fruitless to deny to Isaiah the knowledge of the future deliverance of

Israel from Babylon, since his contemporary Micah, in chap. iv. 10,

briefly and distinctly expresses the same: "And thou comest to Babylon;

there shalt thou be delivered; there shall the Lord redeem thee from

the hand of thine enemies."

The only point in the prophetic foreknowledge of the second part which

really seems to want, not only a historical or ideal foundation, but

also altogether corresponding analogies, is the mention of the name of

Koresh. But this difficulty disappears if, in strict opposition to the

current notion, it is assumed that Cyrus was induced, by our book only,

to appropriate to himself that name. Recent investigation has proved

that this name is originally not a proper name, but an honorary

title,--that the Greek writers rightly explain it by _Sun_,--that the

name of the sun was, in the East generally, and especially with the

Persians, a common honorary title of rulers; comp. _Bürnouf_ and others

in _Hävernick's Einleitung_, ii. 2, S. 165. This honorary title of the

Persian kings, Isaiah might very easily learn in a natural way. And the

fact that this _Nomen dignitatis_ became, among several others,

peculiar to Cyrus (the mention of the name of Koresh by Isaiah does not

originally go beyond the announcement of the conqueror from the East)

is explained by the circumstance that Cyrus assumed this name in honour

of our book, and as an acknowledgment of the mission assigned to him by

it, although the Prophet had not used this name in any other manner

than Balaam had that of Agag, perhaps with an allusion to its

signification; compare the phrases "from the East," "from the rising of

the sun," in chap. xli. 2, 25. And it is historically settled and

certain, that Cyrus had originally another name, viz., _Agradates_, and

that he assumed this name only at the time of his ascending the throne,

which falls into the time when the prophecies of our book could already

be known to him (comp. the [Pg 193] proofs in _Hävernick's Einleit._)

And as it is farther certain that the prophecies of our book made a

deep impression upon him, and, in important points, exercised an

influence upon his actions (this appears not only from the express

statement of _Josephus_, [Arch. xi. c. 1. § 1, 2,] but still more from

an authentic document, the Edict of Cyrus, in Ezra i. 1 ff., which so

plainly implies the fact reported by _Josephus_, that _Jahn_ rightly

called _Josephus'_ statement a commentary on this Edict, which refers,

_partly_ with literal accuracy, to a series of passages from the second

part of Isaiah, compare the particulars in _Kleinert_, _über die

Echtheit des Jesaias_, S. 142);--as the condition of the Persian

religion likewise confirms this result gained from the Edict of Cyrus

(_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des alten Orients_, S. 373 ff., proves

that in the time of Cyrus, and by him, an Israelitish element had been

introduced into it);--there will certainly not be any reason to

consider our supposition to be improbable, or the result of

embarrassment.

But to this circumstance we must still direct attention, that those

prophetic announcements of the second part which have reference to that

which, even at the time of "the great unknown," still belonged to the

future, are far more distinct, and can far less be accounted for from

natural causes, than those from which rationalistic criticism has drawn

inferences as regards the spuriousness of the second part. The personal

Messianic prophecies of the second part are much more characteristic

than those concerning Cyrus. He who cannot, by the help of history,

supplement and illustrate the prophecy, receives only an incomplete and

defective image of the latter. And, indeed, a sufficiently long time

elapsed before even Exegesis recognised with certainty and unanimity

that it was Cyrus who was meant. Doubts and differences of opinion on

this point meet us even down to last century. The Medes and Persians

are not at all mentioned as the conquerors of Babylon, and all which

refers to the person of Cyrus has an altogether ideal character; while

the Messiah is, especially in chap. liii., so distinctly drawn, that

scarcely any essential feature in His image is omitted. And it is

altogether a matter of course that here, in the antitypical

deliverance, a much greater clearness and distinctness should prevail;

for it stands [Pg 194] in a far closer relation to the idea, so that

form and substance do far less disagree.

It would be inappropriate were we here to take up and refute all

the arguments against the genuineness of the second part, which

rationalistic criticism has brought together. Besides those which we

have already refuted, we shall bring into view only this argument,

which, at first sight indeed, may dazzle and startle even the

well-disposed, viz., the difference between the first and second parts,

as regards language and mode of representation. The chief error of

those who have adduced this argument is, that they judge altogether

without reference to person,--a matter, however, quite legitimate in

this case,--that they simply apply the same rule to the productions of

Isaiah which, in the productions of less richly endowed persons, has

indeed a _certain_ right, _e.g._, on the prophetical territory of

Jeremiah, who, notwithstanding the difference of subject, yet does not

understand so to change his voice, that it should not soon be

recognized by the skilled More than of all the prophets that holds true

of Isaiah, which _Fichte_, in a letter to a _Königsberg_ friend, writes

of himself (in his _Life_, by his son, i. S. 196): "I have properly no

style at all, for I have them all." "Just as the subject demands," says

_Ewald_, without assigning to the circumstance any weight in judging of

the second part, "just as the subject demands, every kind of speech,

and every change of style are easily at his command; and it is just

this in which here his greatness, as, in general, one of his most

prominent perfections, consists." The chief peculiarities of style in

the second part stand in close relation to the subject, and the

disposition of mind thereby called forth. The Prophet, as a rule, does

not address the mass of the people, but the election ([Greek: eklogê]);

nor the sinful congregation of the Lord in the present time, but that

of the future, purified by the judgments of the Lord, the seed and germ

of which were the election of the Present. It is to the congregation of

brethren that he addresses _Comfort_. The beginning: "Comfort ye,

Comfort ye, Zion," contains the keynote and principal subject. It is

from this that the gentle, tender, soft character of the style is to be

accounted for, as well as the frequent repetitions;--the comforting

love follows, step by step, the grief which is indefatigable in its

repetitions. [Pg 195] From this circumstance is to be explained the

habit of adding several epithets to the name of God; these are as many

shields which are held up against despair, as many bulwarks against the

things in sight, by which every thought of redemption was cut off Where

God is the sole help, every thing must be tried to make the

Congregation feel what they have in Him. A series of single phrases

which several times recur _verbatim_, _e.g._, "I am the Lord, and none

else, I do not give mine honour to any other, I am the first and the

last," are easily accounted for by the Prophet's endeavour and anxiety

to impress upon the desponding minds truths, which they were only too

apt to forget. If other linguistic peculiarities occur, which cannot be

explained from the subject, it must be considered that the second part

is not by any means a collection of single prophecies, but a closely

connected whole, which, as such, must necessarily have its own peculiar

_usus loquendi_, a number of constantly recurring characteristic

peculiarities. The character of unity must necessarily be expressed in

language and style also. The fact, however, that, notwithstanding the

difference of style betwixt the first and second parts, the second part

has a great number of characteristic peculiarities of language and

style in common with the first part (a fact which cannot be otherwise,

if Isaiah was the author of both), was first very thoroughly

demonstrated by _Kleinert_, while _Küper_ and _Caspari_ have been the

first conclusively to prove, that the second part was known and made

use of by those prophets who prophesied between the time of Isaiah and

that of "the great unknown."

The close connection of the second part with the first is, among other

things, proved also by the circumstance that both are equally strongly

pervaded with the Messianic announcement. Chap. i.-xii. especially

have, in this respect, a remarkable parallel in the second book of the

second part. The fact, moreover, that the single Messianic prophecies

of the second part agree, in the finest and most concealed features,

with those of the first part, will be shown in the exposition.

[Footnote 1: Chap. xxxvii. 38, (comp. 2 Kings xix. 37), describing

apparently the murder of Sennacherib as belonging to the past, does not

decide any thing as to the composition of this chapter by Isaiah,

"inasmuch as the year which is assigned for Sennacherib's death, B.C.

696, is not historically ascertained and certain. Nor can the

supposition, that Isaiah lived until the time of Manasseh, and himself

arranged and edited the collection of his prophecies on the eve of his

life, be liable to any well-founded doubts" (_Keil_, _Einleitung_, S.

271). The inscription in chap. i. 1, only indicates that the collection

does not contain any prophecies which go beyond the time of Hezekiah.]

[Footnote 2: To a certain degree analogous are those other passages of

the Old Testament, in which the Past presents itself in the form of the

Present, as the deliverance from Egypt in Ps. lxvi. 6; lxxxi. 6. Faith,

at the same time, makes all the old things new, fresh, and lively, and

anticipates the Future.]

[Pg 196]

CHAP. XLII. 1-9.

The 40th chapter has an introductory character. It comforts the people

of the Lord by pointing, in general, to a Future rich in salvation. In

chap. xli. the Prophet describes the appearance of the conqueror from

the East for the destruction of Babylon,--an event from which he

derives, as from a rich source, ample consolations for his poor

wretched people, while, at the same time, he represents idolatry as

being thereby put to shame. It is on purpose that, immediately after

the first announcement of this conqueror from the East, his antitype

is, in chap. xlii. 1-9, contrasted with him. In the preceding chapter,

the Prophet had shown how, by the influence of the king from the East,

the Lord would put idolatry to shame, and work out deliverance for His

Church. In the section now before us, he describes how, by the mission

of His servant, the Lord would effect, definitely and absolutely, that

which the former had done only in a preliminary, limited, and imperfect

manner. In the subsequent section, the Prophet then first farther

carries out the image of the conqueror from the East; and from chap.

xlix. he turns to a more minute representation of the image of the true

Saviour. In chaps. xlii. 10, to xliii. 7, the discourse turns, from a

general description of God's instruments of salvation, to a general

description of the salvation in its whole extent; just as it is the

manner of the second part ever again to return from the particular to

the general.

Here, where the Servant of God is first to be introduced, He is at

first spoken _of_; it is in ver. 5 that the Lord first speaks _to_ His

servant. In chap. xlix., on the contrary, the Servant of God, being

already known from chap. xlii., is, without farther remark, introduced

as speaking.

In the whole section, the Lord is speaking. It falls into three

divisions--First, the Lord speaks _of_ His servant, vers. 1-4; then He

speaks to His servant, ver. 5-7; finally. He addresses some closing

words to the Church, ver. 8, 9. The representation, in harmony with the

nature of the prophetic vision, bears a dramatic character.

In ver. 1-4, the Lord, as it were, points to His servant, introduces

Him to His Church, and commends Him to the [Pg 197] world: "Behold my

Servant," &c. He, the beloved and elect One, upheld by God, and endowed

with the fulness of the Spirit of God, shall establish righteousness

upon the whole earth, and bring into submission to himself the whole

Gentile world, by showing himself meek and lowly in heart, an helper of

the poor and afflicted, and combining with it never-failing power. The

aim: He shall bring forth right to the Gentiles. is at once expressed

at the close of ver. 1. In ver. 2-4, the means by which He attains this

aim are then stated. The bringing forth, or the establishing of right,

recurs again in ver. 3 and 4, in order to point out this relation of

ver. 2-4 to ver. 1.

In ver. 6 and 7, after having pointed to His Omnipotence as affording a

guarantee for the fulfilment of a prophecy so great that it might

appear almost incredible, the Lord turns to His Servant and addresses

Him. He announces to Him that it should be His glorious destination,

partly to bring, in His person, the covenant with Israel to its full

truth, partly to be the light for the Gentile world,--to be, in

general, the Saviour of the whole human race.

In the closing verses, 8, 9, the Lord addresses the Church, and directs

its attention to the object which the announcement of the mission of

His Servant, declared in the preceding context, serves: God, because He

is God, is anxious for the promotion of His glory. In order, therefore,

that it may be known that He alone is God, He grants to His people

disclosures as regards the distant Future, as yet fully wrapped up in

obscurity.

There is no doubt, and it is now generally admitted, that the Servant

of the Lord, here described, is the same as He who is brought before us

in chap. xlix. 4; liii., lxi. It is, hence, not sufficient to point out

an individual to whom, apparently, the attributes contained in this

prophecy belong; but we must add and combine all the signs and

attributes which are contained in the parallel passages.

The Chaldean Paraphrast who, in so many instances, has faithfully

preserved the exegetical tradition, understands the Messiah by the

Servant of God; and so, from among the later Jewish expositors, do

_Dav. Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_, the latter of whom says of the

non-Messianic interpretation, [Hebrew: wkl alh] [Pg 198] [Hebrew:

hHkmiM hkv bsnvriM] "that all these expositors were struck with

blindness." That this exposition was the current one among the Jews at

the time of Christ, appears from Luke ii. 32, where Simeon designates

the Saviour as the light to be revealed to the Gentiles [Greek: phôs

eis apokalupsin ethnôn], with a reference to Is xlii. 6; xlix. 6. It is

especially the latter passage which Simeon has in view, as also St.

Paul in Acts xiii. 46, 47, as appears from the words immediately

preceding [Greek: hoti eidon hoi ophthalmoi mou to sôtêrion sou ho

hêtoimasas kata prosôpon pantôn tôn laôn], which evidently refer to

chap. xlix. But chap. xlix. is, as regards the point which here comes

into consideration, a mere repetition and confirmation of chap. xlii.

By the New Testament, this exposition has been introduced and

established in the Church of Christ. The words which, at the baptism of

Christ, resounded from heaven: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho

agapêtos, en hô eudokêsa], Matt. iii. 17 (comp. Mark i. 11) evidently

refer to ver. 1 of the chapter before us, and point out that He who had

now appeared was none other than He who had, centuries ago, been

predicted by the prophets. And so do likewise the words which,

according to Matt. xvii. 5 (compare Mark ix. 7; Luke ix. 35; 2 Pet. i.

17), at the transfiguration of Christ, towards the close of His

ministry, resounded from heaven in order to strengthen the Apostles:

[Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapêtos, en hô eudokêsa. autou

akouete.] These voices at the beginning and the close of Christ's

ministry have not been sufficiently attended to by those who have

raised doubts against the Messianic interpretation; for a doubt in this

must necessarily shake also the belief in the reality of those voices.

In both of the passages, the place of the Servant of God in chap. xlii.

1 (which passage is indeed not so much quoted, as only, in a free

treatment, referred to) is taken by the Son of God, from Ps. ii. 7,

just as, at the transfiguration, the words [Greek: autou akouete] are

at once added from Deut. xviii. 15. The name of the Servant of God

was not high enough fur the sublime moment; the _Son_ formed, in the

second passage, the contrast to the _mere_ servants of God, Moses and

Elijah.--In Matt. xii. 17-21, ver. 1-3 are quoted, and referred to

Christ. The Messianic explanation of chap. xlii., xlix. lies at the

foundation of all the other passages also, where Christ is spoken of as

the [Greek: pais Theou]. In Acts iii. 13: [Greek: edoxase ton paida]

[Pg 199] [Greek: autou Iêsoun], we shall be obliged to follow _Bengel_

in explaining it by: _ministrum suum_, partly on account of Matt. xii.

18, and because the LXX. often render [Hebrew: ebd] by [Greek: pais];

partly on account of the obvious reference to the Old Testament

passages which treat of the Servant of God, and on account of the

special allusion to chap. xlix. 3 in the [Greek: edoxase] (LXX. [Greek:

doulos mou ei su [Israêl] kai en soi eudoxasthêsomai]). And so likewise

in Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: [Greek: epi ton hagion paida sou Iêsoun, hon

echrisas], where the last words refer to chap. lxi. 1; farther, in Acts

iv. 30. In all these passages it is not the more obvious [Greek:

doulos], but [Greek: pais] which is put, in order to remove the low

notions which, in Greek, attach to the word [Greek: doulos].

Taking her stand partly on these authorities, partly on the natural

sense of the passage, the Christian Church has all along referred the

passage to Christ; and even expositors such as _Clericus_, who,

everywhere else, whensoever it is possible, seek to set aside the

Messianic interpretation, are here found among its most decided

defenders. In our century, with the awakening faith, this explanation

has again obtained general dominion; and wherever expositors of

evangelical disposition do not yet profess it, this is to be accounted

for from the still continuing influence of rationalistic tradition.

We are led to the Messianic interpretation by the circumstance that the

servant of God appears here as the antitype of Cyrus. A real person can

be contrasted with a real person only, but not with a personification,

as is assumed by the other explanations. We are compelled to explain it

of Christ by this circumstance also, that it is in Him only that the

signs of the Servant of God are to be found,--that in Him only the

covenant of God with Israel has become a truth,--that He only is the

light of the Gentiles,--that He only, without external force, by His

gentleness, meekness, and love, has founded a Kingdom, the boundaries

of which are conterminous with those of the earth. The connection,

also, with the other Messianic announcements, especially those of the

first part, compels us to refer it to Christ.

The reasons against the Messianic interpretation are of little weight.

The assertion that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus appear as

the Servant of Jehovah (_Hendewerk_), is at once overthrown by Matt.

xii. 18, as well as by the other [Pg 200] passages already quoted, in

which Christ appears as [Greek: pais Theou]. Phil. ii. 7, [Greek:

morphên doulou labôn] comes as near the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh], as it was

possible, considering the low notion attached to the Greek [Greek:

doulos]. The passages which treat of the obedience of Christ, such as

Rom, v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; John xvii. 4: [Greek: ton ergon

eteleiôsa, ho dedôkas moi hina poiêsô], give only a paraphrase of the

notion of the Servant of the Lord. With perfect soundness _Dr Nitzsch_

has remarked, that it was required by the typical connection of the two

Testaments, that Christ should somehow, according to His [Greek:

hupakoê], [Greek: hupotagê], be represented as the perfect

manifestation of the [Hebrew: ebd]--The assertion: "The Messiah is

excluded by the circumstance that the subject is not only to be a

teacher of the Gentiles, who is endowed with the Spirit of God, but is

also to announce deliverance to Israel" (_Gesenius_), rests only on an

erroneous, falsely literal interpretation of ver. 7, which is not a

whit better than if, in ver. 3, we were to think of a natural bruised

reed, a natural wick dimly burning.--The objection that this Servant of

the Lord is not foretold as a future person, but is spoken of as one

present, forgets that we are here on the territory of prophetic vision,

that the prophets had not in vain the name of _seers_, and puts the

_real_, in place of the _ideal_ Present,--a mistake which is here the

less pardonable that the Prophet pre-eminently uses the Future, and, in

this way, himself explains the ideal character of the inserted

Preterites.--In order to refute the assertion, that the doctrine of the

Messiah is foreign to the second part of Isaiah, that (as _Ewald_ held)

in it the former Messianic hopes are connected with the person of a

heathen king, viz., Cyrus (how very little have they who advance such

opinions any idea of the nature of Holy Writ!), it is only necessary to

refer to chap. lv. 3, 4, where the second David, the Messiah, appears,

at the same time, as Teacher, and as the Prince and Lawgiver of the

nations, who is to extend the Kingdom of God far over all heathen

nations. That which, in that passage, is declared of the Messiah, and

that which, in those passages which treat of the Servant of God, is

declared of Him, exclude one another, as soon as, by the Servant of

God, any other subject than the Messiah is understood.

Even this circumstance must raise an unfavourable prejudice against the

non-Messianic interpretation, that its defenders [Pg 201] are at one in

the negative only, but differ in the positive determination of the

subject, and that, hitherto, no one view has succeeded in overthrowing

the other; and farther, that ever anon new subtleties are advanced, by

means of which it is attempted to patch up and conceal the

inadmissibilities of every individual exposition.

Passing over those expositions which have now become obsolete,--such as

of Cyrus, the Prophet Isaiah himself--we shall give attention to those

expositions only which even now have their representatives, and which

have some foundation in the matter itself.

The LXX. already understood Israel by the Servant of the Lord. They

translate in ver. 1: [Greek: Iakôb, ho pais mou, antilêpsomai autou,

Israêl, ho eklektos mou, prosedexato auton hê psuchê mou.] Among the

Jewish interpreters, _Jarchi_ follows this explanation, but with this

modification, that, by the Servant of the Lord, he understands the

collective body of the righteous in Israel. In modern times, this view

is defended by _Hitzig_. It appeals especially to the circumstance

that, in a series of other passages of the second part, Israel, too, is

designated by the Servant of God, viz. in chap. xli. 8: "And thou

Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my

friend," ver. 9: "Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,

and called thee from its sides, and said unto thee: Thou art my

servant, I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away," chap. xlii. 19,

xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2: "And now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel

whom I have chosen. Thus saith the Lord that made thee, formed thee

from the womb and helpeth thee: Fear not, O Jacob, my servant, and thou

Jeshurun, whom I have chosen;" chap. xliv. 21, xlv. 4, xlviii. 20; "Say

ye, the Lord hath redeemed His servant Jacob." In the face of this

fact, we shall not be permitted to refer to "the general signification

of the expression, and its manifold use." For, generally, it is of very

rare occurrence that Israel is personified as the Son of God (in Ps.

cv. 6, it is not Israel, as _Köster_ supposes, but Abraham who is

called Servant of God; Jer. xxx. 10, xlvi. 27; Ezek. xxxvii. 25 are, in

all probability, dependent upon the second part of Isaiah, by which

this designation first obtained a footing), and never occurs in such

accumulation as here. For this very reason, we cannot well think [Pg

202] of an accident; and if there was an intention, we can seek it only

in the circumstance that there exists a close reference to those

prophecies which, _ex professo_, have to do with the Servant of God. To

this we are led by another circumstance, also. While those passages in

which Israel or Jacob is spoken of as the servant of God, occur in

great numbers in the first book of the second part of Isaiah, they

_disappear_ altogether in the second book, which is the proper seat of

the detail prophecies of the Servant of God in question, who, in the

first book was, by way of anticipation only, mentioned in chap. xlii.

After chap. xlviii. 20, where the words: "The Lord hath redeemed His

servant Jacob," occur with evident intention, once more at the close of

the first book, Jacob, the servant of God, is, in general, no more

spoken of, but the Plural is used only of the Israelites as the

servants of God in chap. lxiii. 17: "For thy servants'sake, the tribes

of thine inheritance;" lxv. 8, 9-13, lxvi. 14,--passages which make it

only the more evident that the Prophet purposely avoids bringing

forward Jacob as the ideal person of the Servant of the Lord.

_Finally_--The idea of chance is entirely excluded by chap. xlix. 3,

where the Messiah is called Israel.

From these facts, however, we are not entitled to infer that, in the

prophetic announcement, Israel is simply spoken of as the servant of

God; but on the contrary the context must be viewed in a different and

_nicer_ way. This is evident from the circumstance that, while in the

passages chaps. xli. 7, xlviii. 20, Israel and Jacob are intentionally

spoken of as the servant of God, or, at least, Israel is so distinctly

pointed out that it cannot be at all misunderstood, such an express

pointing to Israel is (with the sole exception of chap. xlix. 3), as

intentionally, avoided in the prophetic announcement of the Servant of

God. The phrase "My servant Jacob," which, in the former passages is

the rule, never occurs in the latter. This circumstance clearly

indicates that, besides the agreement, there exists a difference. The

facts, however, which point out the agreement, receive ample justice by

the supposition _that the Prophet considers Christ as the concentration

and essence of Israel_, that he expects from Him the realization of the

task which was given to Israel, but had not been fulfilled by them, and

just thereby, also, the realization of the promises given to [Pg 203]

Israel. But, besides other reasons, the fact that the whole description

of the Servant of God stands in direct contradiction to what the

Prophet elsewhere says of Israel, proves that Israel is not meant in

_opposition_ to the Messiah,--the body without the head. It is

especially chap. xlii. 19 which here comes into consideration: "Who is

so blind as my servant, or so blind as my messenger whom I send?"

Israel is here called servant of the Lord, because it had been called

by Him to preserve the true religion on earth. Parallel is the

appellation: "My messenger whom I send." Israel, as the messenger of

God, was to deliver His commands to the Gentiles. The Prophet sharpens

the reproof, in that he always contrasts what the people were, and what

they ought to have been, according to the destination given to them by

the Lord. The servant of the Lord, who, in order to execute His

commissions, must have a sharp eye, is blind; His messenger is deaf and

cannot hear what He says to him. The immense contrast between idea and

reality which is here pointed out, implies, since the idea must

necessarily be realized, that it shall receive another bearer; that in

place of the messenger, who has become blind and deaf, there should

come the true Messenger who first opens the eyes of Israel, and then

those of the Gentiles,--that the destination of Israel, which the

members are unfit to realize, should be realized by the head. We are

not at liberty to say that the servant who had become blind and deaf

shall be converted, shall put off the old man and put on the new man,

and shall then accomplish the great things which, in the prophecies of

the Servant of God, are assigned to him. For the conversion,--on which

everything depends, and apart from which the announcement of the

Prophet would be an empty fancy--is, in all these prophecies, not

mentioned by a single word. On the contrary, the Servant of God is

everywhere, from His very origin, brought before us as the absolutely

just. No more glaring contrast can really be imagined than that which

exists between that which the Prophet says of the ordinary Israel

(whose outward state, as it is described in chap. xlii. 22: "This is a

people robbed and spoiled, they are all of them snared in holes, and

hid in prison-houses," is only a faithful image of the internal

condition), and the Son of God in whom His soul delighteth, who in

exuberant love seeks [Pg 204] that which is lost, whose overflowing

righteousness justifies many, and who, as a substitute, can suffer for

others. It is in Christ only, that Israel attains to its destination,

both in a moral point of view, and as regards the Divine preservation

and glorification. To this it may still be added, that neither here,

nor in the parallel passages is [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] ever connected with

a Plural, but always with the Singular only; while elsewhere, in the

case of collective nouns and ideal persons, the real plurality not

uncommonly shines forth from behind the unity; and in those passages,

especially, where Israel appears personified as a unity, the use of the

Singular is interchanged with that of the Plural. Comp., _e.g._, chap.

xli. 8: "And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed

(_posterity_) of Abraham, my friend," chap. xliii. 10: "_Ye are my

witnesses._ saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen." But a

circumstance, which alone would be sufficient for the proof, is the

fact, that in chap. xli. 6, (comp. chap. xlix. 5, 6) the Servant of the

Lord is plainly distinguished from the people. How can the Lord say of

the people, that He will give it for a covenant of the people, that in

it He will cause the covenant with the people to attain to its truth?

The fact, that this passage opposes an insurmountable barrier to the

explanation which makes the people the subject, sufficiently appears

from the circumstance, that the expositors saw themselves obliged to

set aside its natural sense by a forced, unphilological explanation.

_Finally_,--In understanding the people by the Servant of God, the

prophecies of the Servant of God are brought into irreconcileable

contradiction with all other prophecies, with the first part of Isaiah,

and even with the second part, inasmuch as things would then be

prophesied of the people which, everywhere else, are constantly

assigned to the Messiah. This is quite openly expressed by _Köster_:

"The Servant of Jehovah is the Jewish people; viewed, however, by the

Prophet in such a manner as to combine in itself the attributes of

both, the prophets and the Messiah." Prophetism would have dug its own

grave if its organs had, in a manner so inconsiderate, contradicted

each other as regards the highest hopes of the people. The national

conviction of the inspiration of the prophets, which formed the

foundation of their activity and efficiency, could, in that case, not

have arisen at [Pg 205] all. The same arguments decide partly also

against a modification of this explanation which evidently has

proceeded from embarrassment only,[1] against those who, by the Servant

of God, understand the better portion of Israel,--such as _Maurer_,

_Ewald_, _Oehler_ (_Ueber den Knecht Gottes_, _Tübinger Zeitschrift_,

1840. The latter differs from the other supporters of this view in

this, that, according to him, the notion of the ideal Israel which, he

thinks, prevails in chap. xlii. and xlix., is, in chap. liii., raised

to the view of an individual--the Messiah), _Knobel_ ("The theocratic

substance of the people, to which especially the prophets and priests

belonged.") By this modification, the explanation which makes the

people the subject, loses its only apparent foundation, inasmuch as it

can no more appeal to those passages in which Israel is spoken of as

the Servant of the Lord; for it is obvious that, in these, not merely

the pious portion of the people is spoken of. At the very outset, in

ver. 19, the whole of the people are undeniably designated by the

Servant of the Lord. It is they only who are blind and deaf in a

spiritual point of view. The whole people, and not a portion of them,

are in the condition of servitude, ver. 22. In ver. 24, Jacob and

Israel are expressly mentioned. The whole people, and not merely the

pious portion, are objects of the Lord's election (chap. xli. 8, xliv.

1, 2); the whole people are to be redeemed from Babylon, chap. xlviii.

20. The hypothesis of the pious portion of the people can as little

account for the unexceptional use of the singular, as the hypothesis of

the whole people; like it, it isolates the prophecies of the Servant of

God, and brings them into contradiction with all the other prophecies,

which assign to Christ the same things that are here assigned to the

Servant of God. But what is especially in opposition to this hypothesis

is ver. 3, where the Servant of God is designated as the Saviour of the

poor and afflicted, which, in the first instance, are no other than the

better portion of the people; as well as other reasons, which we shall

bring out in commenting upon chap. liii. by which section the

hypothesis is altogether overthrown.

According to _De Wette_ (_de morte expiat._ p. 26) and _Gesenius_, [Pg

206] the subject of the prophecy is the collective body of the

prophets. Substantially, _Umbreit_ too (_Der Knecht Gottes_, Hamburg

1840) adheres to this interpretation. He rejects the explanation which

refers it to Christ in the sense of the Christian Church, and on p. 13

he completely assents to _Gesenius_, by remarking that he could not

find in the prophets any supernatural, distinct predictions of future

events. The Prophet, according to him, formed to himself, by his own

authority, an "ideal of a Messiah," the abstraction of what he saw

before his eyes in the people, especially in the better portion of

them, but chiefly in the order of the prophets, and then persuaded

himself that this self-invented image would, at some future period,

come into existence as a real person. "The highest ideal of the

prophetic order, viewed as teaching, is represented in the unity of a

person." "We find the prophets as a collective body in the [Hebrew:

ebd], but chiefly, the prophets who, in future only, on the regained

paternal soil, are, in some person, to reach the highest perfection."

This hypothesis of the collective body of the prophets violently severs

the prophecy before us, and the parallel passages from those passages

of the second part in which Israel is spoken of as the Servant of God.

It is quite impossible to point out anywhere in the Old Testament, and

especially in the second part of Isaiah, an analogous personification

of the order of the prophets as the Servant of God. The reference to

chap. xliv. 26: "That establisheth the word of His servant, and

performeth the counsel of His messengers; that saith of Jerusalem: She

shall be inhabited, and of the cities of Judah: They shall be built,

and I will raise up the walls thereof," is, in this respect, altogether

out of place, inasmuch as the servant of the Lord, in that verse, is

not the collective band of the prophets, but Isaiah himself, just as in

chap. xxiii. The parallelism between the servant of the Lord and His

messengers is not a _synonymous_, but a _synthetic_ one, just as,

afterwards, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are placed beside one

another. The parallel passages clearly intimate that, by the servant of

the Lord, Isaiah only is to be understood. Throughout, the Prophet

refers exclusively to his own prophecies, as regards the impending

salvation of Israel (the prophecies of others he mentions, everywhere

else, always in reference to the past only); [Pg 207] and it cannot be

imagined that, in this single passage only, he should have designated

himself as one among the many. If we consider those parallel passages,

we must assume that the _messengers_ also are represented chiefly by

our Prophet; that he is their mouth and organ, just as, in Rev. i. 1,

and xxii. 6, the servants of God and the prophets are represented by

John.

_Farther_--It cannot be denied that a certain amount of truth lies at

the foundation of the explanation which makes the prophetic order the

subject. The Messiah appears in our prophecy pre-eminently as the

Prophet, in harmony and connection with Deut. xviii. (comp. Vol. i., p.

107); and the substratum of the description forms chiefly the prophetic

order, while, in the prophecies of the first part, it is chiefly the

regal office which appears, and, in chap. liii., the priestly. But the

mistake (as _Umbreit_ himself partly saw) is, that this explanation

changes the person into a personification, instead of recognizing that

the idea, which hitherto was only imperfectly realised by the prophetic

order, demands a future perfect realisation in an individual, so that

we could not but expect such an one even if there did not exist any

Messianic prophecy at all. Every prophet who, in human weakness,

performed his office, was a guarantee of the future appearance of _the_

Prophet, as surely as God never does by halves what, according to His

nature, and as proved by the existence of the imperfect, He must do.

But the fact that, here, we have not before us a mere personification

of the prophetic order, nor, as little, according to the opinion of

_Umbreit_, a single individual by whom, in future, the idea of the

prophetic order was to be most perfectly realised, is evident from the

circumstance that the Servant of God does not, by any means, represent

himself as being _only_ the Prophet. The contrast between Cyrus and the

Servant of God, which _G. Müller_ advances: "Evidently, the former is a

conqueror; the latter, a meek teacher," is one-sided; for the Servant

of God appears, at the same time, as a powerful _ruler_, just as

Christ, in chap. lv. 4, is at the same time designated as a _Witness_,

and as Prince and Lawgiver of the nations. To the mere teacher not even

ver. 3 is applicable, if the parallel passages are compared, but far

less ver. 4: "The isles shall wait for _His law_." Nor does a mere

teacher come up to the embodied covenant with Israel in ver. 6, nor to

_the_ [Pg 208] _light_, _i.e._, Salvation and Saviour of the Gentiles.

By mere teaching, salvation cannot be wrought out. Ver. 7 also does not

apply to the mere _teacher_.

The collective body of the prophets, or the ideal prophet, is

altogether out of place in chap. liii.; for there the Servant of God

does not appear as a Prophet, but as a High Priest and Redeemer. This

hypothesis meets with farther difficulties by the mention of Israel in

chap. xlix. 3. _Farther_--It cannot well be conceived how the Prophet

who, according to these expositors, lived about the end of the exile,

could expect such glorious things of the prophetic order, as that

from it even a preliminary and partial realization of his hopes

should proceed. At that time the prophetic order was already dying out;

and a prophetic order among the exiled cannot well be spoken of

_Finally_--That which is here ascribed to the Servant of God--the grand

influence upon the heathen world--is not of such a character, as that

the prophets could be considered as even the precursors and companions

in the work of _the Prophet_. Neither prophecy nor history assigns to

the prophets any share in this work. This hypothesis severe the second

part from its connection with the whole remaining Old Testament,

according to which it is by Christ alone that the reception of the

Gentiles into the Kingdom of God shall be effected. And in this second

part itself, it stands likewise in contradiction to chap. lv. 3, 4.

* * * * * * * * * *

Ver. 1. "_Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul

delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon Him, He shall bring forth

right_[2] _to the Gentiles._"

Every pious man is called, in general, "servant of the Lord," comp. Job

i. 8; Ps. xix. 12, 14; but ordinarily, the designation is, in a special

sense, applied to those whom God makes use of for the execution of His

purposes, to whom He entrusts the administration of His affaire, and

whom He equips for the promotion of His glory. David, who, according to

Acts xiii. 36, had in his generation served the counsel of God, calls

himself [Pg 209] in his prayer in 2 Sam. vii., not fewer than ten

times, the servant of God, (Vol. i, p. 135, 136); and the same

designation he gives to himself in the inscriptions of Ps. xviii. and

xxxvi. The _Prophets_ are called servants of God in 2 Kings xiii. 3;

Jer. xxvi. 5. In the highest and most perfect degree, that designation

belongs to Christ, who, in the most perfect manner, carried out the

decrees of God, and to whom all former servants and instruments of the

Lord in His kingdom, pointed as types. But the designation has not

merely a reference to the subjective element of obedience, but points,

at the same time, to the _dignity_ of him who is thus designated. It is

a high honour to be received by God among the number of His servants,

who enjoy the providence and protection of their mighty and rich Lord.

That this aspect--the dignity--comes here chiefly into consideration,

in the case of Him who is the Servant of God [Greek: kat'ezochên], and

in whom, therefore, this dignity must reach its highest degree, so that

the designation, _My Servant_, borders very closely upon that of _My

Son_, (comp. Matth. iii. 17, xvii. 5);--that this aspect comes here

chiefly into consideration is probable even from the circumstance that,

in those passages of the second part which treat of _Israel_ as the

servant of God, it is just this aspect which is pre-eminently regarded.

Thus it is in chap. xli. 8: "And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I

have chosen, the seed of Abraham, my friend." To be the servant of God

appears here as an honour, as the privilege which was bestowed upon

Israel in preference to the Gentiles. On ver. 9: "Thou, whom I have

taken from the ends of the earth, and from her borders called thee, and

said unto thee: Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast

thee away," Luther remarks: "The name, 'my servant,'contains the

highest _consolation_, both when we look to Him who speaks, viz.. He

who has created everything, and also to him who is addressed, viz.,

afflicted and forsaken man." In chap. xliv. 1, 2: "And now hear, O

Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen; thus saith the Lord

that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, who will help thee: Fear

not, O Jacob, my servant, and Jeshurun, whom I have chosen," all the

designations of God and Israel serve only for an introduction to the

exhortation: "Fear not," by laying open the necessity which exists for

the promise in [Pg 210] ver. 3, which, without such ca foundation,

would be baseless. The context and the parallelism with "whom I have

chosen" show that the designation, "servant of God" in these verses has

no reference to a duty imposed, but to a privilege, a relation which is

the pledge of divine aid to Israel. Jeshurun stands as a kind of _nomen

proprium_, and is not parallel to [Hebrew: ebdi], but to Jacob. In

chap. xliv. 21: "Remember this, O Jacob, and Israel, for thou art my

servant, I have formed thee for a servant to me, Israel, thou shalt not

be forgotten of me," the [Hebrew: alh] "this" refers to the folly of

idolatry exhibited in the preceding verses. The duty that Israel should

remember this, is founded upon the fact, that he is the servant of the

Lord, called by Him to a glorious dignity, to high prerogatives, of

which he must not rob himself by apostatizing from Him. It is He who

has bestowed upon him this dignity, and He will soon show by deeds,

that He cannot forget him, if only his heart does not forget his God.

In a similar manner, in chap. xlv. 4, the protecting providence and

love of God are looked to. The aspect of the duty and of the service

which Israel has to perform to his Lord, is specially pointed out in a

single passage only, in chap. xlii. 19; all the other passages place

the dignity in the foreground. That, in the designation. Servant of

God, in the passage before us, prominence is also given to the dignity,

is confirmed by the addition of "whom I uphold," which presents itself

as an immediate consequence of the relation of a servant of God, and by

the parallel: "mine elect in whom my soul delighteth."--[Hebrew: tmK]

"to take," "to seize," "to hold," when followed by [Hebrew: b], always

signifies _to lay hold of_, _to hold fast_, _to support_. With the

words: "Behold my servant whom I uphold," corresponds what the Lord

says in John viii. 29: [Greek: ho pempsas me met'emou estin. ouk

aphêke me monon ho Patêr, hoti egô ta aresta autô poiô pantote]; comp.

John iii. 2; Acts x. 38. The Preterite [Hebrew: ntti] is employed,

because the communication of the Spirit is the condition of his

bringing forth right, just as, in ver. 6, the _calling_ is the ground

of the preservation. In the whole of the description of the Servant of

God, the Future prevails throughout; the _Praeteritum propheticum_ is

employed only, where something is to be designated, which, relatively,

is antecedent; compare the words: "And the Spirit of the Lord rests

upon [Pg 211] Him," in chap. xi. 2; lxi. 1; Matt. iii. 16; John iii.

34. The three passages in Isaiah which speak of the communication of

the Spirit to Christ are inseparably connected with one another, and,

on the whole Old Testament territory, there is no passage exactly

parallel to them. The Hiphel of [Hebrew: ica] must not be explained by

"to announce," as some interpreters do; for in this signification it

nowhere occurs; and according to what follows, and the parallel

passages, the Servant of God does not by any means establish right by

the mere announcement, but by His holy disposition. But as little can

we explain [Hebrew: hvcia] by "to lead out," in contrast to the

circumstance that, under the Old Testament, right was limited to a

single nation. For in the parallel passage, chap. li. 4: "Hearken unto

me, my people, and give ear unto me, O my congregation, for law shalt

proceed from me, and I will set my right for the light of the nations,"

[Hebrew: ica] does not mean to go _out_, but to go _forth_, _i.e._, to

proceed. In the same way, in Hab. i. 4: "And not does right go forth

for ever," _i.e._, it never comes forth, is never established, comp.

Vol. i., p. 442, 443. Hence [Hebrew: hvcia] here can mean only "to

bring to light," "to bring forth." [Hebrew: mwpT] is, by several

interpreters, taken in the signification, "religion;" but it is just

ver. 4, by which they support their view, which shows that the ordinary

signification "right," must be retained here. For in that verse,

_right_ stands in parallelism with _law_, by which right is

established; comp. chap. li. 4. Before God's Kingdom was, by the

Servant of God, extended to the Gentile nations, there existed among

them, notwithstanding all the excellence of outward legal arrangements,

a condition without right in the higher sense. Right, in its essence,

has its root in God, as may be seen from the Ten Commandments, which

everywhere go back to God, and in all of which Luther, in his

exposition of the ten commandments, rightly repeats: "We shall fear and

love God." Where, therefore, the living God is not known, there can be

no right. The commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,"

_e.g._, has any meaning only where the eye is open for the divine image

which the neighbour bears, and for the redemption of which he is a

fellow-partaker. The commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother"

will go to the heart only where the divine paternity is known, of which

all earthly paternity is only an image. [Pg 212] In Deut. iv. 5-8,

Israel's happiness is praised, in that they alone, among all the

nations, are in possession of God's laws and commandments. Those

privileges of Israel are, by the Servant of God, to be extended to the

Gentiles who, because they are destitute of right, are, in Deut. xxxii.

21, called a foolish nation. In Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20, it is said: "He

showeth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and laws unto Israel. He has

not dealt so with any nation, and law they do not know." This passage

touches very closely upon that before us; like it, it denies right to

the Gentiles in general. "The Gentiles, being without God in the world,

do not know any right at all. For that which they call so, is only the

shadow of that which really deserves this name, is only a dark mixture

of right and wrong." As regards the first table of the Ten

Commandments, they grope entirely in the dark; and with respect to the

second table, it is only here and there that they see a faint glimpse

of light.--A consequence of the bringing forth of right to the Gentiles

is the ceasing of war, as it is described in chap. ii. 4. When right

has obtained dominion, it cannot tolerate war beside it; where there is

true right, there is also peace. The benefit which, in the first

instance, is conferred upon the Gentiles, is enjoyed by Israel also:

The intention of comforting and encouraging Israel clearly appears in

the parallel passage, chap. li. 4. For the right which obtains dominion

among the Gentiles, is Israel's pride and ornament, so that, along with

their God and His right, they obtain also the dominion over the Gentile

world, by which they were hitherto kept in bondage; and whensoever and

wheresoever the divine right obtains dominion, the violent oppression

must cease, under which the people of God had been groaning up to that

time. The Servant of God, however, who brings forth right to the

Gentiles, forms the contrast to the worldly conqueror, of whom it was

said in chap. xli. 25: "He cometh upon princes as mortar, and, just as

the potter treadeth the clay."--The words: "He shall bring forth

right," purposely return again in ver. 3; and equally intentionally,

the words: "He shall found right on the earth," in ver. 4, refer to

them. "We have thus"--_Stier_ pertinently remarks--"in ver. 1, the sum

and substance, even to its aim. But it is immediately brought more

distinctly to view, what [Pg 213] will be the spirit and character, the

mode of operation, by which this aim is to be brought about."

Ver. 2; "_He shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard

in the street._"

After [Hebrew: iwa] "he shall lift up," "His voice" must be supplied

from the context. The words must not be understood in such a manner, as

if they stood in opposition to chap. lviii. 1: "Cry with thy throat, do

not refrain, lift up thy voice like the trumpet, and show my people

their transgression, and to the house of Jacob their sins." The

Prophet, in that passage, encourages himself; and he cannot mean to

represent that as objectionable, by the circumstance that, in the case

of the Servant of God, the very ideal of all the servants of God, he

points out and praises the very opposite. And, in like manner, every

interpretation is to be avoided according to which "dumb dogs which

cannot bark" find a pretext in this passage. According to Prov. i. 20:

"Wisdom crieth aloud without, she uttereth her voice in the streets."

Just as the prohibition of swearing in Matt. v. 34 is qualified by the

opposition to Pharisaic levity in cursing and swearing, so here, also,

the antithesis to the loud manner of the worldly conqueror must be kept

in view,--the contrast to his violence which stakes every thing upon

carrying his own will, which cries and rages when it meets with

opposition and resistance, (Matt. renders [Hebrew: iceq] by [Greek:

erisei], "He shall contend"), to the earnestly sought publicity, to the

intention of causing sensation, as it proceeds from vanity or pride.

The [Greek: kraugasei], by which Matthew renders the [Hebrew: iwa], has

nothing in common with the [Greek: ekraxe] which, in John vii. 28, 37,

is said of Christ. With the passionate restlessness, with which the

conqueror from the East seeks to carry through his human plans, and to

place himself in the centre of the world's history, is here contrasted

the inward composure and deportment of the Servant of God, His

equanimity, His freedom from excitement,--all of which are based upon

the clear consciousness of His dignity and mission, upon the conviction

of the power of the truth which is of God, of the power of the Spirit

which opens up the minds and hearts for it, and which has its source in

the declaration: "I put my Spirit upon Him," by which the great wall

of separation between Him and the conqueror from the East is set up. It

is just [Pg 214] because of His not being beat upon carrying through

any thing, because of His great confidence, that the Servant of God

_gains_ everything, and obtains His object of bringing right to the

nations.--Matt., in chap. xii. 15-21, finds the confirmation of the

character here assigned to Christ in two circumstances:--_first_, in

His not entering into a violent dispute with the Pharisees opposing Him

([Greek: hoi de pharisaioi sumboulion elabon kat'autou exelthontes,

hopôs auton apolesôsin]), in His not exciting against them the masses

who were devoted to Him, but in withdrawing from them ([Greek: ho de

Iêsous gnous anechôrêsen ekeithen], ver. 15), being convinced that the

cause was not His but God's, and that there was no reason for getting

angry with those who were contending against God; just as David said of

Shimei: "Let him curse, because the Lord has said unto him, Curse

David."--_Secondly_, in the circumstance that instead of availing

himself of the excitement of the aroused masses, He charged them that

they should not make known His miraculous deeds ([Greek: kai epetimêsen

autois hina mê phanêron auton poiêsôsin], ver. 16), being convinced

that He did not need to seek to draw attention to himself, but that, by

the secret and hidden power of God, His work would be accomplished.

Ver. 3. "_The bent reed shall He not break, and the dimly burning wick

shall He not quench; in truth shall He bring forth right._"

Here, too, the antithesis to the worldly conqueror who, without mercy,

"Cometh upon princes as mortar, and as a potter treadeth the clay"

(chap. xli. 25), whose mind is bent only upon destroying and cutting

off nations not a few (chap. x. 7), who does not give rest until he has

fully cast down to the ground the broken power. The Servant of God, far

from breaking the bent reed, shall, on the contrary--this is the

positive opposed to the negative--care for, and assist the wretched

with tender love. Just thereby does He accomplish the object of His

efforts. The confirmation of the character here assigned to Christ is,

by Matthew, found in His healing the sick ([Greek: kai etherapeusen

autous pantas], ver. 15), as prefiguring all that which He, who has

declared the object of His coming to be to seek all that which was

lost, did and accomplished, in general, for the misery of the human

race. There cannot be any doubt that the bent reed and the dimly

burning wick are figurative designations [Pg 215] of those who, beaten

down by sufferings, feel themselves to be poor and miserable. These the

weary and heavy laden, the Servant of God will not drive to despair by

severity, but comfort and refresh by tender love. His conduct towards

them is that of a Saviour. As a bent reed, [Hebrew: qnh rcvC], Pharaoh

appears on account of his broken power, in chap. xxxvi. 6, and in chap.

lviii. 6, the [Hebrew: rcvciM] are the oppressed. The fact, that the

_wick_ dimly burning and near to being extinguished is an image of

exhausted strength, is shown by chap. xliii. 17, where, in reference to

the Egyptians carried away by the judgment, it is said: "They are

extinct, they are quenched like a wick." In the parallel passages which

treat of the Servant of God, the _weary_ in chap. l. 4, and the

_broken-hearted_ in chap. lxi. 1, correspond to it. Elsewhere, too, the

wretched appear as objects of the loving providence of the Saviour.

Thus, in chap. xi. 4: "And He judges in righteousness the low;" in Ps.

lxxii. 4: "He shall judge the poor of the people; He shall save the

children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor;" and in

vers. 12-14: "For He delivereth the needy when he crieth, and the

miserable, and him that hath no deliverer. From oppression and violence

He delivereth their soul, and precious is their blood in His sight."

Just as, in the passage before us, the bringing forth of right appears

as a consequence of the loving providence for the bent reed, and the

dimly burning wick, so in that Psalm, the great fact: "And all the

kings worship Him, and all the nations serve Him," is traced back to

the tender love with which He cares for and helps the poor and needy.

In the Sermon on the Mount, the beatitude of the [Greek: ptôchoi],

Matt. v. 3, of the [Greek: penthountes], ver. 4, and in Matt. xi. 28,

the invitation of the [Greek: kopiôntes kai pephortismenoi], exactly

correspond. The wicked and ungodly, upon whom the judgments of God have

been inflicted, are not included, because they are not wretched in the

full sense; for they harden themselves against the suffering, or seek

to divert themselves in it; they do not take it fully to heart. The

[Greek: tô pneumati], "in their consciousness," which in Matthew is

added to the simple [Greek: ptôchoi], which alone we find in Luke, must

be understood as a matter of course. He only is poor in the full sense,

who feels and takes to heart his poverty. According to an

interpretation widely spread, repenting sinners are designated [Pg 216]

by the bent reed, and dimly burning wick. Thus Luther writes: "That

means that the wounded conscience, those who are terrified at the sight

of their sins, the weak in life and faith are not cast away by Him, are

not oppressed and condemned, but that He cares for them, tends and

nurses them, makes them whole and embraces them with love." But

repenting sinners do not here come into consideration _per se_, but

only as one species of the wretched, inasmuch as, according to Luther's

expression, truly to feel sin is a torment beyond all torments.--The

last words: "In truth shall He bring forth right" again take up the

close of ver. 1, after the means have been stated, in the intervening

words, by which He is to bring about the result. The [Hebrew: lamt]

must not be translated: "For truth" (LXX: [Greek: eis alêtheian]); for

there is a thorough difference between [Hebrew: l] and [Hebrew: al];

the former does not, like the latter, designate the motion towards some

object, but is rather, here also, a preposition signifying "belonging

to;" hence [Hebrew: lamt] means "belonging to truth," "in a true

manner," "in truth." By every other mode of dealing, right would be

established _in appearance_ and _outwardly_ only. Matthew renders it:

[Greek: heôs an ekbalê eis nikos tên krisin], "until He has led right

to victory." By the addition of [Greek: heôs] he intimates, that the

last words state the result which is brought about by the conduct of

the Servant of God described in the preceding words. [Greek: Eis

nikos] is a free translation of [Hebrew: lamt]; [Greek: krisis] is

"right," as in chap. xxiii. 23.--How objectionable and untenable all

the non-Messianic explanations are, appears very clearly in this verse.

If Israel were the Servant of God, then the _Gentile world_ must be

represented by the bent reed and dimly burning wick. But in that case,

we must have recourse to such arbitrary interpretations as, _e.g._,

that given by _Köster_: "The weak faith and imperfect knowledge of the

Gentiles." No weak faith, no imperfect knowledge, however, is spoken

of; but the Servant of God appears as a Saviour of the poor and

afflicted, of those broken by sufferings. Those who, by the Servant of

God, understand the better portion of the people, or the prophetic

order, speak of "the meek spirit of the mode of teaching, which does

not by any means altogether crush the sinner already brought low, but,

in a gentle, affectionate manner, raises him up," (_Umbreit_); or say

with _Knobel_: "These poor and afflicted He does not [Pg 217] humble

still more by hard, depressing _words_, but _speaks_ to them in a

comforting and encouraging way, raising them up and strengthening

them." But in this explanation everything is, without reason, drawn

into the territory of speech, while Matthew rightly sees, in the

healing of the sick by Christ, a confirmation by deeds of the prophecy

before us. In chap. lxi., also, the Servant of God does not only bring

glad tidings, but _creates_, at the same time, the blessings announced.

According to chap. lxi. 3, He gives to them that mourn in Zion beauty

for ashes, joy for mourning, garment of praise for a weak ([Hebrew:

khh]) spirit. Verse 6 of the chapter before us most clearly indicates

how little we are allowed to limit ourselves to mere speaking; for,

according to that verse, the Servant of God is himself the covenant of

the people, and the light of the Gentiles, and according to ver. 7, He

opens the eyes of the blind, &c.

Ver. 4. "_He shall not fail nor run away until He shall have founded

right in the earth, and for His law the isles shall wait._"

On: "He shall not fail," properly, "He shall not become dim," comp.

Deut. xxxiv. 7, where it is said of Moses, the servant of God: "His eye

had not become dim, nor had his strength fled." The [Hebrew: la irvC]

"He shall not run away" (properly, "He shall not _run_") is qualified

and fixed by the parallelism with [Hebrew: la ikhh] "He shall not

fail." [Hebrew: rvC] in other passages also, several times receives, by

the context, the qualified signification "to run away," "to take to

flight," "to flee;" comp. Judges viii. 21; Jer. xlix. 19. The words:

"He shall not fail nor run away" imply that, in the carrying out of His

vocation, the Servant of God shall meet with powerful _obstacles_, with

obstinate _enemies_, and shall have to endure severe sufferings. That

which is here merely hinted at, is carried out and detailed in chap.

xlix., l., liii. How near He was to failing and running away (David,

too, was obliged to say: "Oh! that I had wings like a dove, then would

I fly away and be at rest") is seen from His utterance in Matt. xvii.

17: [Greek: ô genea apistos kai diestrammenê, heôs pote esomi meth'

humôn; heôs pote anexomai humôn.]--According to the current opinion,

[Hebrew: irvC] is here assumed to be the Future of [Hebrew: rcC], for

[Hebrew: irC], and that in the appropriate signification: "He shall not

be broken." (Thus it was probably [Pg 218] viewed by the Chaldean

Paraphrast who renders [Hebrew: la ilai] _non laborabit_; by the LXX.,

who translate [Greek: ou thrauthsêsetai], while _Aquila_ and

_Symmachus_, according to the account of _Jerome_, render, _non

curret_, thus following the derivation from [Hebrew: rvC]). As [Hebrew:

ikhh] points back to [Hebrew: khh] in the preceding verse, so, in that

case [Hebrew: irvC] would point back to [Hebrew: rcvC] "He shall not

break that which is bent, nor quench that which is dimly burning; but

neither shall He himself be broken or quenched." But this explanation

is opposed by the circumstance, that we must make up our minds to admit

a double anomaly. The territories of the two verbs [Hebrew: rcC] and

[Hebrew: rvC] are everywhere else kept distinct, and the former

everywhere else means "to break," and not "to be broken." In the only

passage, Eccl. xii. 6, brought forward in support of this irregularity,

[Hebrew: rvC] "to run," "to flee away," being in parallelism with

[Hebrew: nrHq] "to be removed," is quite appropriate; just as in the

second clause of that verse [Hebrew: rvC] "to be crushed," is in

parallelism with [Hebrew: nwbr] "to be broken."--[Hebrew: aiiM] are, in

the _usus loquendi_ of Isaiah, not so much the real islands, as rather

the islands in the sea of the world, the countries and kingdoms;

compare remarks on Rev. vi. 14, and Ps. xcvii. 1 (second Edition). The

_law_ for which the islands wait is not so much a ready-made code of

laws, as the single decisions of the living Lawgiver, which the

Gentiles, with anxious desire, shall receive as their rule in all

circumstances, after they have spontaneously submitted to the dominion

of the Servant of God, having been attracted by His loving

dispensations. Several unphilologically translate: "for His

_doctrine_," which does not even give a good sense, for it is not the

doctrine which is waited for; its value is known only after it has been

preached. The Servant of God appears here as the spiritual Ruler of the

nations; and this He becomes by being, in the fullest sense, the

Servant of God, so that His will is not different from the will of God,

nor [Hebrew: tvrh] from that of God, just as, in a lower territory,

even Asaph speaks the bold word: "Hear, my people, my law." "The singer

comes forth as one who has full authority, the 'Seer' and 'Prophet'

utter _laws_ which leave no alternative between Salvation and

destruction." Parallel is chap. ii. 3, 4, where the nations go up to

Zion, in order there to seek laws for the regulation of their practical

conduct, and according to which the Lord _judges_ among the nations,

and the law goes forth [Pg 219] out of Zion, and the word of the Lord

from Jerusalem. The difference is this only,--that, in that passage,

the matter is traced back immediately to God, while here, the Servant

of God is mentioned as the Mediator between Him and the Gentiles. But

we must keep in mind that, for chap. ii. also, the parallel passages in

chap. iv., ix., xi., furnish the supplement. We must, farther, compare

also chap. li. 5: "My righteousness is near, my salvation goes forth,

_mine arms shall judge the nations_, the isles shall wait for me, and

on mine arm shall they hope." The _judging_ in that passage does not

mean divine punitive judgments; but it is rather thereby intimated that

all the nations shall recognise the Lord as their King, to whose

government they willingly submit, and with whom they seek the decision

of their disputes. Matthew purposely changes it into: "And in _His

name_ shall the Gentiles trust." The desire for the commands of the

Lord is an effect of the love of His _name_, _i.e._, of Him who is

glorified by His deeds. For the name is the product of deeds,--here

especially of those designated in ver. 2 and 3. The commands are

desired and longed for, only because the person is beloved on account

of His deeds. Matthew has only distinctly brought out that which, in

the original text, is intimated by the connection with the preceding

verses. In consequence of this, His quiet, just, and merciful

dispensation, the isles shall wait for His law.

In ver. 5-7 the Lord addresses His Servant, and promises Him that, by

His omnipotence, the great work for which He has called Him, shall be

carried out and accomplished, viz., that the covenant relation to

Israel shall be fully realized, and the darkness of the Gentile world

shall be changed into light.

Ver. 5. "_Thus saith God the Lord, who createth the heavens and

stretcheth them out; who spreadeth forth the earth and that which

cometh out of it; who giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit

to them that walk thereon._"

The Prophet directs attention to the omnipotence of God, in order to

give a firm support to faith in the promise which exceeds all human

conception. It is by this that the accumulation of the predicates is to

be accounted for. He who fully realizes what a great thing it is to

bring an apostate world back to God, to that God who has become a

stranger to it, [Pg 220] will surely not explain this accumulation by a

"disposition, on the part of the Prophet, to diffuseness."

Ver. 6. "_I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and I will

seize thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for the covenant of

the people and, for the Light of the Gentiles._"

It is so obvious that [Hebrew: bcdq] must be translated by "in

righteousness," that the explanations which disagree with it do not

deserve to be even mentioned. The mission of the Servant of God has

its root in the divine _righteousness_, which gives to every one his

due,--to the covenant-people, salvation. Even apart from the promise,

the appearance of Christ rests on the righteousness of God. For it is

in opposition to the nature and character of a people of God to be, for

any length of time, in misery, and shut up to one corner of the earth.

That which is to be accomplished for Israel by the Servant of God,

forms, in the sequel, the first subject of discourse. But even that

which He affords to the _Gentiles_ is, at the same time, given to

Israel, inasmuch as it is one of their prerogatives that salvation for

the Gentiles should go forth from them. As, here, the mission of the

Servant of God, so, in chap. xlv. 13, the appearance of the lower

deliverer appears as the work of divine righteousness: "I have raised

him up in righteousness, and all his ways I will make straight."

Similarly also in chap. xli. 2: "Who raised up from the East him whom

righteousness calls wherever he goes," _i.e._, him, all whose steps are

determined by God's righteousness, who, in all his undertakings, is

guided by it.--The seizing by the hand, the keeping, &c., are the

consequence of His being called, and are equivalent to: just because I

have called him, therefore will I, &c. Luther remarks: "Namely, for

this reason, that Satan and the world, with all their might and wisdom,

will _resist_ thy work." In the words: "For the Covenant of the people,

and for the Light of the Gentiles," [Hebrew: eM] and [Hebrew: gviM]

form an antithesis. The absence of the article shows that we ought

properly to translate: "For a Covenant of a people, for a Light of

Gentiles." It is thus, in the first instance, only said that the

Servant of God should be the personal covenant for a people; but _what_

people that should be, cannot admit of a moment's doubt. To Israel, as

such, the name of the _people_ pre-eminently belongs. Israel, in

preference to all others, is called [Hebrew: eM] (compare _Gesenius'_

[Pg 221] Thesaurus _s.v._ [Hebrew: gvi]), because it is only the people

of God that is a people in the full sense, connected by an internal

unity; the Gentiles are [Hebrew: la eM], _non-people_, according to

Deut. xxxii. 21, because they lack the only real tie of unity. But what

is still more decisive is the mention of the _Covenant_. The covenant

can belong to the covenant-people only, [Greek: hôn hai diathêkai],

Rom. ix. 4,--the old, no less than the new one. The covenant with

Abraham is an everlasting covenant of absolute exclusiveness, Gen.

xvii. 7. The Servant of God is called the personal and embodied

Covenant, because in His appearance the covenant made with Israel is to

find its full truth; and every thing implied in the very idea of a

covenant, all the promises flowing from this idea, are to be in Him,

Yea and Amen. The Servant of God is here called the Covenant of Israel,

just in the same manner as in Mic. v. 4 (comp. Ephes. ii. 14), it is

said of Him: "This (man) is Peace," because in Him, peace, as it were,

represents itself personally;--just as in chap. xlix. 6, He is called

the _Salvation_ of God, because this salvation becomes personal in Him,

the Saviour,--just as in Gen. xvii. 10, 13, circumcision is called a

covenant, as being the embodied covenant,--just as in Luke xxii. 20,

the cup, the blood of Christ, is called the New Covenant, because in it

it has its root. The explanation: Mediator of the covenant, [Greek:

diathêkês enguos], is meagre, and weakens the meaning. The circumstance

that the Servant of God is, without farther qualification, called the

Covenant of the people, shows that He stands in a different relation to

the covenant from that of Moses, to whom the name of the _Mediator_ of

the covenant does not the less belong than to Him. From Jer. xxxi. 31,

we learn which are the blessings and gifts which the Servant of God is

to bestow, and by which He represents himself as the personal Covenant.

They are concentrated in the closest connection to be established by

Him between God and His people: "I will be their God, and they shall be

my people." It is only in the New Covenant, described in that passage

of Jeremiah, that the Old Covenant attains to its truth. The second

destination of the Servant of God, which, according to the context,

here comes into special consideration, is, to be _the Light of the

Gentiles_. By the realization of this destination, an important feature

in [Pg 222] the former was, at the same time, realized. For it formed

part of the promises of the covenant with Israel that, from the midst

of them, salvation for all the families of the earth should go forth,

as our Saviour says: [Greek: hê sôtêria ek tôn Ioudaiôn estin.] Light

is here, according to the common _usus loquendi_ of Scripture, a

figurative designation of _salvation_. In the parallel passage, chap.

xlix. 6, light is at once explained by salvation. The designation

proceeds upon the supposition that the Gentiles, not less than Israel,

(comp. chap. ix. 1 [2]) shall, until the appearance of the Servant of

God, sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,--that they are in

misery, although, in some instances, it may be a _brilliant_ misery.

The following verse farther carries out and declares what is implied in

the promise: "Light of the Gentiles." Parallel is chap. lx. 3: "And the

heathen walk in thy (Zion's) light"--they become partakers of the

salvation which shines for Zion--"and kings in the brightness which

riseth to thee."--The supporters of that opinion, which understands

Israel by the Servant of God, are in no small difficulty regarding this

verse, and cannot even agree as to the means of escape from that

difficulty. Several assume that [Hebrew: eM] is used collectively, and

refer it to the Gentile nations. But opposed to this explanation is the

evident antithesis of [Hebrew: eM] and [Hebrew: gviM]; and it is

entirely overthrown by the parallel passage in chap. xlix. Scripture

knows nothing of a covenant with the Gentiles. According to the view of

the Old, as well as of the New Testament, the Gentiles are received

into the communion of the covenant with Israel. Others (_Hitzig_,

_Ewald_) explain: "covenant-people, _i.e._, a mediatorial, connecting

people, a bond of union between God and the nations." But the passage,

chap. xlix. 8, is most decidedly opposed to this. _Farther_--The

parallelism with [Hebrew: avr gviM] shows that [Hebrew: brit eM] is the

_status constructus_. But _f[oe]dus alicujus_, is, according to the

remark of _Gesenius_, _f[oe]dus cum aliquo sancitum_. Thus in Lev.

xxvi. 45, the covenant of the ancestors is the covenant entered into

with the ancestors; Deut. iv. 31; Lev. xxvi. 42 (the covenant of Jacob,

the covenant of Isaac, &c.) According to _Knobel_: "the true theocrats

are to become a covenant of the people, the restorers of the

Israelitish Theocracy, they themselves having connection and unity by

faithfully holding fast by Jehovah, and by representing His cause."

This explanation, [Pg 223] also, is opposed to the _usus loquendi_,

according to which "covenant of the people" can have the sense only of

"covenant with the people," not a covenant among the people. And,

_farther_, the parallel passage in chap. xlix. 8 is opposed to this

interpretation also, inasmuch as, in that passage, the Servant of the

Lord is called [Hebrew: brit eM], not on account of what He is in

himself, but on account of the influence which He exercises upon

others, upon the whole of the people: "That thou mayest raise up the

land, distribute desolate heritages, that thou mayest say to the

prisoners: Go forth," &c. In that passage the land, the desolate

heritages, the prisoners, &c., evidently correspond to the people.

_Finally_--A covenant is a relation between two parties standing

opposite one another. "The word is used," says _Gesenius_, "of a

covenant formed between nations, between private persons, _e.g._, David

and Jonathan, between Jehovah and the people of Israel." But here no

parties are mentioned to be united by the covenant.

Ver. 7. "_That thou mayest open blind eyes, bring out them that are

bound from the prison, and from the house of confinement them that sit

in darkness._"

On account of the connection with the "for the Light of the Gentiles,"

which would stand too much isolated, if, in the words immediately

following, Israel alone were again the subject of discourse, the

activity of God here mentioned refers, in the first instance, to the

_Gentiles_; and the words: "them that sit in darkness," moreover,

evidently point back to "for the Light of the Gentiles." But from chap.

xlix. 9, and also from ver. 16 of the chapter before us, where the

blindness of Israel is mentioned, it appears that Israel too must not

be excluded. Hence, we shall say: It is here more particularly

described how the Servant of God _proves_ himself as the Covenant of

the people and the Light of the Gentiles, how He puts an end to the

misery under which both equally groan. It will be better to understand

_blindness_, in connection with imprisonment, sitting in darkness, as a

designation of the need of salvation, than as a designation of

spiritual blindness, of the want of the light of knowledge. That is

also suggested by the preceding: "for the Light of the Gentiles,"

which, according to the common _usus loquendi_, and according to chap.

ix. 1 (2) is not to be referred to the spiritual illumination

especially, [Pg 224] but to the bestowal of salvation. To this view we

are likewise led by a comparison of ver. 16: "And I will lead the blind

by a way that they knew not, I will lead them in paths that they have

not known, I will change the darkness before them into light, the

crooked things into straightness." The _blind_ in this verse are those

who do not know what to do, and how to help themselves, those who

cannot find the way of salvation, the miserable; they are to be led by

the Lord on the ways of salvation, which are unknown to them. In a

similar sense and connection, the blind are, elsewhere also, spoken of,

comp. Remarks on Ps. cxlv. 8.--On the words: "Bring out them that are

bound from the prison," _Knobel_ remarks: "The citizens of Judah were,

to a great extent, imprisoned; the Prophet hopes for their deliverance

by the theocratic portion of the people." A strange hope! By this

coarsely literal interpretation, the connection with "for the Light of

the Gentiles" is broken up; and this is the less admissible that the

words at the close of the verse: "those that sit in darkness," so

clearly refer to it. _Imprisonment_ is a figurative designation of the

_miserable condition_, not less than, the _darkness_, which, on account

of the light contrasted with it, and on account of chap. ix. 1 (2),

cannot be understood otherwise than figuratively. Under the image of

men bound in dark prisons, the miserable and afflicted appear also in

Ps. cvii. 10-16; Job xxxvi. 8, where the words, "bound in fetters," are

explained by the parallel "holden in the cords of misery." When David,

in Ps. cxlii. 8, prays: "Bring my soul out of the prison," he himself

explains this in Ps. cxliii. 11 by the parallel: "Thou wilt bring my

soul out of _trouble_;" comp. also Ps. xxv. 17: "O bring thou me out of

my _distresses_." If we here understand the prison literally, we might,

with the same propriety in other passages, also, _e.g._, in Ps. lxvi.

11, understand _literally_ the net, the snare, the trap.

Ver. 8: "_I the Lord, that is my name, and my honour I will not give to

another, nor my glory to idols._ Ver. 9. _The former_ (things),

_behold, they came to pass, and new_ (things) _do I declare; before

they spring forth, I cause you to hear._"

We have here the solemn close and exhortation. At the close of chap.

xli. it had been pointed out, how the prediction of the _Conqueror from

the East_ serves for the glory of Jehovah, [Pg 225] who thereby proves

himself to be the only true God. Here the zeal of God for His glory is

indicated as the reason which has brought forth the prediction of the

_Servant of God_ and His glorious work,--a prediction which cannot be

accounted for from natural causes. It is thus the object of the

prophecy which is here, in the first instance, stated. It is intended

to manifest the true God as such, as a God who is zealously bent on His

glory. But the same attribute of God which called forth the prophecy,

calls forth also the events prophesied, viz., the appearance of the

Servant of God, and the victory over the idols accomplished thereby,

the bringing forth of the law of God over the whole earth through Him,

and the full realization of the covenant with Israel. The thought is

this:--that a God who does not manifest and prove himself as such, who

is contented with the honour granted to Him without His interference,

cannot be a God; that the true God must of necessity be filled with the

desire of absolute, exclusive dominion, and cannot but manifest and

prove this desire. From this thought, the prophecy and that which it

promises flow with a like necessity.--According to _Stier_, [Hebrew:

rawnvt], "the former (things)" means "the redemption of the exiled by

Cyrus," which in chaps. xli. xlviii. forms the historico-typical

foreground, whose coming is here anticipated by the Prophet. But the

parallel passages, chaps. xli. 22, xliii. 9, xlviii. 3, are conclusive

against this view; for, according to these passages, it is only the

former already fulfilled predictions of the Prophet and his colleagues,

from the beginnings of the people, which can be designated by "the

former (things)." By "the new (things)" therefore, is to be understood

the aggregate of the events which are predicted in the second part, to

which belongs the prophecy of the Servant of God which immediately

precedes, and which the Prophet has here as pre-eminently in view

(_Michaelis_: _et nova, imprimis de Messia_), as, in the parallel

passage chap. xli. 22, the announcement of the conqueror from the East.

Both of these verses seem to round off our prophecy, by indicating that

such disclosures regarding the Future are not by any means intended to

serve for the gratification of idle curiosity, but to advance the same

object to which the events prophesied are also subservient, viz., the

promotion of God's glory. The [Pg 226] modern view of Prophetism is

irreconcileable with the verses under consideration, which evidently

shew, that the prophets themselves were filled with a different

consciousness of their mission and position And in like manner it

follows from them, that there is no reason to put, by means of a forced

interpretation, the prophecy within the horizon of the Prophet's time,

seeing that the Prophet himself shows himself to be thoroughly

penetrated by its altogether supernatural character.

[Footnote 1: This embarrassment becomes still more obvious in the

explanation of _Vatke_, who understands by the Servant of God, "the

harmless ideal abstract of the people;" and that of _Beck_, who

understands thereby "the notion of the people."]

[Footnote 2: The Hebrew word is [Hebrew: mwpT], which means "judgment,"

"right," "law." Dr. _Hengstenberg_ has translated it by _Recht_, which

is, as nearly as possible, expressed by the English word "right,"

(_jus_,) as including "law" and "statutes."--_Tr._]