Volume Ii Part 14 (1/2)
”My Servant” stands here as an honorary _designation_; to be the Servant of G.o.d appears here as the highest privilege, as is evident not only from the a.n.a.logy of the parallel pa.s.sages, which treat of the Servant of G.o.d (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 1), but also from the parallel second clause. In it, the Servant of G.o.d is called _Israel_ as the concentration and consummation of the covenant-people, as He in whom it is to attain to its destination, in whom its idea is to be realized. (It is evident from ver. 5, and from those pa.s.sages in the second part in which the people of Israel is spoken of as the Servant of G.o.d [comp. remarks on chap. xlii.], that Israel must here be understood as the name of the people, not as the name of the ancestor only.) _Havernick_ rightly remarks that the Messiah is here called Israel, ”in contrast to the people to whom this name does not properly belong.” a.n.a.logous is Matt. ii. 15, where that which, in the Old Testament, is written of Israel, is referred to Christ. As the true Israel, Christ himself also represents himself in John i. 52; with a reference to that which in Gen. xxviii. 12 is written, not of Jacob as [Pg 236] an individual, but as the representative of the whole race, it is said there: ?p? ??t? ??es?e t?? ???a??? ??e???ta, ?a? t??? ????????
t??^ ?e??^ ??aa????ta? ?a? ?ataa????ta? ?p? t?? ???? t??^ ?????p??
All those declarations of the Old Testament, in which the name of Jacob or Israel is used to designate the _election_, to the exclusion of the false seed, the true Israelites in whom there is no guile,--all those pa.s.sages prepare the way for, and come near to the one before us. Thus Ps. lxiii. 1: ”Truly good is G.o.d to Israel, to such as are of a clean heart;” and then Ps. xxiv. 6: ”They that seek thy face are Jacob,”
_i.e._, those only who, with zeal and energy in sanctification, seek for the favour of G.o.d. In the pa.s.sage before us, the same principle is farther carried out. The true Israel is designated as he in whom G.o.d glorifies, or will glorify himself, inasmuch as his glorification will bear testimony to G.o.d's mercy and faithfulness; comp. John xii. 23: ??????e? ? ??a ??a d??as?? ? ???? t?? ?????p??; xvii. 5: ?a? ???
d??as?? e s? p?te?. The verb ??? means in _Piel_, ”to adorn,” in _Hithp._ ”to adorn one's self,” ”to glorify one's self.” Thus it occurs in Judg. vii. 2; Is. x. 15; lx. 21: ”Work of my hands for glorifying,”
_i.e._, in which I glorify myself; lxi. 3: ”Planting of the Lord for glorifying.” There is no reason for abandoning this well-supported signification either here or in chap. xliv. 23: ”The Lord hath redeemed Israel and glorified himself in Israel.” If G.o.d glorifies himself in His Servant, He just thereby gets occasion to glory in Him as a monument of His goodness and faithfulness. Our Saviour prays in John xii. 28: ??te? d??as?? s?? t? ???a. The Father, by glorifying the Son, glorifies at the same time His name. Those who explain ????? by: _per quem ornabor_, overlook the circ.u.mstance that, also in the phrase: ”Thou art my Servant,” the main stress does not, according to the parallel pa.s.sages, lie in that which the Servant has to perform, but in His being the protected and preserved by G.o.d.
Ver. 4. ”_And I said: I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for emptiness and vanity; but my right is with the Lord, and my reward with my G.o.d._”
The Servant of G.o.d, after having spoken of His sublime dignity and mission, here prepares the transition for proclaiming His destination to be a Saviour of the Gentiles, to whom His whole discourse is addressed. He complains of the small [Pg 237] fruits of His ministry among Israel; but comforts himself by the confidence placed upon the righteousness of G.o.d, that the faithful discharge of the duty committed to Him cannot remain without reward. The speaking on the part of the Servant of G.o.d in this verse refers to the speaking of G.o.d in verse 3.
_Jerome_, who remarks on this point: ”But when the Father told me that which I have repeated, I answered Him: How wilt thou be glorified in me, seeing that I have laboured in vain?” recognised this reference, but erroneously viewed the words as being addressed to the Lord. It is a soliloquy which we have here before us. Instead of ”I said,” we are not at liberty to put: ”I imagined;” the Servant of G.o.d had in reality expended His strength for nothing and vanity. As the _scene_ of the vain labour of the Servant of G.o.d, the _heathen world_ cannot be thought of; inasmuch as this is, first in ver. 6, a.s.signed to Him as an indemnification for that which, according to the verse before us, He had lost elsewhere. It is _Israel_ only which can be the object of the vain labour of the Servant of G.o.d; for it was to them that, according to ver. 5, the mission of the Servant of G.o.d in the first instance referred: The Lord had formed Him to be His Servant, to bring back to Him Jacob and Israel that were not gathered. Since, then, the mission is directed to _apostate_ Israel, it can the less be strange that the labour was in vain. To the same result we are led also by the circ.u.mstance that, in ver. 6, the saving activity of the Servant of G.o.d appears as limited to _the preserved_ of Israel, while the original mission had been directed to the _whole_. And this portion to which His activity is limited, is comparatively a _small_ portion. For that is suggested by the circ.u.mstance that to have the preserved of Israel for His portion is represented as a light thing--not at all corresponding to the dignity of the Servant of G.o.d. As, in that verse, the preserved of Israel form the contrast to the ma.s.s of the people _given up_ by the Lord, so in the verse under consideration, the opposition which the Servant of G.o.d finds, is represented as so great, that His ministry was, in the main, in vain; so that accordingly the great ma.s.s of the people must have been unsusceptible of it.--In the view that a great portion of the people would reject the salvation offered in Christ, and thereby become liable to judgment, the Song of Solomon [Pg 238] had already preceded our Prophet. As regards the natural grounds of this foresight, we remarked in the Commentary on the Song of Solomon, S.
245: ”With a knowledge of human nature, and especially of the nature of Israel, as it was peculiar to the people from the beginning, and was firmly and deeply impressed upon them by the Mosaic laws,--after the experience which the journey through the wilderness, the time of the Judges, the reign of David and of Solomon also offered, it was absolutely impossible for the enlightened to entertain the hope that, at the appearance of the Messiah, the whole people would do homage to Him with sincere and cordial devotion.” How very much this was the case, the very first chapter of Isaiah can prove. It is impossible that one who has so deeply recognized the corrupted nature of his people, should give himself up to vain patriotic fancies; to such an one, the time of the highest manifestation of salvation must necessarily be, at the same time, a period of the highest realization of judgment. The same view which is given here, we meet with also in chap. liii. 1-3. In harmony with Isaiah, Zechariah, too, prophesies, in chaps. xi., xiii.
8, that the greater portion of the Jews will not believe in Christ.
Malachi iii. 1-6, 19, 24, contrasts with the longed-for judgment upon the heathen, the judgment which, in the Messianic time, is to be executed upon the people itself.--On the words: ”My right is with the Lord, and my reward with my G.o.d,” compare Lev. xix, 13: ”The reward of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.” The G.o.d who watches that among men the well-earned wages of faithful labour shall not be withheld, will surely himself not withhold them from His Servant. The right, the well-deserved reward of His Servant is _with Him_; it is there safely kept, in order that it may be delivered up to Him in due time. That which the Servant of the Lord here, in the highest sense, says of himself, holds true of His inferior servants also. Their labour in the Lord is, in truth, never in vain.
Their right and their reward can never fail them.
Ver. 5. ”_And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be a Servant to himself, to bring Jacob again to Him, and Israel which is not gathered, and I am honoured in the eyes of the Lord, and my G.o.d was my strength._ Ver. [Pg 239]6. _And He saith: It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my Servant only to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel, and I give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my Salvation unto the ends of the earth._”
The confidence which the Servant of the Lord has placed in Him has not been put to shame by the result, but rather has been gloriously justified by Him. He who was, in the first instance, sent to Israel, is appointed to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, in order to compensate Him for the unbelief of those to whom His mission was in the first instance directed. _And now_, _i.e._, since the matter stands thus (Gen. xlv.
8),--since Israel, to whom my mission is, in the first instance, directed, reject me. _Saith the Lord_--That which the Lord spoke follows in ver. 6 only, which, on account of the long interruption, again begins with: ”And He saith,” equivalent to: I say. He hath spoken. The declaration of the Lord has reference to the destination of His Servant to be the Saviour of the Gentiles. This declaration is, in ver. 5, based upon two reasons:--_first_, the frustration of the original mission of the Servant of the Lord to the Jews; and _secondly_, on the intimate relation in which He stands to the Lord, who cannot withhold from Him the reward which He deserves for His work.
In the New Testament, also, the mission of Christ appears as being at first directed to the Jews only. The Lord says, in Matt. xv. 24: ???
?pest???? e? ? e?? t? p??ata t? ?p?????ta ????? ?s?a??. He says, in Matt. x. 6, to the Apostles, after having forbidden them to go to the heathens, and to the Samaritans, who were nothing but disguised heathens: p??e?es?e d? ????? p??? t? p??ata t? ?p?????ta ?????
?s?a??. Paul and Barnabas say, in Acts xiii. 46: ??? ?? ??a??a???
p??t?? ?a?????a? t?? ????? t?? ?e?? ?pe?d? de ?p??e?s?e a?t?? ?a? ???
?????? ????ete ?a?t??? t?? a?????? ????, ?d?? st?ef?e?a e?? t? ????.
It is rather an idle question to ask what would have happened, if the Jews as a nation had accepted the offered salvation. But so much is certain that here, in the prediction, as well as in history, the rejection of Christ, on the part of the Jews, appears to have been a necessary condition of His entering upon His vocation as the Saviour of the Gentiles. Those who understood the people by the Servant of the Lord refer ????? to Jehovah, and consider it as a Gerund. [Pg 240]
_reducendo_, or _qui reducit ad se Jacob.u.m_. In the same way they explain also the Infinit. with ? in the following verse, as also in chap. li. 16. But although the Infinit. with ? is sometimes, indeed, used for the Gerund., yet this is neither the original nor the ordinary use; and nowhere does it occur in such acc.u.mulation. Moreover, by this explanation, this verse, as well as the following ones, are altogether broken up, and the words ????? ???? ???? must indicate the destination for which He was formed. And it is not possible that Jehovah's bringing Jacob back to himself should be a display of Israel's being formed from the womb to be the Servant, inasmuch as the bringing back would not, like the formation, belong to the first stage of the existence of the people.--”_And Israel, which is not gathered._” Before ???, ?? must be supplied. According to the parallel words: ”To bring Jacob again to Him,” the not gathering of Israel is to be referred to its having wandered away from the Lord. It was appropriate that this should be expressly mentioned, and not merely supposed, as is the case in: ”To bring Jacob again to Him.” The image which lies at the foundation, is that of a scattered flock; comp. Mic. ii. 12. Parallel is Isaiah liii.
6: ”All we _like sheep_ have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way.”--To the words under consideration the Lord alludes in Matt. xxiii. 37: ?e???sa?? ... p?s???? ?????sa ?p? s??a?a?e?? t? t???a s?? ?? t??p?? ?p?s??a?e? ????? t? ??ss?a ?a?t?? ?p? t?? pt????a? ?a?
??? ??e??sate.; comp. also Matt. ix. 36: ?d?? d? t??? ??????
?sp?a????s?? pe?? a?t?? ?t? ?sa? ?s??????? ?a? ???????? ?se? p??ata ? ????ta p????a. On account of chap. xi. 12, it will not do to take ??? in the signification of ”to s.n.a.t.c.h away,” ”to carry off,” as is done by _Hitzig_. Moreover ???? means, indeed, ”to be gathered,”
but never ”to be carried off” The Mazoreths would read ?? for ??: ”And that Israel might be gathered to _Him_.” Thus it is rendered, among the ancient translators, by _Aquila_ and the Chaldee; while _Symmachus_, _Theodoret_, and the Vulgate express the negation. Most of the modern interpreters have followed the Mazoreths. But the a.s.sumption of several of these, that ?? is only a different writing for ??, is altogether without foundation, compare the remarks on chap. ix. 2; and the reading of the Mazoreths is just like all the _Kris_, a mere conjecture, owing its origin, as has already been [Pg 241] remarked by _Jerome_, only to a bad Jewish patriotism. The circ.u.mstance that, with the sole exception, of 2 Chron. x.x.x. 3,--an exception which, from the character of the language of that book, is of no importance--the verb ??? in the signification ”to gather” has the person to whom it is gathered never joined to it by means of ?, but commonly by means of ??, is of so much the greater importance, that ? has nothing to do with ??. When _Stier_ remarks that ver. 6, where Jacob and Israel were again beside each other in a completely parallel clause, proves that Israel's gathering can be spoken of positively only, he has overlooked the essential difference of ver. 5, which refers to the position of the Servant of G.o.d towards the whole people and ver. 6, which refers to His destination for the _election_.--The words: ”And I am honoured in the eyes of the Lord, and my G.o.d is my strength,” _i.e._, my protection and helper, recapitulate what, in ver. 2 and 3, was said about the high dignity of the Servant of G.o.d, of which the effect appears, in ver. 6, in His appointment to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, after the mission to Israel has been fruitless. In ver. 6, it is not the decree of the salvation of the Gentiles through Christ which forms the subject (that decree is an eternal one), but rather that this decree should be carried out. It is for this that Israel's unbelief offers an occasion ”As the salvation of the elect among Israel (in reference to the great ma.s.s, the Servant of G.o.d had laboured in vain, ver. 4) would be too small a reward for thee, I a.s.sign to thee in addition to them, an infinitely larger inheritance, viz., the whole heathen world.” ??? in _Hiphil_ frequently means ”to lead back,” in the ordinary sense, but sometimes also ”to lead back into the former, or _normal_ condition,”
”to restore,” compare remarks on Dan. ix. 25; Ps. lx.x.x. 4. The parallel, ”to raise up,” which is opposed to the _lying down_ (Ps. xli.
9), shows that here it stands in the sense of ”to restore.” The local leading back belongs to the sphere of Koresh, to whom the first book is dedicated; but, with that, the abnormal condition of misery and abas.e.m.e.nt, which is so much opposed to the idea of the people of G.o.d, is not completely and truly removed. That which the Servant of G.o.d bestows upon the elect of Israel, viz., _raising up and restoration_, is, in substance, the same which, according to what follows, He becomes to the _Gentiles_, [Pg 242] viz., _light and salvation_. By becoming light and salvation to the elect of Israel, He raises them up and leads them back, inasmuch as this was the normal, natural condition of the covenant-people, from which they had only fallen by their sins. It is to that, that the election is restored by the Servant of G.o.d. By the _tribes of Jacob_, the better part only of the people is to be understood, to the exclusion of those souls who are cut off from their people, because they have broken the covenant of the Lord, comp. ver.
4. This appears from the addition: ”And the preserved of Israel” (the _Kethibh_ ????? is an adjective form with a pa.s.sive signification; the marginal reading ????? is the Part. Pa.s.s.); just as, similarly in Ps.
lxxiii. 1, Israel is limited to the true Israel by the explanatory clause: ”Such as are of a clean heart.” The verb ???, ”to watch,” is, according to _Gesenius_, especially used _de Jehova homines custodiente et tuente._ Hence, the preserved of Israel are those whom G.o.d keeps under His gracious protection and care, in contrast to the great ma.s.s of the covenant-breakers whom He _gives up_. Chap. lxv. 13, 14: ”Behold my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed; behold my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit,” likewise points to a great separation which shall take place in the Messianic time. _Light_ (compare remarks on chap.
xlii. 6), and _salvation_ are related to one another, as the image to the thing itself From the circ.u.mstance that the point here in question is the reward for the Servant of G.o.d, who is to be indemnified for the loss which He suffered by Israel (comp. ver. 4), it is obvious that we must not explain: ”that my salvation be,” but: ”that thou mayest be my salvation;” for it is only when He is the salvation that such an indemnification is spoken of Moreover, the Infinitive with ? can here not well be understood otherwise than in the preceding clause. The servant of G.o.d is the personal salvation of the Lord for the heathen world; comp. chap. xlii. 6, and, in the chapter under consideration, ver. 8, where He is called the _covenant_ of the people, because this covenant finds in Him its truth; compare also the expression: ”This man is _peace_,” in Mic. v. 4 (5). _Gesenius_ rightly remarks, that [Pg 243] there is here an allusion to the promises given to the Patriarchs, Gen. xii. 3, &c. In Christ, the s.h.i.+loh to whom the people adhere, the old promise of the future extension of salvation to all the Gentiles is to be fulfilled.
Ver. 7. ”_Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to Him that is despised by every one, to the abhorrence of the people, to the servant of rulers: Kings shall see and rise up, princes, and prostrate themselves because of the Lord that is faithful, the Holy One of Israel that hath chosen thee._”
Hitherto, the Servant of the Lord has spoken: here, the Prophet speaks of Him. He gives a short and comprehensive summary of the contents of ver. 1-6, the rejection of the Servant of G.o.d by the people to whom His mission was, in the first instance, directed, and His appointment to be the Saviour of the Gentiles. The matter is traced back to the Redeemer of Israel and their Holy One, _i.e._, the high and glorious G.o.d, because the Servant of G.o.d is, in the first instance, sent to Israel as d??????? pe??t??? ?p?? ????e?a? ?e?? e?? t? ea??sa? t?? ?pa??e??a?
t?? pat????, Rom. xv. 8; but still more, because He himself is the concentration of Israel (ver. 3), the ?efa?? t?? s?at?? t?? ?????s?a?, Col. i. 18,--He in whose glorification the true Israel, as opposed to the darkened refuse, attain to their right. According to the context, the contempt, &c., must proceed chiefly _from the apostate portion of the covenant-people_: The _princes and kings_ must, according to ver. 6 (comp. chap. lii. 15), be conceived of as heathenish ones. The verse under consideration merely exhibits, in short outlines, the contrast already alluded to in the preceding context. It cannot appear at all strange that the Prophet foresees the reproach of Christ, and His sufferings from the unG.o.dly world. In those Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, righteousness and the hostility of the wicked world are represented as being inseparably connected with each other.
Hence it cannot be conceived of otherwise, but that the Servant of G.o.d, who, in His person, represented the _ideal_ of righteousness, should, in a very special manner, have been liable to this hostility. Moreover, it can be proved that, in some Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, David has, besides the individual and the whole people, in view, at the same time, his own [Pg 244] family, and Him in whom it was to centre; comp. my commentary on Ps. Vol. iii. p. lx.x.x. ff. There seems here to be a special reference to Ps. xxii. 7, 8: ”And I am a worm and no man, a reproach of man and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn, open their lips, shake their heads;” and it is the more natural to a.s.sume this reference that, in chap. lii. 14; liii. 3, this pa.s.sage also is referred to ?????? is, after the example of _Kimchi_, viewed by several interpreters as an infinitive form standing in place of a Noun, ”despising or contemning,” instead of ”contempt,”
and this again instead of ”object of contempt.” Others view it as the _Stat. construct._ of an adjective ?????? with a pa.s.sive signification.
This latter view is more natural; and the reason which _Stier_ adduces against it, viz., that of verbs ?? no such forms are found, cannot be considered as conclusive. ???????, literally the ”despised one of the _soul_” might, according to Ezek. x.x.xvi. 5: ”Against Edom who have taken my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with the contempt of their soul,” mean, ”who is inwardly and deeply despised,” the soul being viewed as the seat of the affections. But we are led to another explanation by the fundamental pa.s.sage, Ps. xxii. 7, and by the circ.u.mstance that ??? is _here_ parallel to ???, and that the latter corresponds to the ?? in Ps. xxii. ”The despised one of the soul” must, accordingly, be he who is despised of every one. The soul corresponding to _man_ in Ps. xxii. is, as it were, conceived of as a great concrete body. In a similar manner, ”soul” is used for all that has a soul, in Gen. xiv. 21, where the king of Sodom says to Abraham: ”Give me the _soul_, and take the goods to thyself.”--”_To the abhorrence of the people._” ??? in _Piel_ never has another signification than ”to abhor.” Such is the signification in Job ix. 31 also, where the clothes abhor Job plunged in the dirt, resist being put on by him; likewise in Ezek. xv. 25, where Judah abhors his beauty, disgracefully tramples under feet his glory, as if he hated it. In favour of the signification: ”To cause to abhor” (_Rodiger_: _horrorem incutiens populo, qui abominationi est populo_), interpreters cannot adduce even one apparent pa.s.sage, except that before us. We are, therefore, only at liberty to explain, after the example of _Kimchi_: ”to the ... people abhorring,” _i.e._, to him against whom the [Pg 245]