Volume 2 — CHAPTER XXIII. (continued 2)

We believe we have incontrovertibly proved that we are not entitled to draw any arguments against Isaiah's being the 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."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 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 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 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 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 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 (ἐκλογή); 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. 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.

^[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.

^[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.

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 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, שכל אלה החכמים הכו בסנורים "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 φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν, 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 ὅτι εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου τὸ σωτήριον σου ὃ ἡτοίμασας κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν, 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: οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα, 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: οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε 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 αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε 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 παῖς Θεοῦ. In Acts iii. 13: ἐδόξασε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, 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 עבד by παῖς; 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 ἐδόξασε (LXX. δοῦλός μου εἶ σὺ [Ἰσραήλ] καὶ ἐν σοὶ εὐδοξασθήσομαι). And so likewise in Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον παῖδά σου Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ἔχρισας, where the last words refer to chap. lxi. 1; farther, in Acts iv. 30. In all these passages it is not the more obvious δοῦλος, but παῖς which is put, in order to remove the low notions which, in Greek, attach to the word δοῦλος.

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 passages already quoted, in which Christ appears as παῖς Θεοῦ. Phil. ii. 7, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών comes as near the עבד יהוה, as it was possible, considering the low notion attached to the Greek δοῦλος. The passages which treat of the obedience of Christ, such as Rom, v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; John xvii. 4: τὸν ἔργον ἐτελειώσα, ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω, 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 ὑπακοὴ, ὑποταγή, be represented as the perfect manifestation of the עבד--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 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: Ἰακὼβ, ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήψομαι αὐτοῦ, Ἰσραήλ, ὁ, ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου. 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 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 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 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 עבד יהוה 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 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, 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 עבד, 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); 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 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 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 κατ᾽ ἐζοχήν, 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 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 עבדי, 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 אלה "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."--תמך "to take," "to seize," "to hold," when followed by ב, 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: ὁ πέμψας με μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν· οὐκ ἀφῆκέ με μόνον ὁ Πατὴρ, ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε; comp. John iii. 2; Acts x. 38. The Preterite נתתי 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 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 יצא 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 הוציא 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," יצא 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 הוציא here can mean only "to bring to light," "to bring forth." משפט 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. 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 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 ישא "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."יצעק by ἐρίσει, "He shall contend"), to the earnestly sought publicity, to the intention of causing sensation, as it proceeds from vanity or pride. The κραυγάσει, by which Matthew renders the ישא, has nothing in common with the ἔκραξε 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 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 (οἱ δὲ φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον κατ' αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες, ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν), in His not exciting against them the masses who were devoted to Him, but in withdrawing from them (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς γνοὺς ἀνεχώρησεν ἐκεῖθεν, 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 (καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα μὴ φανερὸν αὐτὸν ποιήσωσιν, 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 (καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς πάντας, 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 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, קנה רצוץ, Pharaoh appears on account of his broken power, in chap. xxxvi. 6, and in chap. lviii. 6, the רצוצים 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 πτωχοί, Matt. v. 3, of the πενθοῦντες, ver. 4, and in Matt. xi. 28, the invitation of the κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, 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 τῷ πνεύματι, "in their consciousness," which in Matthew is added to the simple πτωχοί, 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 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 לאמת must not be translated: "For truth" (LXX: εἰς ἀλήθειαν); for there is a thorough difference between ל and אל; the former does not, like the latter, designate the motion towards some object, but is rather, here also, a preposition signifying "belonging to;" hence לאמת 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: ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν, "until He has led right to victory." By the addition of ἕως 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. Εἰς νῖκος is a free translation of לאמת; κρίσις 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 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 (כהה) 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 לא ירוץ "He shall not run away" (properly, "He shall not run") is qualified and fixed by the parallelism with לא יכהה "He shall not fail." רוץ 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: ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη, ἕως πότε ἔσομαι μεθ’ ὑμῶν; ἕως πότε ἀνέξομαι ὑμῶν.--According to the current opinion, ירוץ is here assumed to be the Future of רצץ, for יָרֹץ, and that in the appropriate signification: "He shall not be broken." (Thus it was probably viewed by the Chaldean Paraphrast who renders לא ילאי non laborabit; by the LXX., who translate οὐ θραυθσησεται, while Aquila and Symmachus, according to the account of Jerome, render, non curret, thus following the derivation from רוץ). As יכהה points back to כהה in the preceding verse, so, in that case ירוץ would point back to רצוץ "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 רצץ and רוץ 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, רוץ "to run," "to flee away," being in parallelism with נרחק "to be removed," is quite appropriate; just as in the second clause of that verse רוץ "to be crushed," is in parallelism with נשבר] "to be broken."--איים 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 תורה 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 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, 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 בצדק 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," עם and גוים 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 עם (compare Gesenius' Thesaurus s.v. גוי), because it is only the people of God that is a people in the full sense, connected by an internal unity; the Gentiles are לא עם, 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, ὧν αἱ διαθῆκαι, 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, διαθήκης ἔγγυος, 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 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: ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν 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 עם is used collectively, and refer it to the Gentile nations. But opposed to this explanation is the evident antithesis of עם and גוים; 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 אור גוים shows that ברית עם is the status constructus. But fœdus alicujus, is, according to the remark of Gesenius, fœdus 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, 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 ברית עם, 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,"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, 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, 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, ראשנות, "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 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.

^[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."

^[2] The Hebrew word is משפט, 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.