Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 12

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 ant.i.type 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, and endowed with the fulness of the Spirit of G.o.d, 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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: G.o.d, because He is G.o.d, is anxious for the promotion of His glory. In order, therefore, that it may be known that He alone is G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sages.

The Chaldean Paraphrast who, in so many instances, has faithfully preserved the exegetical tradition, understands the Messiah by the Servant of G.o.d; and so, from among the later Jewish expositors, do _Dav. Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_, the latter of whom says of the non-Messianic interpretation, ??? ??? [Pg 198] ?????? ??? ??????? "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 f?? e?? ?p???????? ?????, with a reference to Is xlii. 6; xlix. 6. It is especially the latter pa.s.sage which Simeon has in view, as also St. Paul in Acts xiii. 46, 47, as appears from the words immediately preceding ?t? e?d?? ?? ?f?a??? ?? t? s?t????? s?? ?

?t??asa? ?at? p??s?p?? p??t?? t?? ?a??, which evidently refer to chap.

xlix. But chap. xlix. is, as regards the point which here comes into consideration, a mere repet.i.tion 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: ??t?? ?st?? ? ???? ?? ? ??ap?t??, ?? ?

e?d???sa, 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: ??t?? ?st?? ? ???? ??

? ??ap?t??, ?? ? e?d???sa? a?t?? ????ete 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 pa.s.sages, the place of the Servant of G.o.d in chap. xlii. 1 (which pa.s.sage is indeed not so much quoted, as only, in a free treatment, referred to) is taken by the Son of G.o.d, from Ps. ii. 7, just as, at the transfiguration, the words a?t?? ????ete are at once added from Deut. xviii. 15. The name of the Servant of G.o.d was not high enough fur the sublime moment; the _Son_ formed, in the second pa.s.sage, the contrast to the _mere_ servants of G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sages also, where Christ is spoken of as the pa?? Te??. In Acts iii. 13: ?d??ase t?? pa?da [Pg 199] a?t?? ??s???, 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 ??? by pa??; partly on account of the obvious reference to the Old Testament pa.s.sages which treat of the Servant of G.o.d, and on account of the special allusion to chap. xlix. 3 in the ?d??ase (LXX. d????? ?? e? s? [?s?a??] ?a? ?? s??

e?d??as??s?a?). And so likewise in Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: ?p? t?? ?????

pa?d? s?? ??s???, ?? ????sa?, where the last words refer to chap. lxi.

1; farther, in Acts iv. 30. In all these pa.s.sages it is not the more obvious d?????, but pa?? which is put, in order to remove the low notions which, in Greek, attach to the word d?????.

Taking her stand partly on these authorities, partly on the natural sense of the pa.s.sage, the Christian Church has all along referred the pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstance that the servant of G.o.d appears here as the ant.i.type of Cyrus. A real person can be contrasted with a real person only, but not with a personification, as is a.s.sumed by the other explanations. We are compelled to explain it of Christ by this circ.u.mstance also, that it is in Him only that the signs of the Servant of G.o.d are to be found,--that in Him only the covenant of G.o.d 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 a.s.sertion 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] pa.s.sages already quoted, in which Christ appears as pa?? Te??. Phil. ii. 7, ??f?? d????? ?a??

comes as near the ??? ????, as it was possible, considering the low notion attached to the Greek d?????. The pa.s.sages which treat of the obedience of Christ, such as Rom, v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; John xvii. 4: t?? ????? ?te?e??sa, ? d?d???? ?? ??a p???s?, 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 ?pa???, ?p?ta??, be represented as the perfect manifestation of the ???--The a.s.sertion: "The Messiah is excluded by the circ.u.mstance that the subject is not only to be a teacher of the Gentiles, who is endowed with the Spirit of G.o.d, 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 a.s.sertion, 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 G.o.d far over all heathen nations. That which, in that pa.s.sage, is declared of the Messiah, and that which, in those pa.s.sages which treat of the Servant of G.o.d, is declared of Him, exclude one another, as soon as, by the Servant of G.o.d, any other subject than the Messiah is understood.

Even this circ.u.mstance 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.

Pa.s.sing 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: ?a??, ? pa?? ??, ??t?????a? a?t??, ?s?a??, ?, ???e?t?? ??, p??sed??at? a?t?? ? ???? ??. 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 circ.u.mstance that, in a series of other pa.s.sages of the second part, Israel, too, is designated by the Servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d (in Ps.

cv. 6, it is not Israel, as _Koster_ supposes, but Abraham who is called Servant of G.o.d; Jer. x.x.x. 10, xlvi. 27; Ezek. x.x.xvii. 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 acc.u.mulation 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 circ.u.mstance that there exists a close reference to those prophecies which, _ex professo_, have to do with the Servant of G.o.d. To this we are led by another circ.u.mstance, also. While those pa.s.sages in which Israel or Jacob is spoken of as the servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d in question, who, in the first book was, by way of antic.i.p.ation 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 G.o.d, is, in general, no more spoken of, but the Plural is used only of the Israelites as the servants of G.o.d in chap. lxiii. 17: "For thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance;" lxv. 8, 9-13, lxvi. 14,--pa.s.sages 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 ent.i.tled to infer that, in the prophetic announcement, Israel is simply spoken of as the servant of G.o.d; but on the contrary the context must be viewed in a different and _nicer_ way. This is evident from the circ.u.mstance that, while in the pa.s.sages chaps. xli. 7, xlviii. 20, Israel and Jacob are intentionally spoken of as the servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. The phrase "My servant Jacob," which, in the former pa.s.sages is the rule, never occurs in the latter. This circ.u.mstance 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, are a.s.signed 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 subst.i.tute, 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 pa.s.sages is ??? ???? 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 s.h.i.+nes forth from behind the unity; and in those pa.s.sages, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 pa.s.sage opposes an insurmountable barrier to the explanation which makes the people the subject, sufficiently appears from the circ.u.mstance, 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 G.o.d, the prophecies of the Servant of G.o.d 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 a.s.signed to the Messiah. This is quite openly expressed by _Koster_: "The Servant of Jehovah is the Jewish people; viewed, however, by the Prophet in such a manner as to combine in itself the attributes of both, the prophets and the Messiah." Prophetism would have dug its own grave if its organs had, in a manner so inconsiderate, contradicted each other as regards the highest hopes of the people. The national conviction of the inspiration of the prophets, which formed the foundation of their activity and efficiency, could, in that case, not have arisen at [Pg 205] all. The same arguments decide partly also against a modification of this explanation which evidently has proceeded from embarra.s.sment only,[1] against those who, by the Servant of G.o.d, understand the better portion of Israel,--such as _Maurer_, _Ewald_, _Oehler_ (_Ueber den Knecht Gottes_, _Tubinger 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), _k.n.o.bel_ ("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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d, and brings them into contradiction with all the other prophecies, which a.s.sign to Christ the same things that are here a.s.signed to the Servant of G.o.d. But what is especially in opposition to this hypothesis is ver. 3, where the Servant of G.o.d is designated as the Saviour of the poor and afflicted, which, in the first instance, are no other than the better portion of the people; as well as other reasons, which we shall bring out in commenting upon chap. liii. by which section the hypothesis is altogether overthrown.

According to _De Wette_ (_de morte expiat._ p. 26) and _Gesenius_, [Pg 206] the subject of the prophecy is the collective body of the prophets. Substantially, _Umbreit_ too (_Der Knecht Gottes_, Hamburg 1840) adheres to this interpretation. He rejects the explanation which refers it to Christ in the sense of the Christian Church, and on p. 13 he completely a.s.sents 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 ???, 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 pa.s.sages from those pa.s.sages of the second part in which Israel is spoken of as the Servant of G.o.d.

It is quite impossible to point out anywhere in the Old Testament, and especially in the second part of Isaiah, an a.n.a.logous personification of the order of the prophets as the Servant of G.o.d. 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 pa.s.sages clearly intimate that, by the servant of the Lord, Isaiah only is to be understood. Throughout, the Prophet refers exclusively to his own prophecies, as regards the impending salvation of Israel (the prophecies of others he mentions, everywhere else, always in reference to the past only); [Pg 207] and it cannot be imagined that, in this single pa.s.sage only, he should have designated himself as one among the many. If we consider those parallel pa.s.sages, we must a.s.sume 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstance that the Servant of G.o.d does not, by any means, represent himself as being _only_ the Prophet. The contrast between Cyrus and the Servant of G.o.d, which _G. Muller_ advances: "Evidently, the former is a conqueror; the latter, a meek teacher," is one-sided; for the Servant of G.o.d 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 pa.s.sages are compared, but far less ver. 4: "The isles shall wait for _His law_." Nor does a mere teacher come up to the embodied covenant with Israel in ver. 6, nor to _the_ [Pg 208] _light_, _i.e._, Salvation and Saviour of the Gentiles.

By mere teaching, salvation cannot be wrought out. Ver. 7 also does not apply to the mere _teacher_.

The collective body of the prophets, or the ideal prophet, is altogether out of place in chap. liii.; for there the Servant of G.o.d 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 G.o.d--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 a.s.signs 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, calls himself [Pg 209] in his prayer in 2 Sam. vii., not fewer than ten times, the servant of G.o.d, (Vol. i, p. 135, 136); and the same designation he gives to himself in the inscriptions of Ps. xviii. and x.x.xvi. The _Prophets_ are called servants of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d ?at? ??????, 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 circ.u.mstance that, in those pa.s.sages of the second part which treat of _Israel_ as the servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d and Israel serve only for an introduction to the exhortation: "Fear not," by laying open the necessity which exists for the promise in [Pg 210] ver. 3, which, without such ca foundation, would be baseless. The context and the parallelism with "whom I have chosen" show that the designation, "servant of G.o.d" 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 ????, 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 ??? "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 G.o.d. In a similar manner, in chap. xlv. 4, the protecting providence and love of G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage only, in chap. xlii. 19; all the other pa.s.sages place the dignity in the foreground. That, in the designation. Servant of G.o.d, in the pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d, and by the parallel: "mine elect in whom my soul delighteth."--??? "to take,"

"to seize," "to hold," when followed by ?, 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: ? p??a? e et' ??? ?st?? ??? ?f??? e ???? ? ?at??, ?t? ??? t?

??est? a?t? p??? p??t?te; comp. John iii. 2; Acts x. 38. The Preterite ???? 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 G.o.d, the Future prevails throughout; the _Praeteritum prophetic.u.m_ is employed only, where something is to be designated, which, relatively, is antecedent; compare the words: "And the Spirit of the Lord rests upon [Pg 211] Him," in chap. xi. 2; lxi.

1; Matt. iii. 16; John iii. 34. The three pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage exactly parallel to them. The Hiphel of ??? 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 pa.s.sages, the Servant of G.o.d does not by any means establish right by the mere announcement, but by His holy disposition. But as little can we explain ????? by "to lead out," in contrast to the circ.u.mstance that, under the Old Testament, right was limited to a single nation. For in the parallel pa.s.sage, 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,"

??? 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 ????? here can mean only "to bring to light," "to bring forth." ???? 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 G.o.d's Kingdom was, by the Servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, as may be seen from the Ten Commandments, which everywhere go back to G.o.d, and in all of which Luther, in his exposition of the ten commandments, rightly repeats: "We shall fear and love G.o.d." Where, therefore, the living G.o.d is not known, there can be no right. The commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," _e.g._, has any meaning only where the eye is open for the divine image which the neighbour bears, and for the redemption of which he is a fellow-partaker. The commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother" will go to the heart only where the divine paternity is known, of which all earthly paternity is only an image.

[Pg 212] In Deut. iv. 5-8, Israel's happiness is praised, in that they alone, among all the nations, are in possession of G.o.d's laws and commandments. Those privileges of Israel are, by the Servant of G.o.d, to be extended to the Gentiles who, because they are dest.i.tute of right, are, in Deut. x.x.xii. 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 pa.s.sage touches very closely upon that before us; like it, it denies right to the Gentiles in general. "The Gentiles, being without G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage, chap. li. 4. For the right which obtains dominion among the Gentiles, is Israel's pride and ornament, so that, along with their G.o.d 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 G.o.d had been groaning up to that time. The Servant of G.o.d, however, who brings forth right to the Gentiles, forms the contrast to the worldly conqueror, of whom it was said in chap. xli. 25: "He cometh upon princes as mortar, and, just as the potter treadeth the clay."--The words: "He shall bring forth right," purposely return again in ver. 3; and equally intentionally, the words: "He shall found right on the earth," in ver. 4, refer to them. "We have thus"--_Stier_ pertinently remarks--"in ver. 1, the sum and substance, even to its aim. But it is immediately brought more distinctly to view, what [Pg 213] will be the spirit and character, the mode of operation, by which this aim is to be brought about."

Ver. 2; "_He shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard in the street._"

After ??? "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 pa.s.sage, encourages himself; and he cannot mean to represent that as objectionable, by the circ.u.mstance that, in the case of the Servant of G.o.d, the very ideal of all the servants of G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage. According to Prov. i. 20: "Wisdom crieth aloud without, she uttereth her voice in the streets." Just as the prohibition of swearing in Matt. v. 34 is qualified by the opposition to Pharisaic levity in cursing and swearing, so here, also, the ant.i.thesis to the loud manner of the worldly conqueror must be kept in view,--the contrast to his violence which stakes every thing upon carrying his own will, which cries and rages when it meets with opposition and resistance, (Matt. renders ???? by ???se?, "He shall contend"), to the earnestly sought publicity, to the intention of causing sensation, as it proceeds from vanity or pride. The ??a???se?, by which Matthew renders the ???, has nothing in common with the ???a?e which, in John vii. 28, 37, is said of Christ. With the pa.s.sionate 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, of the power of the Spirit which opens up the minds and hearts for it, and which has its source in the declaration: "I put my Spirit upon Him," by which the great wall of separation between Him and the conqueror from the East is set up. It is just [Pg 214] because of His not being beat upon carrying through any thing, because of His great confidence, that the Servant of G.o.d _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 a.s.signed to Christ in two circ.u.mstances:--_first_, in His not entering into a violent dispute with the Pharisees opposing Him (?? d? fa??sa???

s??????? ??a?? ?at' a?t?? ??e????te?, ?p?? a?t?? ?p???s?s??), in His not exciting against them the ma.s.ses who were devoted to Him, but in withdrawing from them (? d? ??s??? ????? ??e????se? ??e??e?, ver. 15), being convinced that the cause was not His but G.o.d's, and that there was no reason for getting angry with those who were contending against G.o.d; just as David said of s.h.i.+mei: "Let him curse, because the Lord has said unto him, Curse David."--_Secondly_, in the circ.u.mstance that instead of availing himself of the excitement of the aroused ma.s.ses, He charged them that they should not make known His miraculous deeds (?a?

?pet??se? a?t??? ??a ? fa?e??? a?t?? p???s?s??, 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 G.o.d, 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._"