Chapter 37

is added, in that He sends Koresh: God _now_ declares. The Prophet, by designating the time in which the announcement was issued as [Hebrew: rawit] and [Hebrew: qdM], as beginning and ancient times, and by founding the proof of the divinity of the Lord just upon the high age of the announcement, again puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the opponents of the genuineness. The announcement and declaration prove any thing in connection with the execution only; the bringing to pass, therefore, is connected with the declaring, the doing with the speaking. These words are _now_ spoken, since, from the ideal stand-point, the carrying out is at hand; they form the antecedent to the _calling_, of which ver. 11 treats. [Hebrew: qvM] properly "to rise," opposed to the laying down, means "to bring to stand," "to bring about," "to be fulfilled." "The counsel," _i.e._, the contents of the prediction which was spoken of before; it is the divine counsel and decree to which Koresh served as an instrument.--_Finally_--In chap. xlviii., the same subject is treated of; the divinity of the Lord is proved from His prophecies, in three sections, ver. 1-11, ver. 12-16, ver. 22. Here, at the close of the first book of the second part, the argumentation occurs once more in a very strong accumulation, because the Prophet is now about to leave it, and, in general, the whole territory of the lower salvation. First, in ver. 1-11: Israel should return to the Lord, who formerly had manifested and proved His sole divinity by a series of prophecies and their fulfilments, and _now_ was granting new and remarkable disclosures regarding the Future. Ver. 6: "New things I shew thee from this time, hidden things, and thou didst not know them, ver. 7. Now they have been created and not of old, and before this day thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say: Behold, I knew them." The deliverance of Israel by Cyrus--an announcement uttered in the preceding, and to be repeated immediately afterwards--is called _new_ in contrast to the old prophecies of the Lord already fulfilled; _hidden_ in contrast to the facts which are already subjects of history, or may be known beforehand by natural ingenuity. _To be created_ is equivalent to being made manifest, inasmuch as the hidden Divine counsel enters into life, only by being manifested, and [Pg 188] the prophesied events are created for Israel, only by the prophecy. Ver. 8: "Thou didst not hear it, nor didst thou know it, likewise thine ear was not opened beforehand; for I knew that thou art faithless, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." I have, says the Lord, communicated to thee the knowledge of events of the Future which are altogether unheard of, of which, before, thou didst not know the least, nor couldst know. The reason of this communication is stated in the words: "for I knew," &c. It is the same reason which, according to vers. 4, 5, called forth also the former definite prophecies regarding the Future, now already fulfilled, viz., the unbelief of the people, which requires a _palpable_ proof that the Lord alone is God, because it is but too ingenious in finding out seeming reasons for justifying its apostacy. All that is perfectly in keeping with, and suitable to the stand-point of Isaiah, but not to that of "the great unknown," at whose time the conqueror from the East was already beheld with the bodily eye; and Habakkuk had long ago prophesied the destruction of the Babylonish world's power, and Israel's deliverance; and Jeremiah had announced the destruction of Babylon by the Modes much more distinctly and definitely than is done here in the second part of Isaiah. In ver. 16 it is said: "Come ye near unto me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me and His Spirit." The sense is: Ever since the foundation of the people, I have given them the most distinct prophecies, and made them publicly known (referring to the whole chain of events, from the calling of Abraham and onward, which had been objects of prophecy); by mine omnipotence I have fulfilled them; and now I have sent my servant Isaiah, and filled him with my Spirit, in order that, by a new distinguished prophecy, he may bear witness to my sole divinity. It is only the accompanying mission of the Spirit which gives its importance to that of the Prophet. It is from God's Spirit searching the depths of the Godhead, and knowing His most hidden counsels, that those prophecies of the second part, going beyond the natural consciousness, have proceeded.

We believe we have incontrovertibly proved that we are not entitled to draw any arguments against Isaiah's being the [Pg 189] author of the second part, from the circumstance "that the exile is not announced, but that the author takes his stand in it, as well as in that of Isaiah's time, inasmuch as this stand-point is an assumed and ideal one. But if the _form_, can prove nothing, far less can the _prophetic contents_." It is true that these contents cannot be explained from the natural consciousness of Isaiah; but it is not to be overlooked, that the assailed prophecies of Isaiah are even as directly as possible opposed to the rationalistic notion of prophetism, which is arbitrary, and goes in the face of all facts, and from which the arguments against their genuineness are drawn. In a whole series of passages of the second part (the same which we have just been discussing), the Prophet intimates that he gives disclosures which lie beyond the horizon of his time; and draws from this circumstance the arguments for his own divine mission, and the divinity of the God of Israel. He considers it as the disgrace of idolatry that it cannot give any definite prophecies, and with a noble scorn, challenges it to vindicate itself by such prophecies. That rationalistic notion of prophetism removes the boundaries which, according to the express statements of our Prophet, separate the Kingdom of God from heathenism. The rationalistic _notional_ God, however, it is true, can as little prophesy as the heathenish gods of stone and wood, of whom the Psalmist says: "They have ears, but they hear not, _neither speak they through their throat_."

It is farther to be considered that the predictions of the Future, in those portions of Isaiah which are assailed just on account of them, are not so destitute of a foundation as is commonly assumed. There existed, in the present time and circumstances of the Prophet, important actual points of connection for them. They farther rest on the foundation of ideal views and conceptions of eternal truths, which had been familiar to the Church of the Lord from its very beginnings. They only enlarge what had already been prophesied by former prophets; and well secured and ascertained parallels in the prophetic announcement are not wanting for them.

The carrying away of the covenant-people into exile had been actually prophesied by the fact, that the land had spued out its former inhabitants on account of their sins. The threatening of the exile pervades the whole Pentateuch from [Pg 190] beginning to end; compare _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, _p._ 270 _ff._ It is found in the Decalogue also: "That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." David shows a clear knowledge of the sufferings impending over his family, and hence also over the people of God; comp. my Commentary on Song of Sol. S. 243. Solomon points to the future carrying away in his prayer at the consecration of the temple. Amos, the predecessor of Isaiah, foresees with absolute clearness, that, before the salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel, but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction, compare Vol. i. p. 357. In like manner, too, Hosea prophesies not only the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also that Judah shall be carried away into exile, comp. Vol. i. p. 176. In Isaiah, the foreknowledge of the entire devastation of the city and land, and the carrying away into captivity of its inhabitants--a foreknowledge which stands in close connection with the energy of the knowledge of sin with the Prophets--meets us from the very beginning of his ministry, and also in those prophecies, the genuineness of which no one ventures to assail, as, _e.g._, in chap. i.-vi. After the severity of God had been manifested before the bodily eyes of the Prophet in the carrying away of the ten tribes, it could not, even from human considerations, be doubtful to him, what was the fate in store for Judah.

The knowledge, that the impending carrying away of Judah would take place by the Chaldeans, and that Babylon would be the place of their banishment, was not destitute of a certain natural foundation. In the germ, the Chaldean power actually existed even at that time. Decidedly erroneous is the view of _Hitzig_, that a Chaldean power in Babylon could be spoken of only since the time of Nabopolassar. This power, on the contrary, was very old; compare the proofs in _Delitzsch's_ Commentary on Habakkuk, S. 21. The Assyrian power, although, when outwardly considered, at its height, when more closely examined, began, even at that time, already to sink. A weakening of the Assyrian power is intimated also by the circumstance, that Hezekiah ventured to rebel against the Assyrians, and the embassy of the Chaldean Merodach Baladan to Hezekiah, implies that, even at that time, many things gave a title to expect the speedy downfal of the Assyrian [Pg 191] Empire. But the fact that Isaiah possessed the clear knowledge that, in some future period, the dominion of the world would pass over to Babylon and the Chaldeans,--that they would be the executors of the judgment upon Judah, we have already proved, in our remarks on chaps. xiii., xiv., from the prophecies of the first part,--from chap. xxiii. 13, where the Chaldeans are mentioned as the executors of the judgment upon the neighbouring people, the Tyrians, and as the destroyers of the Assyrian dominion,--and from chap. xxxix. The attempt of dispossessing him of this knowledge is so much the more futile, that his contemporary Micah undeniably possesses it; comp. Vol. i. p. 464. So also does Habakkuk, between whose time and that of Isaiah, circumstances had not essentially changed, and who likewise still prophesied before the Chaldean monarchy had been established.

While this foreknowledge of the future _elevation_ of Babylon had a _historical_ foundation, the foreknowledge of its _humiliation and fate_, following soon after, rested on a _theological_ foundation. With a heathenish people, elevation is always followed by haughtiness, with all its consequences; and, according to the eternal laws of the divine government of the world, haughtiness is a matter-of-fact prophecy of destruction. Proceeding from this view, the downfal of the Chaldean monarchy was prophesied by Habakkuk also, at a time when it was still developing, and was far from having attained to the zenith of its power. In the same manner, the foreknowledge of the future _deliverance of Israel_ rises on a theological foundation, and is not at all to be considered in the same light as if _e.g._, the Prophet had foretold to Moab its deliverance. That which the Prophet here predicts is only the individualization of a general truth which meets us at the very beginnings of the covenant-people. The principle which St. Paul advances in Rom. xi. 2: "God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew," and ver. 29: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," meets us, clearly and distinctly, as early as in the books of Moses. In Levit. xxvi. 42-45, the deliverance from the land of captivity is announced on the ground of the election of Israel, and of the covenant with the fathers, and as a fulfilment of the promise of future election, which was given by the fact of Israel's being delivered from [Pg 192] Egypt. And according to Deut. iv. 30, 31, xxx. ff., and the close of chap. xxxii., the end of all the catastrophes which are inflicted upon the covenant-people is always Israel's conversion and reception into favour; behind the judgment, mercy is always concealed. In the prayer of Solomon, the carrying away goes hand in hand with the reception into favour. But it will be altogether fruitless to deny to Isaiah the knowledge of the future deliverance of Israel from Babylon, since his contemporary Micah, in chap. iv. 10, briefly and distinctly expresses the same: "And thou comest to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there shall the Lord redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies."

The only point in the prophetic foreknowledge of the second part which really seems to want, not only a historical or ideal foundation, but also altogether corresponding analogies, is the mention of the name of Koresh. But this difficulty disappears if, in strict opposition to the current notion, it is assumed that Cyrus was induced, by our book only, to appropriate to himself that name. Recent investigation has proved that this name is originally not a proper name, but an honorary title,--that the Greek writers rightly explain it by _Sun_,--that the name of the sun was, in the East generally, and especially with the Persians, a common honorary title of rulers; comp. _Bürnouf_ and others in _Hävernick's Einleitung_, ii. 2, S. 165. This honorary title of the Persian kings, Isaiah might very easily learn in a natural way. And the fact that this _Nomen dignitatis_ became, among several others, peculiar to Cyrus (the mention of the name of Koresh by Isaiah does not originally go beyond the announcement of the conqueror from the East) is explained by the circumstance that Cyrus assumed this name in honour of our book, and as an acknowledgment of the mission assigned to him by it, although the Prophet had not used this name in any other manner than Balaam had that of Agag, perhaps with an allusion to its signification; compare the phrases "from the East," "from the rising of the sun," in chap. xli. 2, 25. And it is historically settled and certain, that Cyrus had originally another name, viz., _Agradates_, and that he assumed this name only at the time of his ascending the throne, which falls into the time when the prophecies of our book could already be known to him (comp. the [Pg 193] proofs in _Hävernick's Einleit._) And as it is farther certain that the prophecies of our book made a deep impression upon him, and, in important points, exercised an influence upon his actions (this appears not only from the express statement of _Josephus_, [Arch. xi. c. 1. § 1, 2,] but still more from an authentic document, the Edict of Cyrus, in Ezra i. 1 ff., which so plainly implies the fact reported by _Josephus_, that _Jahn_ rightly called _Josephus'_ statement a commentary on this Edict, which refers, _partly_ with literal accuracy, to a series of passages from the second part of Isaiah, compare the particulars in _Kleinert_, _über die Echtheit des Jesaias_, S. 142);--as the condition of the Persian religion likewise confirms this result gained from the Edict of Cyrus (_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des alten Orients_, S. 373 ff., proves that in the time of Cyrus, and by him, an Israelitish element had been introduced into it);--there will certainly not be any reason to consider our supposition to be improbable, or the result of embarrassment.

But to this circumstance we must still direct attention, that those prophetic announcements of the second part which have reference to that which, even at the time of "the great unknown," still belonged to the future, are far more distinct, and can far less be accounted for from natural causes, than those from which rationalistic criticism has drawn inferences as regards the spuriousness of the second part. The personal Messianic prophecies of the second part are much more characteristic than those concerning Cyrus. He who cannot, by the help of history, supplement and illustrate the prophecy, receives only an incomplete and defective image of the latter. And, indeed, a sufficiently long time elapsed before even Exegesis recognised with certainty and unanimity that it was Cyrus who was meant. Doubts and differences of opinion on this point meet us even down to last century. The Medes and Persians are not at all mentioned as the conquerors of Babylon, and all which refers to the person of Cyrus has an altogether ideal character; while the Messiah is, especially in chap. liii., so distinctly drawn, that scarcely any essential feature in His image is omitted. And it is altogether a matter of course that here, in the antitypical deliverance, a much greater clearness and distinctness should prevail; for it stands [Pg 194] in a far closer relation to the idea, so that form and substance do far less disagree.

It would be inappropriate were we here to take up and refute all the arguments against the genuineness of the second part, which rationalistic criticism has brought together. Besides those which we have already refuted, we shall bring into view only this argument, which, at first sight indeed, may dazzle and startle even the well-disposed, viz., the difference between the first and second parts, as regards language and mode of representation. The chief error of those who have adduced this argument is, that they judge altogether without reference to person,--a matter, however, quite legitimate in this case,--that they simply apply the same rule to the productions of Isaiah which, in the productions of less richly endowed persons, has indeed a _certain_ right, _e.g._, on the prophetical territory of Jeremiah, who, notwithstanding the difference of subject, yet does not understand so to change his voice, that it should not soon be recognized by the skilled More than of all the prophets that holds true of Isaiah, which _Fichte_, in a letter to a _Königsberg_ friend, writes of himself (in his _Life_, by his son, i. S. 196): "I have properly no style at all, for I have them all." "Just as the subject demands," says _Ewald_, without assigning to the circumstance any weight in judging of the second part, "just as the subject demands, every kind of speech, and every change of style are easily at his command; and it is just this in which here his greatness, as, in general, one of his most prominent perfections, consists." The chief peculiarities of style in the second part stand in close relation to the subject, and the disposition of mind thereby called forth. The Prophet, as a rule, does not address the mass of the people, but the election ([Greek: eklogê]); nor the sinful congregation of the Lord in the present time, but that of the future, purified by the judgments of the Lord, the seed and germ of which were the election of the Present. It is to the congregation of brethren that he addresses _Comfort_. The beginning: "Comfort ye, Comfort ye, Zion," contains the keynote and principal subject. It is from this that the gentle, tender, soft character of the style is to be accounted for, as well as the frequent repetitions;--the comforting love follows, step by step, the grief which is indefatigable in its repetitions. [Pg 195] From this circumstance is to be explained the habit of adding several epithets to the name of God; these are as many shields which are held up against despair, as many bulwarks against the things in sight, by which every thought of redemption was cut off Where God is the sole help, every thing must be tried to make the Congregation feel what they have in Him. A series of single phrases which several times recur _verbatim_, _e.g._, "I am the Lord, and none else, I do not give mine honour to any other, I am the first and the last," are easily accounted for by the Prophet's endeavour and anxiety to impress upon the desponding minds truths, which they were only too apt to forget. If other linguistic peculiarities occur, which cannot be explained from the subject, it must be considered that the second part is not by any means a collection of single prophecies, but a closely connected whole, which, as such, must necessarily have its own peculiar _usus loquendi_, a number of constantly recurring characteristic peculiarities. The character of unity must necessarily be expressed in language and style also. The fact, however, that, notwithstanding the difference of style betwixt the first and second parts, the second part has a great number of characteristic peculiarities of language and style in common with the first part (a fact which cannot be otherwise, if Isaiah was the author of both), was first very thoroughly demonstrated by _Kleinert_, while _Küper_ and _Caspari_ have been the first conclusively to prove, that the second part was known and made use of by those prophets who prophesied between the time of Isaiah and that of "the great unknown."

The close connection of the second part with the first is, among other things, proved also by the circumstance that both are equally strongly pervaded with the Messianic announcement. Chap. i.-xii. especially have, in this respect, a remarkable parallel in the second book of the second part. The fact, moreover, that the single Messianic prophecies of the second part agree, in the finest and most concealed features, with those of the first part, will be shown in the exposition.

[Footnote 1: Chap. xxxvii. 38, (comp. 2 Kings xix. 37), describing apparently the murder of Sennacherib as belonging to the past, does not decide any thing as to the composition of this chapter by Isaiah, "inasmuch as the year which is assigned for Sennacherib's death, B.C. 696, is not historically ascertained and certain. Nor can the supposition, that Isaiah lived until the time of Manasseh, and himself arranged and edited the collection of his prophecies on the eve of his life, be liable to any well-founded doubts" (_Keil_, _Einleitung_, S. 271). The inscription in chap. i. 1, only indicates that the collection does not contain any prophecies which go beyond the time of Hezekiah.]

[Footnote 2: To a certain degree analogous are those other passages of the Old Testament, in which the Past presents itself in the form of the Present, as the deliverance from Egypt in Ps. lxvi. 6; lxxxi. 6. Faith, at the same time, makes all the old things new, fresh, and lively, and anticipates the Future.]

[Pg 196]

CHAP. XLII. 1-9.

The 40th chapter has an introductory character. It comforts the people of the Lord by pointing, in general, to a Future rich in salvation. In chap. xli. the Prophet describes the appearance of the conqueror from the East for the destruction of Babylon,--an event from which he derives, as from a rich source, ample consolations for his poor wretched people, while, at the same time, he represents idolatry as being thereby put to shame. It is on purpose that, immediately after the first announcement of this conqueror from the East, his antitype is, in chap. xlii. 1-9, contrasted with him. In the preceding chapter, the Prophet had shown how, by the influence of the king from the East, the Lord would put idolatry to shame, and work out deliverance for His Church. In the section now before us, he describes how, by the mission of His servant, the Lord would effect, definitely and absolutely, that which the former had done only in a preliminary, limited, and imperfect manner. In the subsequent section, the Prophet then first farther carries out the image of the conqueror from the East; and from chap. xlix. he turns to a more minute representation of the image of the true Saviour. In chaps. xlii. 10, to xliii. 7, the discourse turns, from a general description of God's instruments of salvation, to a general description of the salvation in its whole extent; just as it is the manner of the second part ever again to return from the particular to the general.

Here, where the Servant of God is first to be introduced, He is at first spoken _of_; it is in ver. 5 that the Lord first speaks _to_ His servant. In chap. xlix., on the contrary, the Servant of God, being already known from chap. xlii., is, without farther remark, introduced as speaking.

In the whole section, the Lord is speaking. It falls into three divisions--First, the Lord speaks _of_ His servant, vers. 1-4; then He speaks to His servant, ver. 5-7; finally. He addresses some closing words to the Church, ver. 8, 9. The representation, in harmony with the nature of the prophetic vision, bears a dramatic character.

In ver. 1-4, the Lord, as it were, points to His servant, introduces Him to His Church, and commends Him to the [Pg 197] world: "Behold my Servant," &c. He, the beloved and elect One, upheld by God, and endowed with the fulness of the Spirit of God, shall establish righteousness upon the whole earth, and bring into submission to himself the whole Gentile world, by showing himself meek and lowly in heart, an helper of the poor and afflicted, and combining with it never-failing power. The aim: He shall bring forth right to the Gentiles. is at once expressed at the close of ver. 1. In ver. 2-4, the means by which He attains this aim are then stated. The bringing forth, or the establishing of right, recurs again in ver. 3 and 4, in order to point out this relation of ver. 2-4 to ver. 1.

In ver. 6 and 7, after having pointed to His Omnipotence as affording a guarantee for the fulfilment of a prophecy so great that it might appear almost incredible, the Lord turns to His Servant and addresses Him. He announces to Him that it should be His glorious destination, partly to bring, in His person, the covenant with Israel to its full truth, partly to be the light for the Gentile world,--to be, in general, the Saviour of the whole human race.

In the closing verses, 8, 9, the Lord addresses the Church, and directs its attention to the object which the announcement of the mission of His Servant, declared in the preceding context, serves: God, because He is God, is anxious for the promotion of His glory. In order, therefore, that it may be known that He alone is God, He grants to His people disclosures as regards the distant Future, as yet fully wrapped up in obscurity.

There is no doubt, and it is now generally admitted, that the Servant of the Lord, here described, is the same as He who is brought before us in chap. xlix. 4; liii., lxi. It is, hence, not sufficient to point out an individual to whom, apparently, the attributes contained in this prophecy belong; but we must add and combine all the signs and attributes which are contained in the parallel passages.

The Chaldean Paraphrast who, in so many instances, has faithfully preserved the exegetical tradition, understands the Messiah by the Servant of God; and so, from among the later Jewish expositors, do _Dav. Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_, the latter of whom says of the non-Messianic interpretation, [Hebrew: wkl alh] [Pg 198] [Hebrew: hHkmiM hkv bsnvriM] "that all these expositors were struck with blindness." That this exposition was the current one among the Jews at the time of Christ, appears from Luke ii. 32, where Simeon designates the Saviour as the light to be revealed to the Gentiles [Greek: phôs eis apokalupsin ethnôn], with a reference to Is xlii. 6; xlix. 6. It is especially the latter passage which Simeon has in view, as also St. Paul in Acts xiii. 46, 47, as appears from the words immediately preceding [Greek: hoti eidon hoi ophthalmoi mou to sôtêrion sou ho hêtoimasas kata prosôpon pantôn tôn laôn], which evidently refer to chap. xlix. But chap. xlix. is, as regards the point which here comes into consideration, a mere repetition and confirmation of chap. xlii.

By the New Testament, this exposition has been introduced and established in the Church of Christ. The words which, at the baptism of Christ, resounded from heaven: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapêtos, en hô eudokêsa], Matt. iii. 17 (comp. Mark i. 11) evidently refer to ver. 1 of the chapter before us, and point out that He who had now appeared was none other than He who had, centuries ago, been predicted by the prophets. And so do likewise the words which, according to Matt. xvii. 5 (compare Mark ix. 7; Luke ix. 35; 2 Pet. i. 17), at the transfiguration of Christ, towards the close of His ministry, resounded from heaven in order to strengthen the Apostles: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapêtos, en hô eudokêsa. autou akouete.] These voices at the beginning and the close of Christ's ministry have not been sufficiently attended to by those who have raised doubts against the Messianic interpretation; for a doubt in this must necessarily shake also the belief in the reality of those voices. In both of the passages, the place of the Servant of God in chap. xlii. 1 (which passage is indeed not so much quoted, as only, in a free treatment, referred to) is taken by the Son of God, from Ps. ii. 7, just as, at the transfiguration, the words [Greek: autou akouete] are at once added from Deut. xviii. 15. The name of the Servant of God was not high enough fur the sublime moment; the _Son_ formed, in the second passage, the contrast to the _mere_ servants of God, Moses and Elijah.--In Matt. xii. 17-21, ver. 1-3 are quoted, and referred to Christ. The Messianic explanation of chap. xlii., xlix. lies at the foundation of all the other passages also, where Christ is spoken of as the [Greek: pais Theou]. In Acts iii. 13: [Greek: edoxase ton paida] [Pg 199] [Greek: autou Iêsoun], we shall be obliged to follow _Bengel_ in explaining it by: _ministrum suum_, partly on account of Matt. xii. 18, and because the LXX. often render [Hebrew: ebd] by [Greek: pais]; partly on account of the obvious reference to the Old Testament passages which treat of the Servant of God, and on account of the special allusion to chap. xlix. 3 in the [Greek: edoxase] (LXX. [Greek: doulos mou ei su [Israêl] kai en soi eudoxasthêsomai]). And so likewise in Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: [Greek: epi ton hagion paida sou Iêsoun, hon echrisas], where the last words refer to chap. lxi. 1; farther, in Acts iv. 30. In all these passages it is not the more obvious [Greek: doulos], but [Greek: pais] which is put, in order to remove the low notions which, in Greek, attach to the word [Greek: doulos].

Taking her stand partly on these authorities, partly on the natural sense of the passage, the Christian Church has all along referred the passage to Christ; and even expositors such as _Clericus_, who, everywhere else, whensoever it is possible, seek to set aside the Messianic interpretation, are here found among its most decided defenders. In our century, with the awakening faith, this explanation has again obtained general dominion; and wherever expositors of evangelical disposition do not yet profess it, this is to be accounted for from the still continuing influence of rationalistic tradition.

We are led to the Messianic interpretation by the circumstance that the servant of God appears here as the antitype of Cyrus. A real person can be contrasted with a real person only, but not with a personification, as is assumed by the other explanations. We are compelled to explain it of Christ by this circumstance also, that it is in Him only that the signs of the Servant of God are to be found,--that in Him only the covenant of God with Israel has become a truth,--that He only is the light of the Gentiles,--that He only, without external force, by His gentleness, meekness, and love, has founded a Kingdom, the boundaries of which are conterminous with those of the earth. The connection, also, with the other Messianic announcements, especially those of the first part, compels us to refer it to Christ.

The reasons against the Messianic interpretation are of little weight. The assertion that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus appear as the Servant of Jehovah (_Hendewerk_), is at once overthrown by Matt. xii. 18, as well as by the other [Pg 200] passages already quoted, in which Christ appears as [Greek: pais Theou]. Phil. ii. 7, [Greek: morphên doulou labôn] comes as near the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh], as it was possible, considering the low notion attached to the Greek [Greek: doulos]. The passages which treat of the obedience of Christ, such as Rom, v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; John xvii. 4: [Greek: ton ergon eteleiôsa, ho dedôkas moi hina poiêsô], give only a paraphrase of the notion of the Servant of the Lord. With perfect soundness _Dr Nitzsch_ has remarked, that it was required by the typical connection of the two Testaments, that Christ should somehow, according to His [Greek: hupakoê], [Greek: hupotagê], be represented as the perfect manifestation of the [Hebrew: ebd]--The assertion: "The Messiah is excluded by the circumstance that the subject is not only to be a teacher of the Gentiles, who is endowed with the Spirit of God, but is also to announce deliverance to Israel" (_Gesenius_), rests only on an erroneous, falsely literal interpretation of ver. 7, which is not a whit better than if, in ver. 3, we were to think of a natural bruised reed, a natural wick dimly burning.--The objection that this Servant of the Lord is not foretold as a future person, but is spoken of as one present, forgets that we are here on the territory of prophetic vision, that the prophets had not in vain the name of _seers_, and puts the _real_, in place of the _ideal_ Present,--a mistake which is here the less pardonable that the Prophet pre-eminently uses the Future, and, in this way, himself explains the ideal character of the inserted Preterites.--In order to refute the assertion, that the doctrine of the Messiah is foreign to the second part of Isaiah, that (as _Ewald_ held) in it the former Messianic hopes are connected with the person of a heathen king, viz., Cyrus (how very little have they who advance such opinions any idea of the nature of Holy Writ!), it is only necessary to refer to chap. lv. 3, 4, where the second David, the Messiah, appears, at the same time, as Teacher, and as the Prince and Lawgiver of the nations, who is to extend the Kingdom of God far over all heathen nations. That which, in that passage, is declared of the Messiah, and that which, in those passages which treat of the Servant of God, is declared of Him, exclude one another, as soon as, by the Servant of God, any other subject than the Messiah is understood.

Even this circumstance must raise an unfavourable prejudice against the non-Messianic interpretation, that its defenders [Pg 201] are at one in the negative only, but differ in the positive determination of the subject, and that, hitherto, no one view has succeeded in overthrowing the other; and farther, that ever anon new subtleties are advanced, by means of which it is attempted to patch up and conceal the inadmissibilities of every individual exposition.

Passing over those expositions which have now become obsolete,--such as of Cyrus, the Prophet Isaiah himself--we shall give attention to those expositions only which even now have their representatives, and which have some foundation in the matter itself.

The LXX. already understood Israel by the Servant of the Lord. They translate in ver. 1: [Greek: Iakôb, ho pais mou, antilêpsomai autou, Israêl, ho eklektos mou, prosedexato auton hê psuchê mou.] Among the Jewish interpreters, _Jarchi_ follows this explanation, but with this modification, that, by the Servant of the Lord, he understands the collective body of the righteous in Israel. In modern times, this view is defended by _Hitzig_. It appeals especially to the circumstance that, in a series of other passages of the second part, Israel, too, is designated by the Servant of God, viz. in chap. xli. 8: "And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my friend," ver. 9: "Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from its sides, and said unto thee: Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away," chap. xlii. 19, xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2: "And now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus saith the Lord that made thee, formed thee from the womb and helpeth thee: Fear not, O Jacob, my servant, and thou Jeshurun, whom I have chosen;" chap. xliv. 21, xlv. 4, xlviii. 20; "Say ye, the Lord hath redeemed His servant Jacob." In the face of this fact, we shall not be permitted to refer to "the general signification of the expression, and its manifold use." For, generally, it is of very rare occurrence that Israel is personified as the Son of God (in Ps. cv. 6, it is not Israel, as _Köster_ supposes, but Abraham who is called Servant of God; Jer. xxx. 10, xlvi. 27; Ezek. xxxvii. 25 are, in all probability, dependent upon the second part of Isaiah, by which this designation first obtained a footing), and never occurs in such accumulation as here. For this very reason, we cannot well think [Pg 202] of an accident; and if there was an intention, we can seek it only in the circumstance that there exists a close reference to those prophecies which, _ex professo_, have to do with the Servant of God. To this we are led by another circumstance, also. While those passages in which Israel or Jacob is spoken of as the servant of God, occur in great numbers in the first book of the second part of Isaiah, they _disappear_ altogether in the second book, which is the proper seat of the detail prophecies of the Servant of God in question, who, in the first book was, by way of anticipation only, mentioned in chap. xlii. After chap. xlviii. 20, where the words: "The Lord hath redeemed His servant Jacob," occur with evident intention, once more at the close of the first book, Jacob, the servant of God, is, in general, no more spoken of, but the Plural is used only of the Israelites as the servants of God in chap. lxiii. 17: "For thy servants'sake, the tribes of thine inheritance;" lxv. 8, 9-13, lxvi. 14,--passages which make it only the more evident that the Prophet purposely avoids bringing forward Jacob as the ideal person of the Servant of the Lord. _Finally_--The idea of chance is entirely excluded by chap. xlix. 3, where the Messiah is called Israel.

From these facts, however, we are not entitled to infer that, in the prophetic announcement, Israel is simply spoken of as the servant of God; but on the contrary the context must be viewed in a different and _nicer_ way. This is evident from the circumstance that, while in the passages chaps. xli. 7, xlviii. 20, Israel and Jacob are intentionally spoken of as the servant of God, or, at least, Israel is so distinctly pointed out that it cannot be at all misunderstood, such an express pointing to Israel is (with the sole exception of chap. xlix. 3), as intentionally, avoided in the prophetic announcement of the Servant of God. The phrase "My servant Jacob," which, in the former passages is the rule, never occurs in the latter. This circumstance clearly indicates that, besides the agreement, there exists a difference. The facts, however, which point out the agreement, receive ample justice by the supposition _that the Prophet considers Christ as the concentration and essence of Israel_, that he expects from Him the realization of the task which was given to Israel, but had not been fulfilled by them, and just thereby, also, the realization of the promises given to [Pg 203] Israel. But, besides other reasons, the fact that the whole description of the Servant of God stands in direct contradiction to what the Prophet elsewhere says of Israel, proves that Israel is not meant in _opposition_ to the Messiah,--the body without the head. It is especially chap. xlii. 19 which here comes into consideration: "Who is so blind as my servant, or so blind as my messenger whom I send?" Israel is here called servant of the Lord, because it had been called by Him to preserve the true religion on earth. Parallel is the appellation: "My messenger whom I send." Israel, as the messenger of God, was to deliver His commands to the Gentiles. The Prophet sharpens the reproof, in that he always contrasts what the people were, and what they ought to have been, according to the destination given to them by the Lord. The servant of the Lord, who, in order to execute His commissions, must have a sharp eye, is blind; His messenger is deaf and cannot hear what He says to him. The immense contrast between idea and reality which is here pointed out, implies, since the idea must necessarily be realized, that it shall receive another bearer; that in place of the messenger, who has become blind and deaf, there should come the true Messenger who first opens the eyes of Israel, and then those of the Gentiles,--that the destination of Israel, which the members are unfit to realize, should be realized by the head. We are not at liberty to say that the servant who had become blind and deaf shall be converted, shall put off the old man and put on the new man, and shall then accomplish the great things which, in the prophecies of the Servant of God, are assigned to him. For the conversion,--on which everything depends, and apart from which the announcement of the Prophet would be an empty fancy--is, in all these prophecies, not mentioned by a single word. On the contrary, the Servant of God is everywhere, from His very origin, brought before us as the absolutely just. No more glaring contrast can really be imagined than that which exists between that which the Prophet says of the ordinary Israel (whose outward state, as it is described in chap. xlii. 22: "This is a people robbed and spoiled, they are all of them snared in holes, and hid in prison-houses," is only a faithful image of the internal condition), and the Son of God in whom His soul delighteth, who in exuberant love seeks [Pg 204] that which is lost, whose overflowing righteousness justifies many, and who, as a substitute, can suffer for others. It is in Christ only, that Israel attains to its destination, both in a moral point of view, and as regards the Divine preservation and glorification. To this it may still be added, that neither here, nor in the parallel passages is [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] ever connected with a Plural, but always with the Singular only; while elsewhere, in the case of collective nouns and ideal persons, the real plurality not uncommonly shines forth from behind the unity; and in those passages, especially, where Israel appears personified as a unity, the use of the Singular is interchanged with that of the Plural. Comp., _e.g._, chap.