Isa 52:13-15 | KD | STEP | Victor F. Oehler has recently attempted to establish an opinion, to which no one had given expression before, viz. that the transition from the collective idea of the servant of God to the “Servant of God” as an individual takes place in ver. 14, where Israel is addressed in the first clause, and the Messiah referred to in the second. But our view is a totally different one. In every case, thus far, in which another than Jehovah has spoken, it has been the one “Servant of Jehovah” who was the centre of the circle, the heart and head of the body of Israel. And after having heard him speaking himself in , , , and Jehovah speaking concerning him in Isa 1. 10-11, , , it does not come upon us at all unexpectedly, that Jehovah begins to speak of him again here. Nor does it surprise us, that the prophet should pass in so abrupt a manner, from the exaltation of the church to the exaltation of the servant of Jehovah. If we look back, we find that he has not omitted anything, that could preclude the possibility of our confounding this servant of Jehovah with Israel itself. For although Israel itself, in its relation to Jehovah, is spoken of frequently enough as “my servant” and “his servant ;” yet the passage before us is preceded by the same representation of Israel the community as a female, which has been sustained from onwards; and although in Isa. 51:1-16 the national idea of the "servant of Jehovah" is expressed in the most definite manner possible (more especially in ), the name employed is not that which the personal “Servant,” whom no one can possibly mistake in , already bears in Isa 1:10. It is this personal Servant who is spoken of here. It is his portrait that is here filled out and completed, and that as a side-piece to the liberation and restoration of Zion-Jerusalem as depicted just before. It is the servant of Jehovah who conducts His people through suffering to glory. It is in his heart, as we now most clearly discern, that the changing of Jehovah's wrath into love takes place. He suffers with his people, suffers for them, suffers in their stead ; because he has not brought the suffering upon himself, like the great mass of the people, through sin, but has voluntarily submitted to it as the guiltless and righteous one, in order that he might entirely remove it, even to its roots, i.e. the guilt and the sin which occasioned it, by his own sacrifice of himself. Thus is Israel's glory concentrated in him like a sun. The glory of Israel has his glory for a focus. He is the seed-corn, which is buried in the earth, to bring forth much fruit ; and this “much fruit” is the glory of Israel and the salvation of the nations. “Christian scholars,” says Abravanel, “interpret this prophecy as referring to that man who was crucified in Jerusalem about the end of the second temple, and who, according to their view, was the Son of God, who became man in the womb of the Virgin. , But Jonathan ben Uziel explains it as relating to the Messiah who has yet to come ; and this is the opinion of the ancients in many of their Midrashim.” So that even the synagogue could not help acknowledging that the passage of the Messiah through death to glory is predicted here. And what interest could we have in understanding by the “servant of Jehovah,” in this section, the nation of Israel generally, as many Rabbis, both circumcised and uncircumcised, have done ; whereas he is that One Israelite in whom Jehovah has effected the redemption of both Israel and the heathen, even through the medium of Israel itself ? Or what interest could we have in persuading ourselves that Jeremiah, or some unknown martyr-prophet, is intended, as Grotius, Bunsen, and Ewald suppose ; whereas it is rather the great unknown and misinterpreted One, whom Jewish and Judaizing exegesis still continues to misinterpret in its exposition of the figure before us, just as His contemporaries misinterpreted Him when He actually appeared among them. How many are there whose eyes have been opened when reading this “ golden passional of the Old Testament evangelist,” as Polycarp the Lysian calls it ! In how many an Israelite has it melted the crust of his heart ! It looks as if it had been written beneath the cross upon Golgotha, and was illuminated by the heavenly brightness of the full שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י. It is the unravelling of Ps. 22:1. and Ps. 110:1. It forms the outer centre of this wonderful book of consolation (Isa 40-66.), and is the most central, the deepest, and the loftiest thing that the Old Testament prophecy, outstripping itself, has ever achieved. And yet it does not belie its Old Testament origin. For the prophet sees the advent of “the servant of Jehovah,” and His rejection by His own people, bound up as it were with the duration of the captivity. It is at the close of the captivity that he beholds the exaltation of the Servant of Jehovah, who has died and been buried, and yet lives for ever ; and with His exaltation the inward and outward return of Israel, and the restoration of Jerusalem in its renewed and final glory ; and with this restoration of the people of God, the conversion of the nations and the salvation of mankind. In this sense there follows here, immediately after the cry. “Go ye out from Babylon,” an index pointing from the suffering of the Servant to His reward in glory. “Behold, my servant will act wisely; he will come forth, and arise, and be very high.” Even apart from , hinnēh ( hēn ) is a favourite commencement with Isaiah; and this very first v. contains, according to Isaiah’s custom, a brief, condensed explanation of the theme. The exaltation of the Servant of Jehovah is the theme of the prophecy which follows. In v. 13 a the way is shown, by which He reaches His greatness; in v. 13 b the increasing greatness itself. השׂכּיל by itself means simply to gain, prove, or act with intelligence (lxx συνήσει); and then, since intelligent action, as a rule, is also effective, it is used as synonymous with הצליח, הכשׁהיר, to act with result, i.e., so as to be successful. Hence it is only by way of sequence that the idea of “prosperously” is connected with that of “prudently” (e.g., ; ). The word is never applied to such prosperity as a man enjoys without any effort of his own, but only to such as he attains by successful action, i.e., by such action as is appropriate to the desired and desirable result. In , where hiskı̄l is one feature in the picture of the dominion exercised by the Messiah, the idea of intelligent action is quite sufficient, without any further subordinate meaning. But here, where the exaltation is derived from ישׂכיל as the immediate consequence, without any intervening על־כן, there is naturally associated with the idea of wise action, i.e., of action suited to the great object of his call, that of effective execution or abundant success, which has as its natural sequel an ever-increasing exaltation. Rosenmüller observes, in , “There is no need to discuss, or even to inquire, what precise difference there is in the meaning of the separate words;” but this is a very superficial remark. If we consider that rūm signifies not only to be high, but to rise up ( ) and become exalted, and also to become manifest as exalted (Ps. 21:14), and that נשּׂא, according to the immediate and original reflective meaning of the niphal , signifies to raise one’s self, whereas gâbhah expresses merely the condition, without the subordinate idea of activity, we obtain this chain of thought: he will rise up, he will raise himself still higher, he will stand on high. The three verbs (of which the two perfects are defined by the previous future) consequently denote the commencement, the continuation, and the result or climax of the exaltation; and Stier is not wrong in recalling to mind the three principal steps of the exaltatio in the historical fulfilment, viz., the resurrection, the ascension, and the sitting down at the right hand of God. The addition of the word מאד shows very clearly that וגבהּ is intended to be taken as the final result: the servant of Jehovah, rising from stage to stage, reaches at last an immeasurable height, that towers above everything besides (comp. ὑπερύψωσε in , with ὑψωθείς in , and for the nature of the ὑπερύψωσε, ).

‏ Isaiah 52:13-15

FIFTH PROPHECY.— Chap. 52:13-53.

GOLGOTHA AND SHEBLIMINI, ^{▼▼שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י: “sit thou at my right hand.” — Tr.} OR THE EXALTATION OP THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH OUT OF PEEP DEGRADATION.

Victor F. Oehler has recently attempted to establish an opinion, to which no one had given expression before, viz. that the transition from the collective idea of the servant of God to the “Servant of God” as an individual takes place in ver. 14, where Israel is addressed in the first clause, and the Messiah referred to in the second. But our view is a totally different one. In every case, thus far, in which another than Jehovah has spoken, it has been the one “Servant of Jehovah” who was the centre of the circle, the heart and head of the body of Israel. And after having heard him speaking himself in Isa 1:4-9, Isa 49:1-6, Isa 48:16b, and Jehovah speaking concerning him in Isa 1. 10-11, Isa 49:7-9, Isa 42:1-7, it does not come upon us at all unexpectedly, that Jehovah begins to speak of him again here. Nor does it surprise us, that the prophet should pass in so abrupt a manner, from the exaltation of the church to the exaltation of the servant of Jehovah. If we look back, we find that he has not omitted anything, that could preclude the possibility of our confounding this servant of Jehovah with Israel itself. For although Israel itself, in its relation to Jehovah, is spoken of frequently enough as “my servant” and “his servant ;” yet the passage before us is preceded by the same representation of Israel the community as a female, which has been sustained from Isa 51:17 onwards; and although in Isa. 51:1-16 the national idea of the "servant of Jehovah" is expressed in the most definite manner possible (more especially in Isa 51:7), the name employed is not that which the personal “Servant,” whom no one can possibly mistake in Isa 1:4-9, already bears in Isa 1:10. It is this personal Servant who is spoken of here. It is his portrait that is here filled out and completed, and that as a side-piece to the liberation and restoration of Zion-Jerusalem as depicted just before. It is the servant of Jehovah who conducts His people through suffering to glory. It is in his heart, as we now most clearly discern, that the changing of Jehovah's wrath into love takes place. He suffers with his people, suffers for them, suffers in their stead ; because he has not brought the suffering upon himself, like the great mass of the people, through sin, but has voluntarily submitted to it as the guiltless and righteous one, in order that he might entirely remove it, even to its roots, i.e. the guilt and the sin which occasioned it, by his own sacrifice of himself. Thus is Israel's glory concentrated in him like a sun. The glory of Israel has his glory for a focus. He is the seed-corn, which is buried in the earth, to bring forth much fruit ; and this “much fruit” is the glory of Israel and the salvation of the nations. “Christian scholars,” says Abravanel, “interpret this prophecy as referring to that man who was crucified in Jerusalem about the end of the second temple, and who, according to their view, was the Son of God, who became man in the womb of the Virgin. , But Jonathan ben Uziel explains it as relating to the Messiah who has yet to come ; and this is the opinion of the ancients in many of their Midrashim.” So that even the synagogue could not help acknowledging that the passage of the Messiah through death to glory is predicted here. ^{▼▼See A. M. M‘Caul’s tract on Isa. liii., and the " Old Jewish Midrash of the Suffering Redeemer" in our Mag. Saat auf Hoffnung, i. 3, pp. 87-39.} And what interest could we have in understanding by the “servant of Jehovah,” in this section, the nation of Israel generally, as many Rabbis, both circumcised and uncircumcised, have done ; whereas he is that One Israelite in whom Jehovah has effected the redemption of both Israel and the heathen, even through the medium of Israel itself ? Or what interest could we have in persuading ourselves that Jeremiah, or some unknown martyr-prophet, is intended, as Grotius, Bunsen, and Ewald suppose ; whereas it is rather the great unknown and misinterpreted One, whom Jewish and Judaizing exegesis still continues to misinterpret in its exposition of the figure before us, just as His contemporaries misinterpreted Him when He actually appeared among them. How many are there whose eyes have been opened when reading this “ golden passional of the Old Testament evangelist,” as Polycarp the Lysian calls it ! In how many an Israelite has it melted the crust of his heart ! It looks as if it had been written beneath the cross upon Golgotha, and was illuminated by the heavenly brightness of the full שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י. It is the unravelling of Ps. 22:1. and Ps. 110:1. It forms the outer centre of this wonderful book of consolation (Isa 40-66.), and is the most central, the deepest, and the loftiest thing that the Old Testament prophecy, outstripping itself, has ever achieved. And yet it does not belie its Old Testament origin. For the prophet sees the advent of “the servant of Jehovah,” and His rejection by His own people, bound up as it were with the duration of the captivity. It is at the close of the captivity that he beholds the exaltation of the Servant of Jehovah, who has died and been buried, and yet lives for ever ; and with His exaltation the inward and outward return of Israel, and the restoration of Jerusalem in its renewed and final glory ; and with this restoration of the people of God, the conversion of the nations and the salvation of mankind. ^{▼▼I cannot refrain from repeating here a passage taken from my closing remarks on Drechsler (iii. 376), simply because I cannot find any better way of expressing what I have to say upon this point: “When Isaiah sang his dying song on the border line of the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh, all the coming sufferings of his people appeared to be concentrated in the one view of the captivity in Babylon. And it was in the midst of this period of suffering, which formed the extreme limit of his range of vision, that he saw the redemption of Israel beginning to appear. He saw the servant of Jehovah working among the captives, just as at His coming He actually did appear in the midst of His people, when they were in bondage to the imperial power of the world ; he also saw the Servant of Jehovah passing through death to glory, and Israel ascending with Him, as in fact the ascension of Jesus was the completion of the redemption of Israel ; and it was only the unbelief of the great mass of Israel which occasioned the fact, that this redemption was at first merely the spiritual redemption of believers out of the nation, and not the spiritual and physical redemption of the nation as a whole. So far, therefore, a broad gap was made in point of time between the exaltation of the servant of Jehovah and the glorious restoration of Israel which is still in the future ; and this gap was hidden from the prophet's view. It is only the coming of Christ in glory which will fully realize what was not yet realized when He entered into glory after the sufferings of death, on account of Israel’s unbelief.”}

Isa 52:13 In this sense there follows here, immediately after the cry. “Go ye out from Babylon,” an index pointing from the suffering of the Servant to His reward in glory. “Behold, my servant will act wisely; he will come forth, and arise, and be very high.” Even apart from Isa 42:1, hinnēh (hēn) is a favourite commencement with Isaiah; and this very first v. contains, according to Isaiah’s custom, a brief, condensed explanation of the theme. The exaltation of the Servant of Jehovah is the theme of the prophecy which follows. In v. 13 a the way is shown, by which He reaches His greatness; in v. 13 b the increasing greatness itself. השׂכּיל by itself means simply to gain, prove, or act with intelligence (lxx συνήσει); and then, since intelligent action, as a rule, is also effective, it is used as synonymous with הצליח, הכשׁהיר, to act with result, i.e., so as to be successful. Hence it is only by way of sequence that the idea of “prosperously” is connected with that of “prudently” (e.g., Jos 1:8; Jer 10:21). The word is never applied to such prosperity as a man enjoys without any effort of his own, but only to such as he attains by successful action, i.e., by such action as is appropriate to the desired and desirable result. In Jer 23:2, where hiskı̄l is one feature in the picture of the dominion exercised by the Messiah, the idea of intelligent action is quite sufficient, without any further subordinate meaning. But here, where the exaltation is derived from ישׂכיל as the immediate consequence, without any intervening על־כן, there is naturally associated with the idea of wise action, i.e., of action suited to the great object of his call, that of effective execution or abundant success, which has as its natural sequel an ever-increasing exaltation. Rosenmüller observes, in Isa 52:13, “There is no need to discuss, or even to inquire, what precise difference there is in the meaning of the separate words;” but this is a very superficial remark. If we consider that rūm signifies not only to be high, but to rise up (Pro 11:11) and become exalted, and also to become manifest as exalted (Ps. 21:14), and that נשּׂא, according to the immediate and original reflective meaning of the niphal, signifies to raise one’s self, whereas gâbhah expresses merely the condition, without the subordinate idea of activity, we obtain this chain of thought: he will rise up, he will raise himself still higher, he will stand on high. The three verbs (of which the two perfects are defined by the previous future) consequently denote the commencement, the continuation, and the result or climax of the exaltation; and Stier is not wrong in recalling to mind the three principal steps of the exaltatio in the historical fulfilment, viz., the resurrection, the ascension, and the sitting down at the right hand of God. The addition of the word מאד shows very clearly that וגבהּ is intended to be taken as the final result: the servant of Jehovah, rising from stage to stage, reaches at last an immeasurable height, that towers above everything besides (comp. ὑπερύψωσε in Phi 2:9, with ὑψωθείς in Act 2:33, and for the nature of the ὑπερύψωσε, Eph 1:20-23). Isa 52:14-15

The prophecy concerning him passes now into an address to him, as in Isa 49:8 (cf., Isa 49:7), which sinks again immediately into an objective tone. “Just as many were astonished at thee: so disfigured, his appearance was not human, and his form not like that of the children of men: so will he make many nations to tremble; kings will shut their mouth at him: for they see what has not been told them, and discover what they have not heard.” Both Oehler and Hahn suppose that the first clause is addressed to Israel, and that it is here pointed away from its own degradation, which excited such astonishment, to the depth of suffering endured by the One man. Hahn’s principal reason, which Oehler adopts, is the sudden leap that we should otherwise have to assume from the second person to the third - an example of “negligence” which we can hardly impute to the prophet. But a single glance at Isa 42:20 and Isa 1:29 is sufficient to show how little force there is in this principal argument. We should no doubt expect עליכם or עליך after what has gone before, if the nation were addressed; but it is difficult to see what end a comparison between the sufferings of the nation and those of the One man, which merely places the sufferings of the two in an external relation to one another, could be intended to answer; whilst the second kēn (so), which evidently introduces an antithesis, is altogether unexplained. The words are certainly addressed to the servant of Jehovah; and the meaning of the sicut (just as) in Isa 52:14, and of the sic (so) which introduces the principal sentence in Isa 52:15, is, that just as His degradation was the deepest degradation possible, so His glorification would be of the loftiest kind. The height of the exaltation is held up as presenting a perfect contrast to the depth of the degradation. The words, “so distorted was his face, more than that of a man,” form, as has been almost unanimously admitted since the time of Vitringa, a parenthesis, containing the reason for the astonishment excited by the servant of Jehovah. Stier is wrong in supposing that this first “so” (kēn) refers to ka'ăsher (just as), in the sense of “If men were astonished at thee, there was ground for the astonishment.” Isa 52:15 would not stand out as an antithesis, if we adopted this explanation; moreover, the thought that the fact corresponded to the impression which men received, is a very tame and unnecessary one; and the change of persons in sentences related to one another in this manner is intolerably harsh; whereas, with our view of the relation in which the sentences stand to one another, the parenthesis prepares the way for the sudden change from a direct address to a declaration. Hitherto many had been astonished at the servant of Jehovah: shâmēm, to be desolate or waste, to be thrown by anything into a desolate or benumbed condition, to be startled, confused, as it were petrified, by paralyzing astonishment (Lev 26:32; Eze 26:16). To such a degree (kēn, adeo) was his appearance mishchath mē'ı̄sh, and his form mibbenē 'âdâm (sc., mishchath). We might take mishchath as the construct of mishchâth, as Hitzig does, since this connecting form is sometimes used (e.g., Isa 33:6) even without any genitive relation; but it may also be the absolute, syncopated from משׁחתתּ = משׁחתת (Hävernick and Stier), like moshchath in Mal 1:14, or, what we prefer, after the form mirmas (Isa 10:6), with the original ă, without the usual lengthening (Ewald, §160, c, Anm. 4). His appearance and his form were altogether distortion (stronger than moshchâth, distorted), away from men, out beyond men, i.e., a distortion that destroys all likeness to a man; ^{▼▼The church before the time of Constantine pictured to itself the Lord, as He walked on earth, as repulsive in His appearance; whereas the church after Constantine pictured Him as having quite an ideal beauty (see my tract, Jesus and Hillel, 1865, p. 4). They were both right: unattractive in appearance, though not deformed, He no doubt was in the days of His flesh; but He is ideally beautiful in His glorification. The body in which He was born of Mary was no royal form, though faith could see the doxa shining through. It was no royal form, for the suffering of death was the portion of the Lamb of God, even from His mother’s womb; but the glorified One is infinitely exalted above all the idea of art.}'ı̄sh does not signify man as distinguished from woman here, but a human being generally.

The antithesis follows in Isa 52:15 : viz., the state of glory in which this form of wretchedness has passed away. As a parallel to the “many” in Isa 52:14, we have here “many nations,” indicating the excess of the glory by the greater fulness of the expression; and as a parallel to “were astonished at thee,” “he shall make to tremble” (yazzeh), in other words, the effect which He produces by what He does to the effect produced by what He suffers. The hiphil hizzâh generally means to spirt or sprinkle (adspergere), and is applied to the sprinkling of the blood with the finger, more especially upon the capporeth and altar of incense on the day of atonement (differing in this respect from zâraq, the swinging of the blood out of a bowl), also to the sprinkling of the water of purification upon a leper with the bunch of hyssop (Lev 14:7), and of the ashes of the red heifer upon those defiled through touching a corpse (Num 19:18); in fact, generally, to sprinkling for the purpose of expiation and sanctification. And Vitringa, Hengstenberg, and others, accordingly follow the Syriac and Vulgate in adopting the rendering adsperget (he will sprinkle). They have the usage of the language in their favour; and this explanation also commends itself from a reference to נגוּע in Isa 53:4, and נגע in Isa 53:8 (words which are generally used of leprosy, and on account of which the suffering Messiah is called in b. Sanhedrin 98 b by an emblematical name adopted from the old synagogue, “the leper of Rabbi’s school”), since it yields the significant antithesis, that he who was himself regarded as unclean, even as a second Job, would sprinkle and sanctify whole nations, and thus abolish the wall of partition between Israel and the heathen, and gather together into one holy church with Israel those who had hitherto been pronounced “unclean” (Isa 52:1). But, on the other hand, this explanation has so far the usage of the language against it, that hizzâh is never construed with the accusative of the person or thing sprinkled (like adspergere aliqua re aliquem; since 'eth in Lev 4:6, Lev 4:17 is a preposition like ‛al, ‛el elsewhere); moreover, there would be something very abrupt in this sudden representation of the servant as a priest. Such explanations as “he will scatter asunder” (disperget, Targum, etc.), or “he will spill” (sc., their blood), are altogether out of the question; such thoughts as these would be quite out of place in a spiritual picture of salvation and glory, painted upon the dark ground we have here. The verb nâzâh signified primarily to leap or spring; hence hizzâh, with the causative meaning to sprinkle. The kal combines the intransitive and transitive meanings of the word “spirt,” and is used in the former sense in Isa 63:3, to signify the springing up or sprouting up of any liquid scattered about in drops. The Arabic nazâ (see Ges. Thes.) shows that this verb may also be applied to the springing or leaping of living beings, caused by excess of emotion. And accordingly we follow the majority of the commentators in adopting the rendering exsilire faciet. The fact that whole nations are the object, and not merely individuals, proves nothing to the contrary, as Hab 3:6 clearly shows. The reference is to their leaping up in amazement (lxx θαυμάσονται); and the verb denotes less an external than an internal movement. They will tremble with astonishment within themselves (cf., pâchădū verâgezū in Jer 33:9), being electrified, as it were, by the surprising change that has taken place in the servant of Jehovah. The reason why kings “shut their mouths at him” is expressly stated, viz., what was never related they see, and what was never heard of they perceive; i.e., it was something going far beyond all that had ever been reported to them outside the world of nations, or come to their knowledge within it. Hitzig’s explanation, that they do not trust themselves to begin to speak before him or along with him, gives too feeble a sense, and would lead us rather to expect לפניו than עליו. The shutting of the mouth is the involuntary effect of the overpowering impression, or the manifestation of their extreme amazement at one so suddenly brought out of the depths, and lifted up to so great a height. The strongest emotion is that which remains shut up within ourselves, because, from its very intensity, it throws the whole nature into a suffering state, and drowns all reflection in emotion (cf., yachărı̄sh in Zep 3:17). The parallel in Isa 49:7 is not opposed to this; the speechless astonishment, at what is unheard and inconceivable, changes into adoring homage, as soon as they have become to some extent familiar with it. The first turn in the prophecy closes here: The servant of Jehovah, whose inhuman sufferings excite such astonishment, is exalted on high; so that from utter amazement the nations tremble, and their kings are struck dumb.

‏ Isaiah 52:13-15

FIFTH PROPHECY.— Chap. 52:13-53.

GOLGOTHA AND SHEBLIMINI, ▼▼שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י: “sit thou at my right hand.” — Tr. OR THE EXALTATION OP THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH OUT OF PEEP DEGRADATION.

GOLGOTHA AND SHEBLIMINI, ^{▼▼שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י: “sit thou at my right hand.” — Tr.} OR THE EXALTATION OP THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH OUT OF PEEP DEGRADATION.