The Servant of God, with whose person the Prophet had. by way of
preparation, already made us acquainted in the first book of the second
part, in chap. xlii., is here, at the beginning of the second book, at
once introduced as speaking, surprising, as it were, the readers. In
ver. 1-3, we have the destination and high calling which the Lord
assigned to His Servant; in ver. 4, the contrast and contradiction of
the result of this mission; the covenant-people, to whom it is, in the
first instance, directed, reward with ingratitude His faithful work. In
ver. 5 and 6, we are told what God does in order to maintain the
dignity of His Servant; as a compensation for obstinate, rebellious
Israel, He gives Him the _Gentiles_ for an inheritance. From ver. 7 the
Prophet takes the word. In ver. 7 the original contempt which,
according to the preceding verses, the Servant of God meets with,
especially in _Israel_, is contrasted with the respectful worship of
nations and kings which is to follow after it. Ver. 8 and 9 describe
how the Servant of God proves himself to be the embodied covenant of
the people, and form the transition to a general description of the
enjoyment of salvation, which, in the Messianic times, shall be
bestowed upon the Congregation of the Lord. This description goes on to
chap. l. 3, and then, in chap. l. 4 ff., the person of the Servant of
the Lord is anew brought before us.
The Messianic explanation of our passage is already met with in the New
Testament. It is with reference to it that [Pg 227] Simeon, in Luke ii.
30, 31, designates the Saviour as the [Greek: sôtêrion] of God, which
He had prepared before the face of all people (comp. ver. 6 of our
passage: "That thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth"),
as the [Greek: phôs eis apokalupsin ethnôn kai doxan laou sou Israêl];
comp. again ver. 6, according to which the Servant of God is to be at
the same time, the light of the Gentiles, to raise up the tribes of
Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel. Ver. 1: "The Lord hath
called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He made
mention of my name," is alluded to in Luke ii. 21: [Greek: Kai eklêthê
to onoma autou Iêsous, to klêthen hupo tou angelou pro tou
sullêphthênai auton en tê koilia] (comp. i. 31: [Greek: sullêpsê en
gastri kai texê huion kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iêsoun]) as is
sufficiently evident from [Greek: en tê koilia] _sc. matris_, which
exactly answers to the [Hebrew: mbTN] in the passage before us. In Acts
xiii. 46, 47, Paul and Barnabas prove, from the passage under review,
the destination of Christ to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, and their
right to offer to them the salvation despised and rejected by the Jews:
[Greek: idou strephometha eis ta ethnê. houtô gar entetaltai hêmin ho
Kurios. tetheika se eis phôs ethnôn tou einai se eis sôtêrian heôs
eschatou tês gês.] In the destination which, in Isaiah, the Lord
assigns to Christ, Paul and Barnabas recognize an indirect command for
his disciples, a rule for their conduct. In 2 Cor. vi. 1, 2, ver. 8 is
quoted, and referred to the Messianic time.
It is obvious that the Jews could not be favourable to the Messianic
interpretation; but the Christian Church has held fast by it for nearly
1800 years. Even such interpreters as _Theodoret_ and _Clericus_, who
are everywhere rather disposed to explain away real Messianic
references, than to find the Messiah where He is not presented,
consider the Messianic interpretation to be, in this place, beyond all
doubt. The former says: "This was said with a view to the Lord Christ,
who is the seed of Abraham, through whom the nations received the
promise." And when, in our century, men returned to the faith, the
Messianic interpretation also returned. If the Church has Christ at
all, it is impossible that she should fail to find Him here.
_Gesenius_, and those who have followed him, appeal to the
circumstance, that the Messiah could not well be introduced as
speaking, and, least of all, in such a manner, without any introduction
[Pg 228] and preparation. But it is difficult to see how this argument
can be advanced by those who themselves assume that a mere
personification, the collective body of the prophets, or, as _Beck_
expresses it, the Prophet [Greek: kat'exochên] as a general
substantial individual, or even the people, can be introduced as
speaking. The introduction of persons is a necessary result of the
dramatic character of prophetic Speech, comp., _e.g._, chap. xiv.,
where now the king of Babylon, then the inhabitants of the Sheol, and
again Jehovah, are introduced as speaking. The person who is here
introduced as speaking is already known from chap. xlii., where _he is
spoken of_. The prophecy before us stands to that prophecy in the very
same relation as does Ps. ii. 7-9, where the Anointed One suddenly
appears as speaking, to the preceding verses, where He was spoken of
The Messiah is here so distinctly described, as to His nature and
character, that it is impossible not to recognise Him. Who but He
should be the Covenant of the people, the Light of the Gentiles, the
Saviour for all the ends of the earth? The point which was here
concerned was not, first to introduce Him to the knowledge of the
people. His image existed there already in sharp outlines, even from
and since Gen. xlix. 10, where the Peaceful One meets us, in whom Judah
attains to the full height of his destination, and to whom the people
adhere. The circumstance that it is just here that the Messiah appears
as speaking, forms the most appropriate introduction to the second
book, in which He is the principal figure.--It is by a false literal
interpretation only that ver. 8, 9 have been advanced in opposition to
the Messianic interpretation.
The arbitrariness of the non-Messianic interpretation manifests
itself in this also, that its supporters can, up to this day, not
agree as to the subject of the prophecy. 1. According to several
interpreters--_Hitzig_, last of all--the Servant of God is to be
_Israel_, and the idea this, that Israel would, at some future period,
be the teacher of the Gentiles, and would spread the true religion on
earth. It is apparently only that this interpretation receives some
countenance from ver. 3, where the Servant of the Lord is called
Israel. For this name does not there stand as an ordinary _nomen
proprium_, but as an honorary name, to designate the high dignity and
destination of the Servant of God. As this name had passed over from
[Pg 229] an individual to a people, so it may again be transferred from
the people to that person in whom the people attain their destination,
in which, up to that time, they had failed But decisive against this
explanation, which makes the whole people the subject, is ver. 5,
according to which the Servant of God is destined to lead back to the
Lord, Jacob and Israel (in the ordinary sense), who then must be
different from Him; ver. 6, according to which He is to raise up the
tribes of Jacob; ver. 8, 9, according to which He is to be the Covenant
of the people, to deliver the prisoners, &c. (_Knobel_ remarks on this
verse: "Nothing is clearer than that the Servant of God is not
identical with the mass of the people, but is something different.")
Supposing even that the people, destined to be the teachers of the
Gentiles, appear here as speaking, it is difficult to see how, in ver.
4, they could say that hitherto they had laboured in vain in their
vocation, and seen no fruits, since hitherto the people had made no
attempt at all at the conversion of the Gentiles. 2. _Maurer_,
_Knobel_, and others, endeavour to explain it of _the better portion of
the people_. But conclusive against this interpretation is ver. 6,
according to which the Servant of God has the destination of restoring
the preserved of Israel, and hence must be distinct from the better
portion; ver. 8, according to which He is given for a Covenant of the
people, from which, according to ver. 4 and 6, the ungodly are
excluded; so that the idea of the people is identical with that of the
better portion. In general, the contrasting of the better portion of
the people with the whole people, Jacob and Israel, the centre and
substance of which was formed just by the [Greek: eklogê], can scarcely
be thought of, and is without any analogy. Nor is the mention of the
_womb_. and _bowels of the mother_, in ver. 1, reconcileable with a
merely imaginary person, and that, moreover, a person of a character so
indistinct and indefinite,--a character which has no definite and
palpable historical beginnings. The parallel passages, in which the
calling from the womb is mentioned, treat of real persons, of
individuals.--3. According to several interpreters (_Jarchi_, _Kimchi_,
_Abenezra_, _Grotius_, _Steudel_, _Umbreit_, _Hofmann_), the Servant of
the Lord is to be none other than _the Prophet himself_. No argument
has been adduced in favour of this view, except the use of the first
person, ("If here, without introduction and preparation, a discourse
begins with the first [Pg 230] person, it refers most naturally to the
Prophet, who is the author of the Book"),--an argument of very
subordinate significance, and the more so that the person of the
Prophet, everywhere else in the second part of Isaiah, steps so
entirely into the background behind the great objects with which he is
engaged. To follow thus the first appearance may, indeed, be becoming
to a eunuch from Ethiopia, but not a Christian expounder of Scripture.
The contents of the prophecy are decidedly in opposition to this
opinion. Even the circumstance that a single prophet should assume the
name of Israel, ver. 3, appears an intolerable usurpation. _Farther_--
Like all the other prophets, Isaiah was sent to the Jews, and not to
the Gentiles; but at the very outset, _the most distant lands and all
the distant nations_ are here called upon to hearken. The Lord says to
His Servant that the restoration of Israel was too little for Him, that
He should be a light and salvation for all the heathen nations from one
end of the earth to the other; kings and Princes shall fall down before
Him, adoring and worshipping. The Prophet would thus simply have raised
himself to be the Saviour. _Umbreit_ expressly acknowledges this: "He
is to be the holy pillar of clouds and fire which leads the people back
to their native land, after the time of their punishment has expired.
But a still more glorious vocation and destination is in store for the
prophets; they receive the highest, the Messianic destination." The
usurpation of which the Servant of God would have made himself guilty,
appears so much the more clearly, when it is known, that the work of
the Servant of God comprehends even all that also, which is described
in ver. 10-23, viz., the blossoming of the Church of God, her
enlargement by the Gentiles, &c. _It is obvious that, if the
interpretation which refers this prediction to the prophets were the
correct one, the authority of the Old Testament prophecy would be gone;
the authority of the Lord himself would be endangered, inasmuch as He
always recognizes, in these prophets, organs of divine inspiration and
power._ A vain attempt is made at mitigating this usurpation, by
imperceptibly substituting the collective body of the prophets for the
single prophet. This view thus leads to, and interferes with another
which we shall immediately examine. But if we would not give up the
sole argument by which this [Pg 231] exposition is supported, viz., the
use of the first person, everything must, in the first instance, apply
to and be fulfilled in Isaiah; and the other prophets can come into
consideration only as continuators of his work and ministry. He is
entitled to use the first person in that case only, when he is a
perfect manifestation of prophetism.--4. According to _Gesenius_, the
Servant of the Lord is to be _the collective body of the prophets_, the
prophetic order. In opposition to this view, _Stier_ remarks: "We
maintain that, according to history, there did not at that time (the
time of the exile, in which _Gesenius_ places this prophecy) exist any
prophetic order, or any distinguished blossom of it; that hence it was
impossible for any reasonable man to entertain this hope, when viewed
in this way, without looking farther and higher." Ver. 1 is decisive
against a mere personification. The name of Israel, too, in ver. 3, is
very little applicable to the whole prophetic order. This is
sufficiently evident from the fact that _Gesenius_, in his Commentary,
declared this word to be spurious; and it was at a later period only,
when he had become bolder, that he endeavoured to adapt it to his self-
chosen subject. Nowhere in the Old Testament do the prophets appear
like the Servant of God here--as the Covenant of the people, ver. 8, as
the Light of the Gentiles, ver. 6.
* * * * * * * * * *
Ver. 1. "_Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the
Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He
made mention of my name._"
As the stand-point which the Messiah occupies in the vision of the
Prophet, we have to conceive of the time, at which He had already
entered upon His office, and had already experienced many proofs of the
Jews'unbelief and hardness of heart,--an event of the Future, the
foresight of which was, even in a human point of view, very readily
suggested to the Prophet after the painful experience acquired during
his own long ministry; comp. chap. vi. For the fruitlessness of His
ministry among the mass of the covenant-people, ver. 4, as well as the
great contempt which the Servant of God found among them, ver. 7, are
represented as having already taken place; [Pg 232] while the
enlightenment of the Gentiles, the worship of the kings, &c, which are
to be expected by Him, are represented as being still future. In the
same manner, in chap. liii., the humiliation of the Servant of God
appears as past; the glorification, as future, the reason why the
_isles_ are addressed (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 4) appears in ver.
6 only, at the close of the discourse of the Servant of God, for all
that precedes serves as a preparation. In that verse, the Servant of
the Lord announces that the Lord had appointed Him to be the Light of
the Gentiles; that He should be His salvation unto the ends of the
earth. It is very significant that the second book at once begins with
an address to the Gentiles, inasmuch us, thus, we are here introduced
into the sphere of a redemption which does not refer to a single
nation, like that with which the _first_ book is engaged, but to the
ends of the earth. At the close of the first book, in chap. xlviii. 20,
it was said: "Declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the
earth, say ye: The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." The fact that
the redemption, in the first instance peculiar to Jacob, is to be
proclaimed to all the nations of the earth, leads us to expect that
these nations, too, have their portion in the Lord; that at some future
period they are to hear a message which concerns them still _more
particularly_. This expectation is realized here, at the opening of the
second book. The fact that the Gentiles are to listen here, as those
who have a personal interest in the message, is proved by the
circumstance, that the words: "Unto the ends of the earth," in ver. 6
of the chapter before us, point back to the same words in chap. xlviii.
20.--_The Lord had called me from the womb._ It is sufficient to go
thus far back in order to repress or refute the idea of His having
himself usurped His office, and to furnish a foundation for the
expectation that God would powerfully uphold and protect His Servant in
the office which He himself had assigned to Him. Calvin remarks on
these words: "They do not indicate the commencement of the time of His
vocation, as if God had, only from the womb, called Him; but it is just
as if it were said: Before I came forth from the womb, God had decreed
that I was to undertake this office. In the same manner Paul also says
that he had been separated from his mother's womb, although he was
chosen before [Pg 233] the foundation of the world." To be called from
the womb is, in itself, nothing extraordinary; it is common to all the
servants of the Lord. Jeremiah ascribes it to himself in chap. i. 5:
"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest
forth out of the womb I sanctified thee;" and in harmony with this
passage in Jeremiah--not with that before us--Paul says in Gal. i. 15:
[Greek: ho theos ho aphorisas] (corresponding to: I have _sanctified_
thee) [Greek: me ek koilias mêtros mou.] But we have here merely the
_introduction to what follows_, where the calling, to which the Servant
of God had been destined from the womb appears as quite unique.--_From
the bowels of my mother hath He made mention of my name._ The name is
here not an ordinary proper name, but _a name descriptive of the
nature_,--one by which His office and vocation are designated. This
making mention was, in the case of Christ, not a thing concealed; the
prophecy before us received its palpable confirmation and fulfilment;
inasmuch as, in reference to it, Joseph received, even before His
birth, the command to call Him Jesus, Saviour: [Greek: texetai de huion
kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iêsoun. autos gar sôsei ton laon autou apo
tôn hamartiôn autôn], Matth. i. 21, after the same command had
previously come to Mary, Luke i. 31; comp. ii. 21, where, as we have
already remarked, there is a distinct reference to the passage before
us.
Ver. 2. "_And He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow
of His hand hath He hid me, and He hath made me a sharpened arrow, in
His quiver hath He hid me._"
According to the common interpretation, the words: "He hath made my
mouth like a sharp sword. He hath made me a sharpened arrow," are to
express only such a gift of powerful, impressive speech as is common to
all the servants of God, to all the prophets. But the two subjoined
clauses are opposed to that interpretation. The second and fourth
clauses state the reason of the first and third, and point to the
source from which that emanates which is stated in them. There cannot
be any doubt but that in the second and fourth clauses, the Servant of
God indicates that He stands under the protection of divine
omnipotence, so that the expression: "Whom I uphold," in chap. xlii. 1,
is parallel. The _shadow_ is the ordinary figure of protection. The
figure of the sword is dropped in the second clause, and hence the
objection, that a drawn sword does not require any protection, is out
of place. This will [Pg 234] appear from a comparison of chap. li. 16:
"And I put my words in thy mouth, and I cover thee with the shadow of
mine hand," where the sword is not mentioned at all, and the shadow
belongs simply to the person. The quiver which keeps the arrow is
likewise a natural image of divine protection. The two accessory
clauses do not suit, if the first and third clauses are referred to the
_rhetorical endowment_ of the Servant of God; _that does not flow from
the source of the protecting omnipotence of God_. These accessory
clauses rather suggest the idea that, by the comparison of the _mouth_
with the sharp sword, of the _whole person_ with the sharpened arrow,
there is indicated _the absolutely conquering power which, under the
protection of omnipotence, adheres to the word and person of the
Servant of God_, so that He will easily put down everything which
opposes,--equivalent to: _He has endowed me with His omnipotence, so
that my word produces destructive effects, and puts down all
opposition, just as does His word_; so that there would be a parallel
in chap. xi. 4, where the word of the Servant of God likewise appears
as being borne by omnipotence: "He smiteth the earth with the rod of
His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked." To
the same result we are led also by a comparison of chap. li. 16, where
the word of the Lord, which is put into the mouth of the Servant of
God, is so living and powerful, so borne by omnipotence, that thereby
the heavens are planted, and the foundations of the earth are laid. But
of special importance are those passages of Revelation which refer to
the verse under consideration. In chap. i. 16, the sharp two-edged
sword does not by any means represent the power of the discourse
piercing the heart for salvation; but rather the destructive power of
the word which is borne by omnipotence. It designates the almighty
punitive power of Christ directed against his enemies. "By the
circumstance, that the sword goes out of the mouth of Christ, that
destructive power is attributed to His mere word, He appears as
partaking of divine omnipotence. For it belongs to God to slay by the
words of His mouth, Hos. vi. 5." The same applies to chap. ii. 16. On
Rev. xix. 15: "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it
He should smite the nations," we remarked: "the sharp sword is not that
of a teaching king, [Pg 235] but that of omnipotence which speaks and
it is done, and slayeth by the breath of the lips. How Christ casts
down His enemies by the word of His mouth is seen, in a prophetical
instance, John xviii. 6; Acts ix. 4, 5." With the sword, Christ appears
even where He does not mean to destroy, but to bring salvation; for,
even in those who are to be blessed, hostile powers are to be overcome.
The image, however, is here, in the fundamental passage, occasioned by
the comparison of the Servant of God with the conqueror from the East,
whose sword, according to chap. xli. 2, the Lord makes as dust, and his
bow as the driven stubble. Where the mere _word_ serves as a sword, the
effect must be much more powerful. The conquering power throwing down
every opposing power, which, in the first clause, is assigned to the
mouth, is, in the third clause ("And He hath made _me_ a sharpened
arrow"), attributed to the whole person. He, of whom it was already
said in Ps. xlv. 6: "Thine arrows are sharp, people fall under thee,
they enter into the heart of the king's enemies," is himself to be
esteemed as a sharp arrow.
Ver. 3. "_And He said unto me: Thou art my Servant, O Israel, in whom I
glorify myself._"
"My Servant" stands here as an honorary _designation_; to be the
Servant of God appears here as the highest privilege, as is evident not
only from the analogy of the parallel passages, which treat of the
Servant of God (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 1), but also from the
parallel second clause. In it, the Servant of God is called _Israel_ as
the concentration and consummation of the covenant-people, as He in
whom it is to attain to its destination, in whom its idea is to be
realized. (It is evident from ver. 5, and from those passages in the
second part in which the people of Israel is spoken of as the Servant
of God [comp. remarks on chap. xlii.], that Israel must here be
understood as the name of the people, not as the name of the ancestor
only.) _Hävernick_ rightly remarks that the Messiah is here called
Israel, "in contrast to the people to whom this name does not properly
belong." Analogous is Matt. ii. 15, where that which, in the Old
Testament, is written of Israel, is referred to Christ. As the true
Israel, Christ himself also represents himself in John i. 52; with a
reference to that which in Gen. xxviii. 12 is written, not of Jacob as
[Pg 236] an individual, but as the representative of the whole race, it
is said there: [Greek: ap'arti opsesthe ton ouranon aneôgota, kai tous
angelous tou theou anabainontas kai katabainontas epi ton huion tou
anthrôpou.] All those declarations of the Old Testament, in which the
name of Jacob or Israel is used to designate the _election_, to the
exclusion of the false seed, the true Israelites in whom there is no
guile,--all those passages prepare the way for, and come near to the
one before us. Thus Ps. lxiii. 1: "Truly good is God to Israel, to such
as are of a clean heart;" and then Ps. xxiv. 6: "They that seek thy
face are Jacob," _i.e._, those only who, with zeal and energy in
sanctification, seek for the favour of God. In the passage before us,
the same principle is farther carried out. The true Israel is
designated as he in whom God glorifies, or will glorify himself,
inasmuch as his glorification will bear testimony to God's mercy and
faithfulness; comp. John xii. 23: [Greek: elêluthen hê hôra hina
doxasthê ho huios tou anthrôpou]; xvii. 5: [Greek: kai nun doxason me
su pater.] The verb [Hebrew: par] means in _Piel_, "to adorn," in
_Hithp._ "to adorn one's self," "to glorify one's self." Thus it occurs
in Judg. vii. 2; Is. x. 15; lx. 21: "Work of my hands for glorifying,"
_i.e._, in which I glorify myself; lxi. 3: "Planting of the Lord for
glorifying." There is no reason for abandoning this well-supported
signification either here or in chap. xliv. 23: "The Lord hath redeemed
Israel and glorified himself in Israel." If God glorifies himself in
His Servant, He just thereby gets occasion to glory in Him as a
monument of His goodness and faithfulness. Our Saviour prays in John
xii. 28: [Greek: Pater doxason sou to onoma.] The Father, by glorifying
the Son, glorifies at the same time His name. Those who explain
[Hebrew: atpar] by: _per quem ornabor_, overlook the circumstance that,
also in the phrase: "Thou art my Servant," the main stress does not,
according to the parallel passages, lie in that which the Servant has
to perform, but in His being the protected and preserved by God.
Ver. 4. "_And I said: I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength
for emptiness and vanity; but my right is with the Lord, and my reward
with my God._"
The Servant of God, after having spoken of His sublime dignity and
mission, here prepares the transition for proclaiming His destination
to be a Saviour of the Gentiles, to whom His whole discourse is
addressed. He complains of the small [Pg 237] fruits of His ministry
among Israel; but comforts himself by the confidence placed upon the
righteousness of God, that the faithful discharge of the duty committed
to Him cannot remain without reward. The speaking on the part of the
Servant of God in this verse refers to the speaking of God in verse 3.
_Jerome_, who remarks on this point: "But when the Father told me that
which I have repeated, I answered Him: How wilt thou be glorified in
me, seeing that I have laboured in vain?" recognised this reference,
but erroneously viewed the words as being addressed to the Lord. It is
a soliloquy which we have here before us. Instead of "I said," we are
not at liberty to put: "I imagined;" the Servant of God had in reality
expended His strength for nothing and vanity. As the _scene_ of the
vain labour of the Servant of God, the _heathen world_ cannot be
thought of; inasmuch as this is, first in ver. 6, assigned to Him as an
indemnification for that which, according to the verse before us, He
had lost elsewhere. It is _Israel_ only which can be the object of the
vain labour of the Servant of God; for it was to them that, according
to ver. 5, the mission of the Servant of God in the first instance
referred: The Lord had formed Him to be His Servant, to bring back to
Him Jacob and Israel that were not gathered. Since, then, the mission
is directed to _apostate_ Israel, it can the less be strange that the
labour was in vain. To the same result we are led also by the
circumstance that, in ver. 6, the saving activity of the Servant of God
appears as limited to _the preserved_ of Israel, while the original
mission had been directed to the _whole_. And this portion to which His
activity is limited, is comparatively a _small_ portion. For that is
suggested by the circumstance that to have the preserved of Israel for
His portion is represented as a light thing--not at all corresponding
to the dignity of the Servant of God. As, in that verse, the preserved
of Israel form the contrast to the mass of the people _given up_ by the
Lord, so in the verse under consideration, the opposition which the
Servant of God finds, is represented as so great, that His ministry
was, in the main, in vain; so that accordingly the great mass of the
people must have been unsusceptible of it.--In the view that a great
portion of the people would reject the salvation offered in Christ, and
thereby become liable to judgment, the Song of Solomon [Pg 238] had
already preceded our Prophet. As regards the natural grounds of this
foresight, we remarked in the Commentary on the Song of Solomon, S.
245: "With a knowledge of human nature, and especially of the nature of
Israel, as it was peculiar to the people from the beginning, and was
firmly and deeply impressed upon them by the Mosaic laws,--after the
experience which the journey through the wilderness, the time of the
Judges, the reign of David and of Solomon also offered, it was
absolutely impossible for the enlightened to entertain the hope that,
at the appearance of the Messiah, the whole people would do homage to
Him with sincere and cordial devotion." How very much this was the
case, the very first chapter of Isaiah can prove. It is impossible that
one who has so deeply recognized the corrupted nature of his people,
should give himself up to vain patriotic fancies; to such an one, the
time of the highest manifestation of salvation must necessarily be, at
the same time, a period of the highest realization of judgment. The
same view which is given here, we meet with also in chap. liii. 1-3. In
harmony with Isaiah, Zechariah, too, prophesies, in chaps. xi., xiii.
8, that the greater portion of the Jews will not believe in Christ.
Malachi iii. 1-6, 19, 24, contrasts with the longed-for judgment upon
the heathen, the judgment which, in the Messianic time, is to be
executed upon the people itself.--On the words: "My right is with the
Lord, and my reward with my God," compare Lev. xix, 13: "The reward of
him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the
morning." The God who watches that among men the well-earned wages of
faithful labour shall not be withheld, will surely himself not withhold
them from His Servant. The right, the well-deserved reward of His
Servant is _with Him_; it is there safely kept, in order that it may be
delivered up to Him in due time. That which the Servant of the Lord
here, in the highest sense, says of himself, holds true of His inferior
servants also. Their labour in the Lord is, in truth, never in vain.
Their right and their reward can never fail them.
Ver. 5. "_And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be a
Servant to himself, to bring Jacob again to Him, and Israel which is
not gathered, and I am honoured in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was
my strength._ Ver. [Pg 239]6. _And He saith: It is too light a thing
that thou shouldest be my Servant only to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved of Israel, and I give thee for a light to
the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my Salvation unto the ends of the
earth._"
The confidence which the Servant of the Lord has placed in Him has not
been put to shame by the result, but rather has been gloriously
justified by Him. He who was, in the first instance, sent to Israel, is
appointed to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, in order to compensate Him
for the unbelief of those to whom His mission was in the first instance
directed. _And now_, _i.e._, since the matter stands thus (Gen. xlv.
8),--since Israel, to whom my mission is, in the first instance,
directed, reject me. _Saith the Lord_--That which the Lord spoke
follows in ver. 6 only, which, on account of the long interruption,
again begins with: "And He saith," equivalent to: I say. He hath
spoken. The declaration of the Lord has reference to the destination of
His Servant to be the Saviour of the Gentiles. This declaration is, in
ver. 5, based upon two reasons:--_first_, the frustration of the
original mission of the Servant of the Lord to the Jews; and
_secondly_, on the intimate relation in which He stands to the Lord,
who cannot withhold from Him the reward which He deserves for His work.
In the New Testament, also, the mission of Christ appears as being at
first directed to the Jews only. The Lord says, in Matt. xv. 24:
[Greek: ouk apestalên ei mê eis ta probata ta apolôlota oikou Israêl.]
He says, in Matt. x. 6, to the Apostles, after having forbidden them to
go to the heathens, and to the Samaritans, who were nothing but
disguised heathens: [Greek: poreuesthe de mallon pros ta probata ta
apolôlota oikou Israêl.] Paul and Barnabas say, in Acts xiii. 46:
[Greek: humin ên anankaion prôton lalêthênai ton logon tou Theou.
epeidê de apôtheisthe auton kai ouk axious krinete heautous tês aiôniou
zôês, idou strephometha eis ta ethnê.] It is rather an idle question to
ask what would have happened, if the Jews as a nation had accepted the
offered salvation. But so much is certain that here, in the prediction,
as well as in history, the rejection of Christ, on the part of the
Jews, appears to have been a necessary condition of His entering upon
His vocation as the Saviour of the Gentiles. Those who understood the
people by the Servant of the Lord refer [Hebrew: lwibb] to Jehovah, and
consider it as a Gerund. [Pg 240] _reducendo_, or _qui reducit ad se
Jacobum_. In the same way they explain also the Infinit. with [Hebrew:
l] in the following verse, as also in chap. li. 16. But although the
Infinit. with [Hebrew: l] is sometimes, indeed, used for the Gerund.,
yet this is neither the original nor the ordinary use; and nowhere does
it occur in such accumulation. Moreover, by this explanation, this
verse, as well as the following ones, are altogether broken up, and the
words [Hebrew: lwvbb ieqb aliv] must indicate the destination for which
He was formed. And it is not possible that Jehovah's bringing Jacob
back to himself should be a display of Israel's being formed from the
womb to be the Servant, inasmuch as the bringing back would not, like
the formation, belong to the first stage of the existence of the
people.--"_And Israel, which is not gathered._" Before [Hebrew: awr],
[Hebrew: la] must be supplied. According to the parallel words: "To
bring Jacob again to Him," the not gathering of Israel is to be
referred to its having wandered away from the Lord. It was appropriate
that this should be expressly mentioned, and not merely supposed, as is
the case in: "To bring Jacob again to Him." The image which lies at the
foundation, is that of a scattered flock; comp. Mic. ii. 12. Parallel
is Isaiah liii. 6: "All we _like sheep_ have gone astray, we have
turned every one to his own way."--To the words under consideration the
Lord alludes in Matt. xxiii. 37: [Greek: hIerousalêm ... posakis
êthelêsa epi sunagagein ta tekna sou hon tropon episunagei ornis ta
nossia heautês hupo tas pterugas kai ouk êthelêsate]; comp. also Matt.
ix. 36: [Greek: idôn de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri autôn hoti
êsan eskulmenoi kai erhrimmenoi hôsei probata mê echonta poimena.] On
account of chap. xi. 12, it will not do to take [Hebrew: asP] in the
signification of "to snatch away," "to carry off," as is done by
_Hitzig_. Moreover [Hebrew: nasP] means, indeed, "to be gathered," but
never "to be carried off" The Mazoreths would read [Hebrew: la] for
[Hebrew: lv]: "And that Israel might be gathered to _Him_." Thus it is
rendered, among the ancient translators, by _Aquila_ and the Chaldee;
while _Symmachus_, _Theodoret_, and the Vulgate express the negation.
Most of the modern interpreters have followed the Mazoreths. But the
assumption of several of these, that [Hebrew: la] is only a different
writing for [Hebrew: lv], is altogether without foundation, compare the
remarks on chap. ix. 2; and the reading of the Mazoreths is just like
all the _Kris_, a mere conjecture, owing its origin, as has already
been [Pg 241] remarked by _Jerome_, only to a bad Jewish patriotism.
The circumstance that, with the sole exception, of 2 Chron. xxx. 3,--an
exception which, from the character of the language of that book, is of
no importance--the verb [Hebrew: asP] in the signification "to gather"
has the person to whom it is gathered never joined to it by means of
[Hebrew: l], but commonly by means of [Hebrew: al], is of so much the
greater importance, that [Hebrew: l] has nothing to do with [Hebrew:
al]. When _Stier_ remarks that ver. 6, where Jacob and Israel were
again beside each other in a completely parallel clause, proves that
Israel's gathering can be spoken of positively only, he has overlooked
the essential difference of ver. 5, which refers to the position of the
Servant of God towards the whole people and ver. 6, which refers to His
destination for the _election_.--The words: "And I am honoured in the
eyes of the Lord, and my God is my strength," _i.e._, my protection and
helper, recapitulate what, in ver. 2 and 3, was said about the high
dignity of the Servant of God, of which the effect appears, in ver. 6,
in His appointment to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, after the mission
to Israel has been fruitless. In ver. 6, it is not the decree of the
salvation of the Gentiles through Christ which forms the subject (that
decree is an eternal one), but rather that this decree should be
carried out. It is for this that Israel's unbelief offers an occasion
"As the salvation of the elect among Israel (in reference to the great
mass, the Servant of God had laboured in vain, ver. 4) would be too
small a reward for thee, I assign to thee in addition to them, an
infinitely larger inheritance, viz., the whole heathen world." [Hebrew:
wvb] in _Hiphil_ frequently means "to lead back," in the ordinary
sense, but sometimes also "to lead back into the former, or _normal_
condition," "to restore," compare remarks on Dan. ix. 25; Ps. lxxx. 4.
The parallel, "to raise up," which is opposed to the _lying down_ (Ps.
xli. 9), shows that here it stands in the sense of "to restore." The
local leading back belongs to the sphere of Koresh, to whom the first
book is dedicated; but, with that, the abnormal condition of misery and
abasement, which is so much opposed to the idea of the people of God,
is not completely and truly removed. That which the Servant of God
bestows upon the elect of Israel, viz., _raising up and restoration_,
is, in substance, the same which, according to what follows, He becomes
to the _Gentiles_, [Pg 242] viz., _light and salvation_. By becoming
light and salvation to the elect of Israel, He raises them up and leads
them back, inasmuch as this was the normal, natural condition of the
covenant-people, from which they had only fallen by their sins. It is
to that, that the election is restored by the Servant of God. By the
_tribes of Jacob_, the better part only of the people is to be
understood, to the exclusion of those souls who are cut off from their
people, because they have broken the covenant of the Lord, comp. ver.
4. This appears from the addition: "And the preserved of Israel"
(the _Kethibh_ [Hebrew: neiri] is an adjective form with a passive
signification; the marginal reading [Hebrew: ncvri] is the Part.
Pass.); just as, similarly in Ps. lxxiii. 1, Israel is limited to
the true Israel by the explanatory clause: "Such as are of a clean
heart." The verb [Hebrew: ncr], "to watch," is, according to
_Gesenius_, especially used _de Jehova homines custodiente et tuente._
Hence, the preserved of Israel are those whom God keeps under His
gracious protection and care, in contrast to the great mass of the
covenant-breakers whom He _gives up_. Chap. lxv. 13, 14: "Behold my
servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold my servants shall
drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold my servants shall rejoice, but
ye shall be ashamed; behold my servants shall sing for joy of heart,
but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of
spirit," likewise points to a great separation which shall take place
in the Messianic time. _Light_ (compare remarks on chap. xlii. 6), and
_salvation_ are related to one another, as the image to the thing
itself From the circumstance that the point here in question is the
reward for the Servant of God, who is to be indemnified for the loss
which He suffered by Israel (comp. ver. 4), it is obvious that we must
not explain: "that my salvation be," but: "that thou mayest be my
salvation;" for it is only when He is the salvation that such an
indemnification is spoken of Moreover, the Infinitive with [Hebrew: l]
can here not well be understood otherwise than in the preceding clause.
The servant of God is the personal salvation of the Lord for the
heathen world; comp. chap. xlii. 6, and, in the chapter under
consideration, ver. 8, where He is called the _covenant_ of the people,
because this covenant finds in Him its truth; compare also the
expression: "This man is _peace_," in Mic. v. 4 (5). _Gesenius_ rightly
remarks, that [Pg 243] there is here an allusion to the promises given
to the Patriarchs, Gen. xii. 3, &c. In Christ, the Shiloh to whom the
people adhere, the old promise of the future extension of salvation to
all the Gentiles is to be fulfilled.
Ver. 7. "_Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to
Him that is despised by every one, to the abhorrence of the people, to
the servant of rulers: Kings shall see and rise up, princes, and
prostrate themselves because of the Lord that is faithful, the Holy One
of Israel that hath chosen thee._"
Hitherto, the Servant of the Lord has spoken: here, the Prophet speaks
of Him. He gives a short and comprehensive summary of the contents of
ver. 1-6, the rejection of the Servant of God by the people to whom His
mission was, in the first instance, directed, and His appointment to be
the Saviour of the Gentiles. The matter is traced back to the Redeemer
of Israel and their Holy One, _i.e._, the high and glorious God,
because the Servant of God is, in the first instance, sent to Israel as
[Greek: diakonos peritomês huper alêtheias theou eis to bebaiôsai tas
epangelias tôn paterôn], Rom. xv. 8; but still more, because He himself
is the concentration of Israel (ver. 3), the [Greek: kephalê tou
sômatos tês ekklêsias], Col. i. 18,--He in whose glorification the true
Israel, as opposed to the darkened refuse, attain to their right.
According to the context, the contempt, &c., must proceed chiefly _from
the apostate portion of the covenant-people_: The _princes and kings_
must, according to ver. 6 (comp. chap. lii. 15), be conceived of as
heathenish ones. The verse under consideration merely exhibits, in
short outlines, the contrast already alluded to in the preceding
context. It cannot appear at all strange that the Prophet foresees the
reproach of Christ, and His sufferings from the ungodly world. In those
Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, righteousness and
the hostility of the wicked world are represented as being inseparably
connected with each other. Hence it cannot be conceived of otherwise,
but that the Servant of God, who, in His person, represented the
_ideal_ of righteousness, should, in a very special manner, have been
liable to this hostility. Moreover, it can be proved that, in some
Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, David has, besides
the individual and the whole people, in view, at the same time, his own
[Pg 244] family, and Him in whom it was to centre; comp. my commentary
on Ps. Vol. iii. p. lxxx. ff. There seems here to be a special
reference to Ps. xxii. 7, 8: "And I am a worm and no man, a reproach of
man and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn,
open their lips, shake their heads;" and it is the more natural to
assume this reference that, in chap. lii. 14; liii. 3, this passage
also is referred to [Hebrew: bzh] is, after the example of _Kimchi_,
viewed by several interpreters as an infinitive form standing in place
of a Noun, "despising or contemning," instead of "contempt," and this
again instead of "object of contempt." Others view it as the _Stat.
construct._ of an adjective [Hebrew: bzh] with a passive signification.
This latter view is more natural; and the reason which _Stier_ adduces
against it, viz., that of verbs [Hebrew: lh] no such forms are found,
cannot be considered as conclusive. [Hebrew: bzh-npw], literally the
"despised one of the _soul_" might, according to Ezek. xxxvi. 5:
"Against Edom who have taken my land into their possession with the joy
of all their heart, with the contempt of their soul," mean, "who is
inwardly and deeply despised," the soul being viewed as the seat of the
affections. But we are led to another explanation by the fundamental
passage, Ps. xxii. 7, and by the circumstance that [Hebrew: npw] is
_here_ parallel to [Hebrew: nvi], and that the latter corresponds to
the [Hebrew: eM] in Ps. xxii. "The despised one of the soul" must,
accordingly, be he who is despised of every one. The soul corresponding
to _man_ in Ps. xxii. is, as it were, conceived of as a great concrete
body. In a similar manner, "soul" is used for all that has a soul, in
Gen. xiv. 21, where the king of Sodom says to Abraham: "Give me the
_soul_, and take the goods to thyself."--"_To the abhorrence of the
people._" [Hebrew: teb] in _Piel_ never has another signification than
"to abhor." Such is the signification in Job ix. 31 also, where the
clothes abhor Job plunged in the dirt, resist being put on by him;
likewise in Ezek. xv. 25, where Judah abhors his beauty, disgracefully
tramples under feet his glory, as if he hated it. In favour of the
signification: "To cause to abhor" (_Rödiger_: _horrorem incutiens
populo, qui abominationi est populo_), interpreters cannot adduce even
one apparent passage, except that before us. We are, therefore, only at
liberty to explain, after the example of _Kimchi_: "to the ... people
abhorring," _i.e._, to him against whom the [Pg 245] people feel an
abhorrence. [Hebrew: gvi] is used of the Jewish people in Is. i. 4
also. _Hofmann_ is of opinion that it ought to have the article, if it
were to refer to the Jewish people. But no one asserts a direct
reference to them; it designates, in itself, the mass only, in contrast
to single individuals, just as [Hebrew: eM] in Ps. xxii. The abhorrence
is felt by the masses--is popular. The fact that it is among Israel
that the Servant of God meets this general abhorrence, is not implied
in the word itself, but is suggested by the whole context. While
[Hebrew: npw] and [Hebrew: gvi] designate the generality of this
hatred, [Hebrew: mwliM] points to the highest places of it. Of heathen
rulers this word occurs in chap. xiv. 5; of native rulers, in chap.
lii. 5; xxviii. 14. The heathen rulers can here come into
consideration, in so far only as they are the instruments of the native
ones; comp. John xix. 10: [Greek: legei autô ho Pilatos. emoi ou
laleis; ouk oidas hoti exousian echô staurôsai se kai exousian echô
apolusai se.] The _servant of rulers_ forms the contrast to the servant
of the Lord. But in the words: "Kings shall see," &c., it is described
how the original dignity finally breaks forth powerfully, and reacts
against the momentary humiliation. It was especially at the crucifixion
that Christ presented himself as "He that was despised by every one, as
the abhorrence of the people, as the servant of rulers." The historical
commentary on these words we have in Matt. xxii. 39 ff.: [Greek: hoi de
paraporeuomenoi eblasphêmoun auton k.t.l. homoiôs de kai hoi archiereis
empaizontes meta tôn grammateôn kai presbuterôn elegon. allous esôsen
k.t.l. to d'auto kai hoi lêstai hoi susaurôthentes autô hôneidizon
auton.]--After [Hebrew: irav] "they shall see," the object must be
supplied from ver. 6, viz., the brilliant turn which, under the Lord's
direction. His destiny shall take,--His being constituted the light and
salvation of the Gentiles. The kings who sit on their thrones rise up;
the nobles who stand around the throne prostrate themselves. The
Servant of God is the concentration of Israel, ver. 3. Hence His
glorification is, at the close, once more traced back to the _Holy One
of Israel_; and that so much the rather, because the glorification
which is bestowed upon Him is bestowed upon Him for the benefit of the
Congregation, whom He elevates along with himself out of the condition
of deep abasement; comp. vers. 8 and 9. The verse before us forms the
germ of that which, in chap. lii. 13, is carried out and expanded.
[Pg 246]
Ver. 8. "_Thus saith the Lord: In the time of favour have I heard thee,
and in the day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve
thee, and give thee for the Covenant of the people, that thou mayest
raise up the land, divide desolate heritages._ Ver. 9. _That thou
mayest say to the prisoners: Go forth; to them that are in darkness:
Come to light; they shall feed in the ways, and on all bare hills shall
be their pasture._"
_The time of favour_ may be either the time when God shows His delight
in, and favour to His Servant, and, in Him, to the Church, _q. d._, of
delight in thee, mercy for thee,--in which case chap. lx. 10 would be
parallel: "In my _wrath_ I smote thee, and in my favour have I had
mercy on thee;" or, "in the time of favour," may be equivalent to: "at
the agreeable, acceptable time" (LXX., which Paul follows in 2 Cor. vi.
1, 2, [Greek: kairô dektô], Vulg. _tempore placito_); in contrast to a
preceding unacceptable time, in which the Lord seemed to have forsaken
His Servant, in which it appeared as if He had laboured in vain, and
spent His strength for nought and vanity. Acceptable is the time to all
parties, not only to the Servant of God, but also to those who are to
be redeemed through Him; and not less to God, to whom it is a joy to
pour out upon His Servant the rivers of His salvation. The Preterites
in ver. 8 must be viewed as prophetic Preterites. Concerning "Covenant
of the people," compare remarks on chap. xlii. 6. The idea of the
people is more closely defined and qualified by ver. 6 and 7. The souls
who have been cut off from their people, because they have broken the
covenant of the Lord, and despised His Servant, are justly passed by.
But since [Hebrew: eM] can here be understood of the better portion of
the people only, of the invisible Church in the midst of the visible,
the Servant of God cannot be the better portion of the people.--In the
words: "That thou mayest raise up the land, divide desolate heritages,"
the bestowal of salvation is described under the image of the
restoration of a devastated country. In ver. 9, the misery of the
Congregation of God is described under the image of pining away in a
dark prison; comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 7. With the second half of
the verse, there begins a more general description of the glorious
salvation which the Lord will giant to His people; and the person of
the Mediator [Pg 247] steps into the back-ground, in order afterwards
to come forth more prominently. The _ways_ and _bare hills_ have come
into consideration as places which, in themselves, are completely
barren, and which the wonderful grace of God can alone cause to bud and
flourish.