This post begins with a summary of Is 49:1-26 followed by his comments on verses 1-7. This was translated using ChatGPT.
OVERVIEW OF ISAIAH 49:1-26
Argument. — The Servant of the Lord, summoning the peoples, recounts how he was chosen and instructed by God to carry out his task, yet at the same time laments that he has labored in vain; therefore he entrusts his cause to the Lord as judge (Is 49:1–4). The Lord consoles him by showing the fruit of his labor, through which salvation will truly come to the whole world, yet in such a way that the glory of the Servant himself springs from the depth of his humility (Is 49:5–7). In a time of distress God will powerfully assist him; He will restore the devastated inheritance, bring back the captive people under wondrous protection, and from every region of the earth they will stream together to God to celebrate Him with praise (Is 49:8–13). God consoles Zion, who complains that she has been abandoned by the Lord, with the assurance of His greatest love; He foretells that she will be the mother of an innumerable people, to her immense joy and amazement (Is 49:14–21). For God will command the nations to honor Zion with the highest reverence and to bring her sons to her; for like a mighty hero He will snatch the prey from the enemies and punish the foes with dreadful judgment, thus showing all that He is the redeemer of His own (Is 49:22–26).
Two figures stand out in this discourse: the Servant of the Lord, treated in Is 49:1–13, and Zion, discussed in Is 49:14–22. The Servant of the Lord is described as being endowed with the highest divine protection, one in whom God wills to be glorified. Yet he is presented three times as being in a state of labor, humiliation, and distress (Is 49:4, 7, 8). This condition, however, will be followed both by the highest glory for him personally and by salvation and blessedness spreading throughout the world—salvation which he has been helped and appointed by the Lord to bring about. In the second part of the discourse the address turns to Zion. Zion believes herself abandoned; the Lord strengthens her with an expression of most tender love. He declares that she will be rebuilt, more glorious than before and over a far wider expanse, and that the kings of the nations will venerate her as suppliants. What Malvenda notes is true: “This chapter is in a certain way a preface, or rather the supreme theme of all that follows.” For just as this discourse sets before us the Servant of the Lord and Zion in two parts, so chapters 50–53 describe the Servant of the Lord in his humility together with the fruit that will arise from his labors and sufferings, while from chapter 54 onward the future glory of Zion is proposed. How the connection between the Servant of the Lord and Zion stands is more and more clearly explained as the discourses progress: the Servant of the Lord, by his obedience, sufferings, and dreadful death, atones for the crimes of the people, and by this atonement merits glory for himself. An outstanding share of that glory shines forth in the glory of Zion; thus the glory of the restored Zion is the work of the Servant of the Lord and redounds also to his glory. Just as the prophet, beginning at Is 44:24 and thereafter, more fully described and explained that earlier hero and his work, of whom mention was made in Is 41:2, so now he turns his discourse, with an order equally clear and striking, to the other figure whom he had presented to us in 42:1 and following.
a) The Complaint of the Servant of the Lord (Is 49:1–4)
Just as in Is 41:1, all peoples are invited to give attentive hearing in our present passage, Is 49:1: “Listen, O islands, and attend, you peoples from afar: the Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He remembered my name.” In the Hebrew (hebr.), “Listen, O islands, to me,” that is, the maritime and distant regions; at once the whole world is addressed, from which it is clear that the matter at hand is not particular but universal. That the same figure is speaking who was mentioned in 42:1 and following is already suggested by the composition of the prophecy. For after the earlier deliverer and his work have been discussed, and after the prophet has developed more fully and explicitly from 44:24 onward what he had briefly touched upon in Is 41:2 and Is 41:25, the very structure of the discourse leads us to expect that the prophet will also undertake a longer treatment of the other figure whom he had sketched briefly in 42:1 and following, and that he will describe more fully both him and his work, as he did in the case of Cyrus. Moreover, this is demonstrated beyond doubt by the fact that the Servant of the Lord is presented in this discourse and the following ones in such a way that he is plainly the same person as before; this will become evident from the explanation itself.
Now, that all the nations are summoned accords perfectly with and is explained by 42:4 and 6: “The islands will wait for his law,” and “I have given you as a light to the nations.” How greatly he is chosen by the Lord (Is 42:1) and called (Is 42:6) is explained here: he exists, that is, because the Lord chose him as His minister and therefore formed him; even while he was still in his mother’s womb, God already remembered his name—that is, his nature, task, and office. From his very origin God embraced in mind and will all that is contained and expressed in a name. A person’s name often signifies the whole of the person. Since no other name has yet appeared except Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1), this is immediately understood, but with that breadth by which both his virtues and the work to be accomplished are described in 42:1 and following. Thus this verse asserts that God had all these things in mind from the beginning of his existence and that He formed him and gave him life for this purpose. How fully these things are fulfilled in Christ may be seen in Matthew 4:1–21 and Luke 4:1–31 (cf. St. Ephrem, Eusebius, St. Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, and others).
Here the Servant of the Lord declares himself to have been called into life by God and destined from the beginning for such a task, so that it may be clear how justly he pours forth that complaint in verse 4 and how rightly he invokes the Lord as the vindicator of his cause. The whole rationale of his existence and life proves most clearly how zealously he ought to be heard by all.
As one called and designated by God, he is also most fittingly equipped to undertake his mission, which provides another reason why he should be heard. Is 49:2 says: “He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of His hand He hid me; He made me like a polished arrow; in His quiver He concealed me.” The “mouth,” that is, his word; therefore what he wills and commands possesses the greatest power and cannot be without effect. Compare Isaiah 11:4: “He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.” In the same way, what he teaches penetrates and divides like a sword; for the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), and Christ professes that He has come to send a sword by which separation among men will take place (Matthew 10:34). When the mouth or word is signified as a sword, the difference between this Servant and Cyrus (Is 45:4 and following) is also indicated. Thus the power and efficacy of the word are declared.
The same is indicated in the bright or polished arrow (Hebrew: berurah, “polished”). As one fights at close range with a sword, so the arrow strikes and lays low from afar (Sanctius); hence both those who are near and those who are far will be conquered by him. In the polished arrow one also sees the penetrating force by which the enemies of truth are struck down, while others are wounded unto salvation and benefit—as the bride in the Song of Songs says, “I am wounded with love” (cf. St. Cyril, Eusebius, St. Jerome, Theodoret). Armed with sword and arrows, the Messianic King advances in Psalm 45, by which arms His universal victory in combat both near and far is signified (cf. Forerius, Osorius, Malvenda, Mariana, Menochius).
Joined to these arms is a remarkable divine protection, described in a way fitting to the sword and arrow. This is clear in the image of the quiver, by which it is also declared that the Servant of the Lord will be brought forth by the Lord and employed like a weapon when it pleases Him. In the earlier metaphor of the sword, this is retained insofar as a sword, hidden under the left arm in its sheath, can in some sense be said to be concealed under the shadow of the hand (Hebrew). Yet more directly it is the Servant himself, whose mouth is a sword, who is hidden by the hand of the Lord—that is, by divine power—so that no one can harm him, and who, hidden under that shadow, is wonderfully refreshed by the Lord amid labors and in the heat of trial, and strengthened as though by a pleasant cooling. This protection is also indicated in Is 42:1: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold” (Hebrew), and in verse 6: “I have taken you by the hand, I have kept you.”
Now the reason why he is thus instructed and protected by God is stated, and from this a new reason is gathered as to why he should be heard. Verse 3 says: “And He said to me: You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” In Hebrew: “In you I will show myself glorious” (cf. Is 44:23). The end therefore intended in all that is announced in Is 49:1-2 is that he should present himself as the minister and servant of the Lord, and that the glory and sublimity of God should be made known to human beings through him. In him God wills to manifest His majesty; in him therefore that goal, “the whole earth is full of His glory,” is to be attained. That the glory of God will be promoted in a remarkable way through the Servant of the Lord is also expressed above in 42:8 and abundantly declared in the song of Is 42:10–12.
But when he is called Israel, is it one individual, the one mentioned in Is 42:1, or the people Israel, who have previously also been called by the name of servant (Is 42:19)? That the people cannot be meant is immediately clear from Is 49:6, where the same Servant, taken up by God, is said to restore the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel. Here therefore the Servant is distinguished from the people of Israel as their redeemer, and it would be utterly unfitting and foreign to all prophecy to say that the people are their own redeemer. Furthermore, the same Servant is immediately said to be a light to the nations, using the same salvific designation as in Is 42:6. Again, in Is 49:8 he is said to be given as a covenant to the people, to bring out the prisoners; here too he is first described as the same one designated above in Is 42:6–7 by the same titles, and secondly he is most clearly distinguished from the people, since the people cannot be conceived as the mediator of a covenant with themselves, nor can a people bound in the prison of exile bring themselves out, nor can a blind people give light to themselves (cf. Is 49:9 and Is 42:7: “to open the eyes of the blind”).
Therefore, despite the name Israel, that one individual of whom Is 42:1 speaks must be understood, unless we wish to make the prophet contradict himself and utter plain absurdities. Nor is it very difficult to explain why he is called by that name. The reason is declared in the subsequent discourses, in which that Servant, bearing the person of the people, atones for the people’s sins, offering vicarious satisfaction for the people, taking upon himself the sins of the people and paying in himself the penalties owed by the people. As such he is rightly called Israel, and this role undertaken for the people, as it were in the person of the people, is aptly hinted at already in this preparatory discourse by the assumption of the people’s name. This is all the easier because Israel is in itself the name of the patriarch, the father of the people; now that Servant appears as another parent and savior of the people, expressing in himself the meaning of the name. For he is armed by God and thus truly a “fighter, a soldier of God,” that is, Israel. He therefore truly embodies the name; and just as Jacob of old prevailed by prayer and patience and thereby received the name (Genesis 32:29; Hosea 12:4), so here too this Servant prevails with God by his prayer and patience, so as to render God propitious to humanity (cf. Forerius, Lapide, Menochius, Tirinus, Osorius).
Moreover, just as the king of the Assyrians is called Assur, so the king of Israel can rightly be called Israel, “because the name of the body is attributed to the head” (Malvenda), and all the more so to indicate that he truly springs from Israel (cf. Eusebius, St. Jerome, Cyril, Thomas Aquinas, Sanctius, Sasbout). Just as the name once passed from one to all, so it can again be attributed to one in whom the whole life of the people is, as it were, gathered up and subsists. Such a name, which in itself is the name of one individual, therefore does not hinder our understanding that one individual is meant—one who, from the accompanying characteristics, can be none other than the same Servant who is described in Is 42:1, plainly distinct from the people.
They recognize the Messiah in this passage, as is done by the holy Fathers; their testimonies may be seen in Reinke, Messianische Weissagungen, II, p. 93, and in Kilber, Analysis biblica, ed. Tailhan, I, p. 380. In their footsteps almost all Catholic interpreters likewise tread. Saint Thomas, however, already proposes a variety of interpretations. First, he asserts that the voice of the people is heard, announcing and saying: “Listen… He chose me in the patriarchs,” and thus he explains the passage of the people. Then he adds: “According to others, this is the voice of Cyrus, whose name was foretold by Isaiah before he was born,” and finally: “It is otherwise explained of Christ, whose name was foretold by the angel,” and so forth. Calmets judges that this can scarcely be explained of Cyrus, but quite suitably of Isaiah and of John the Baptist, and also of Christ; yet, as is clear from his further words, he retains the explanation concerning Isaiah as the primary one, to which he adds the others. Interpreters of rationalist tendency similarly depart in this direction here, as in Is 42:1 and following. For they understand here either the people Israel, or the elect and pious among Israel, or the prophets, or even Isaiah alone (cf. Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Knobel).
There is no need now to refute each of these views individually, since it has already been shown above from the connection and context that they are excluded by the very words themselves. Gesenius asserts that the discourse cannot be about the Messiah, because the one spoken of here himself speaks—as though the Messiah could not be introduced by the prophet speaking in the same way as the king of Babylon and the inhabitants of Sheol are introduced speaking in chapter 14. Nor does this occur without any preparation; that preparation is present in Is 42:1 and following. Moreover, after Cyrus, the appearance of another deliverer on the scene plainly contributes to the literary coherence of the book. Furthermore, who is speaking—whether Yahweh or the prophet—must often be determined among the prophets from the subject matter itself; they do not append the name of the speaker. The same therefore holds here. From the argument and parallel passages it must be inferred who is speaking. Gesenius further objects that verses 8 and 9 stand in the way; but these verses are the same matters that are already read in Is 49:6–7. Moreover, what kind of restoration is there spoken of is explained in the discourses concerning Zion; and the glory of Zion arises from the sufferings of the Servant of the Lord, as we shall see in the subsequent oracles.
The name Israel is lacking in one Hebrew manuscript (cf. De Rossi), and some critics have thought it should be deleted; thus J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius. Indeed, the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, the Syriac, Saint Jerome, and the Chaldean have this word. But just as in the Septuagint at Is 42:1 the words Israel and Jacob have been falsely inserted into the text, so it could have happened that Israel was placed here as well, an interpolation perhaps aided somewhat by Is 44:23, “in Israel I will show myself glorious.” And if such an interpolation was made early in the Greek text, it is certainly not surprising if it is found likewise in the others. Still, the matter is doubtful, for Israel can be explained, although it must admittedly be conceded that elsewhere the name is not applied to a single individual except to the patriarch, and otherwise always to the people.
Others have attempted to remove the difficulty in another way, but not very successfully. For they think that the words can be conceived thus, that the Servant of the Lord is commanded to say these words to Israel: “The Lord said to me: say, namely, to the people: ‘You are my servant, Israel’” (Braun, Calmets). But by what right is such a supplementation assumed? Others wish the discourse to be transferred in the second clause from the Servant to Israel: “You are my servant; in you I will be glorified, Israel” (Hensler, Stäudlin). But why a sudden address to Israel, to another person, should be introduced after it has been said, “He said to me,” is not easily explained. Saadia, in the Arabic version, takes the word as if it were written le-Yisrael: “You are my servant for Israel; in you I will be glorified.” This sense is indeed not to be despised, and it would very well prepare the way for the following complaint in Is 49:4; but how the text as it stands can be understood in this way no one has shown. An easier supplementation would be from the im (“for”), so that it would be translated: “He said to me: you are my servant; to Israel (He said): because in you I will be glorified”; for thus im is sometimes supplied in a parallel clause, as all concede (cf. Is 44:28). But why the address should be made to the people is hardly persuasive here. Moreover, some of the rabbis who take these words as referring to the prophet Isaiah explain them thus: “You are my servant from the seed of Israel,” or “You, Israel, who are rejected in my eyes like the whole of Israel” (Aben Ezra apud Rosenmüller, Gesenius); or again: “He speaks universally and particularly: you, Israel, in whom I will be glorified, as a master glories in a faithful servant” (Kimchi apud Rios).
Finally, for those who wish to explain these words as though they were an oracle concerning John the Baptist, I add what Sanctius observes: “Nor is it less improbable (than that it concerns Cyrus) what some think, namely that these words pertain to John the Baptist, whose most weighty and almost sole reason is that the Church uses this chapter on the solemnities of John, both in the Mass and in the Office of the Hours. This reason is very weak, as we have shown at length in connection with Zechariah 13: ‘What are these wounds in the midst of your hands?’ where we showed that the Church often adapts a foreign history to the sacred offices of the saints on account of some similarity. And indeed, if this reason had any force, it would also prove that the first chapter of Jeremiah is about John, because the Church reads it of John on his vigil.” On such accommodation of texts see Cornely, Introduction, I, p. 544.
Since therefore the Servant of the Lord was called by the Lord in so singular a manner and instructed, and since he had so sublime a goal set for him by the Lord, he rightly pours forth a bitter complaint, because the people of Israel, through their obstinacy, reject the fruit of his labors, and he invokes the Lord as judge and patron of his cause in Is 49:4: “And I said: I have labored in vain; for nothing and to no purpose I have consumed my strength; therefore my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.” That the complaint is made concerning Israel’s obstinacy is inferred from God’s subsequent response (of which below). The words “and I” are spoken with emphasis, because what the Servant of the Lord sets forth and what he has experienced seem to stand in opposition to the divine utterance in verse 3. He says that he has labored in vain, that he has spent his zeal and strength emptily and fruitlessly. These things perfectly accord with Christ’s lament over the stubbornness of the Jews: “How often would I have gathered your children… and you would not”; He bears their unbelief with indignation, as Theodoret says, and likewise Eusebius, St. Cyril, Jerome, Osorius, Sanctius, and others. Yet the will and works of God announced in Is 49:1–3 cannot be without effect; therefore he adds to his expostulation: “Yet my right is with the Lord, and my work with my God” (Hebrew). He entrusts his cause to the Lord; because he is thus called and instructed by God, he has a right to the effect and the prosperous success of his labors. Those who strive to render these labors vain are enemies and adversaries of God, against whom God Himself must defend His cause. Therefore, in that initial sterility of his labors, he consoles himself with the assurance that his right is inviolably laid up with the Lord, and that his work, his undertaking, and all its fruit are likewise placed in the power of the Lord, who will most certainly bring the matter to effect according to His good pleasure, since He has so clearly declared His will (Is 49:3). And because the Servant of the Lord, for his part, has expended great labor—indeed with such zeal and effort that he can truly say he has consumed his strength—he can all the more rightly ask of the Lord that He defend his cause and bring it to a glorious end. Thus the prophet seems to hint at the connection that exists between the labors of the Messiah and His glory and the scope of His work, a connection that we shall see explained more and more in the subsequent discourses. What else are these words, by which he entrusts his cause to God, than that saying: “And now, Father, glorify me…” (cf. John 17:1, 5 and following)?
b) The Fruit of the Labor of the Servant of the Lord (Is 49:5–7)
To this complaint and demand for justice God immediately responds; the response the Servant himself recounts, and in doing so he at the same time explicitly declares what that “judgment” (right) and “work” (Is 49:4) are which the Lord undertakes to defend and to bring to effect. Is 49:5 says: “And now the Lord says, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob back to Him—and Israel will not be gathered!—and I am glorified in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength.” Once again the Servant recalls the Lord by whom he was formed and appointed from his very origin to be the Servant of the Lord for the purpose of bringing the tribes of Jacob back to God. Thus he again declares himself to have been created and destined by the Lord for this purpose. In this repetition the argument of verse 4 is contained, and at the same time it is expressed that this divine plan remains firm in him and is considered firm by the Servant of the Lord. When he adds, “and I am glorified…,” he anticipates the favorable response given to him, even before he narrates it to us, and thus shows the great joy of his soul at having his petition abundantly granted by the Lord. For in place of the humiliation expressed in verse 4, by which he seemed in the eyes of men to have expended his labor in vain, he now joyfully proclaims the glory that has been granted to him before the Lord; and in place of the strength fruitlessly expended, he announces with exultant spirit that God Himself has become his power—so that whatever loss he endured has now been repaired in the most outstanding and divine manner. From these things one may conclude how greatly his spirit rejoices, because he narrates, by a kind of psychological inversion, what the response of God has effected in him before he reports the response itself.
What in the Latin text reads, “and Israel will not be gathered,” must be explained either as an indication of the people’s obstinacy, by which they strive to resist God’s plan—“I have been formed to bring back Jacob, and yet Israel will not gather to the Lord!”—or as an exclamation of one who marvels and almost asks: how could it happen, in such a divine plan, that Israel should not be gathered? The former is indicated by Osorius, Lapide, Menochius, and Tirinus; the latter by Malvenda, together with another explanation.
Others, however, prefer to explain the passage in such a way as to say that the rejection of the Israelite people is here being declared (cf. St Jerome, Maldonatus, Malvenda, Forerius, Sanctius, Sasbout, Pintus). Yet that the people should be rejected by God absolutely does not seem to be true; for: “Has God rejected His people? By no means! God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew… For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, that blindness has come upon Israel in part, until the fullness of the Gentiles should enter in, and thus all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:1, 2, 25–26). Moreover, I do not think that rejection is indicated here, because in verse 5, in God’s response, it is asserted and affirmed that the Servant of the Lord will bring back the remnants of Israel. Therefore, the reading given by the Septuagint, Aquila, the Syriac, and the Chaldean—omitting the negation—fits the context better, not to say exclusively. The Septuagint indeed reads: “that I may gather Jacob to Him, and Israel shall be gathered and I shall be glorified before the Lord,” as cited by St Jerome; and St Jerome reports that Aquila translated: “and Israel shall be gathered to Him.” The Chaldean and the Syriac express the same sense.
In the Hebrew text a marginal note indicates that instead of loʾ (“not”) what is written should be read as lo (“to him”), which we have already seen at Is 9:3. According to St Jerome, however, Theodotion and Symmachus read and expressed the negation, and he himself wishes to retain this negation as a most powerful testimony against Jewish perfidy, and he openly wonders how the Vulgate edition (that is, the Septuagint) could have undermined so strong a testimony by another interpretation. In former times not a few followed in his footsteps. Today, however, most follow and express the sense given by the Septuagint and the Old Latin version (and from it St Ambrose and St Augustine; cf. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae on this passage), as well as the Syriac and Aquila; cf. Schegg, Loch, Rohl, Troch, and others (though Reinke, loc. cit., p. 132, and Neteler differ), Knobel, Seinecke, Delitzsch, Nägelsbach, Orelli, etc. Some, such as Hitzig and Hofmann, retain the negation but explain ’āsap̄ as “to snatch away” or “to perish”: “and Israel shall not be snatched away, shall not perish.” But since the verb is so frequently used in the sense of “to gather,” especially here where the discourse concerns bringing Jacob back, no one could think of another, derived meaning; for it signifies to take away, that is, to gather to oneself what one had previously given; or to be gathered by the wind, that is, to be carried off; or to be gathered to one’s fathers, that is, to die.
Having prefaced this exultant declaration, he then adds God’s response in Is 49:6: “And He said: It is too small a thing that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; behold, I have given you as a light to the nations, that you may be My salvation to the end of the earth.” Thus God consoles the Servant, who had complained of fruitless labor, saying: it would be far too little if you were to serve Me only in raising up the tribes of Jacob and bringing back the preserved of Israel; I take you as My servant for far greater things besides. You will not teach one people only, but you will be the teacher of the nations and bring them blessedness, so that you will be the author of salvation for all who dwell throughout the whole world. By such an effect of His work—embracing all nations and even the ends of the earth—He consoles and lifts him up from labor that for a time seemed wasted. In these words the plan of God and the work of the Messiah are most beautifully explained: the will of God is expressed to bring both Israel and all other peoples to salvation through the Messiah. The tribes of Jacob are cast down by manifold iniquity and misery; He will therefore raise them up and set them again, just as the fallen tent of David will be raised (Amos 9:11). The “preserved” of Israel, the remnants from the dispersion—namely, those who, alien to the customs of the Gentiles, have remained faithful to their God and His promises, who have been spared from plunder and devastation (cf. Is 42:22–25)—He will bring back to the Lord. But it is too little to establish the kingdom of God in one people alone: He will lead the nations out of the darkness of ignorance and sin into the light of truth and divine grace; He Himself, in His person and in His teaching, will be the light of the nations and the author and source of salvation for the whole world. These things are so lofty that they can be said of no one—neither of the people Israel nor of the prophets—but of the one Messiah alone. Moreover, in these words the same one is openly described of whom the same things are said in Is 42:6–7, who was already presented in Is 11:10 as the sign of the peoples whom the nations will seek, and in whose time the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord; who was already foreshadowed in Is 9:2 as a light and as the author of a most extensive dominion (9:6), in whose time the tribes of Jacob will be gathered (Is:11; cf. Micah 3:4, etc.). Will not anyone be forced to confess that He is described who is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel,” and who said of Himself, “I am the light of the world” (as St Cyril notes)? Since there can be no doubt that “light of the nations” and “salvation of the Lord” designate spiritual and heavenly gifts, it follows that what is said in the first clause about raising up the tribes of Jacob must be understood in the same way. The sense of the combined expression is: not only to the people Israel, but to all, you will bring the highest benefits. Behold how far His labor is from being in vain! And since this response is given after the complaint, it already intimates that for that humiliation, hardship, and great exertion of strength such a reward will be repaid to Him.
The same connection between the humiliation and contempt of the Servant of the Lord and His glory and exaltation is brought out even more clearly, and at the same time what was indicated in verse 4 is explained more explicitly, in Is 49:7: “Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, His Holy One, to the despised soul, to the one abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: kings shall see and arise, princes also, and they shall prostrate themselves, because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.” The Hebrew reads “to the abomination of a nation,” that is, to him who is an abomination and an object of contempt to the nation. St Jerome notes that Theodotion translated: “to him who is an abomination to the nation”; similarly the Septuagint has τῷ βδελυγμάτι τῶν ἐθνῶν. Even in Latin writers gens is sometimes said of a single person, meaning lineage or offspring; and in this way the word must be taken here, so that the sense corresponds to that of the original text. The Lord is called the Redeemer, liberator, and avenger of the people (cf. Is 48:20), and His Holy One, who as such wishes to bring the people back to true holiness; since these titles are used here, there must be a connection between them and the divine utterance reported in this place. Since the address is made to one who appears contemptible, who is an abomination to men, and who is regarded as a servant subjected to harsh masters, and yet it is announced to him that kings and princes will rise and prostrate themselves in great reverence because of the Lord, there is no doubt that consolation is being given to him for that humble condition, and it is indicated that from that rejection and misery the honor and worship of God will arise, or that this lowly condition is the path by which both the Servant of the Lord Himself will come to glory and kings and princes will be led to humble veneration. Thus it will come to pass that the faithfulness of God is acknowledged and the work of His holiness is esteemed, which shines forth most clearly in the very election of the Servant by God. Hence it is implied that what was said in verse 3 will come about: “in you I will show myself glorious.” At the same time the complaint proposed in verse 4—about labor in vain and the like—is here partly explained and partly intensified by the opprobrium set forth which the Servant of the Lord will have to endure. These reproaches are only sketched here in general terms; they are explained and described more and more fully in Is 50:6 and Is 53:2–12. Thus here too we observe what is frequent in Isaiah, that things previously mentioned briefly and almost in passing are later set forth more clearly and abundantly.
That in this verse also the discourse concerns the same person and is addressed to the same one as in what precedes seems altogether certain. For that the discourse in Is 49:8-9 is about the same one is clear from the fact that the address is made to him in the same words and the same tasks are assigned to him as in verse 6 and 49:6. Since therefore the “you” in Is 49:6, 8-9 must necessarily be understood of one and the same person, it cannot be that in the intervening verse, Is 49:7 it is taken of some other; unless there were the clearest and weightiest reasons for such a change of person. But far from there being such reasons, both the immediate and the more remote context indicate the same person. For the Servant of the Lord is described from the very beginning as the chosen one of the Lord, and no other in this chapter is designated by that name; since therefore it is said “who has chosen you,” no one else can be thought of. The distress described in verse 1 is partly already hinted at in verse 4, is again presupposed in verse 8, and finally is exhibited in the Servant of the Lord most explicitly in Is 50:6 and Is 53:9 and following; therefore verse 7 too must be understood of the same one. The glory that will arise from the humble condition is expressed in the same way in Is 49:6-8, and is also clearly described of the Servant of the Lord in 50 and following and Is 53:11–12; hence it would be arbitrary to take the intermediate verse 7 in a different sense, when in fact the preceding statements are illuminated by it and it itself is further explained almost word for word in what follows. Finally, it scarcely needs to be noted, since the matter is so clear, how fully this verse too has been fulfilled in Christ. He is aptly called the “servant of rulers,” because He comes forth from a people placed under foreign domination; or, as St Jerome says, “who was a servant of princes and so humble that He stood before Annas and Caiaphas and was sent to Pilate and Herod to be crucified.” The connection between mockery and exaltation is well brought out by St Cyril, Eusebius, and Theodoret; most interpreters also acknowledge that the discourse concerns the Messiah, including among the more recent Reinke, Neteler, Rohl, Troch, Delitzsch, Nägelsbach, and others. Most fittingly there is added to the description of the “servant of rulers” the depiction of the astonishment and reverence with which kings and princes—who otherwise demand prostration from others—will themselves, struck with awe, rise from their thrones and prostrate themselves. In the first part you have the utmost reproach and mockery; in the second, the highest expression of honor. Is not the same reality depicted that St Paul expressed: “He humbled Himself… therefore God also exalted Him”?
Most Latin interpreters take the words in such a way that they refer both to Christ and to the “abhorred nation,” that is, to Christ’s disciples, to the Christian people, chiefly because of the Latin text. I have already said that this is not necessary; for the discourse is not about a nation, but, as the Septuagint, the Syriac, and Theodotion have rightly interpreted the Hebrew, about one who is held in abomination by a nation. Therefore there is no need at all to take the “you” in a collective sense. Nor is Forerius rightly cited in support of this view with Acts 13:47, where the Apostle Paul proves his mission to the Gentiles by saying: “For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you may be for salvation to the ends of the earth.” From this it follows only that what is true of Christ the Head is in its own way also true of the members of Christ, as Sasbout rightly notes, referring us to the first rule of Tyconius concerning Christ and His body, the Church (cf. St Augustine, De doctrina christiana 3.30–31). Thus Christ, who called Himself the light of the world, also says to His disciples, “You are the light of the world,” and through the preaching of the Church He truly becomes the “light of the nations.” The Apostle therefore argues from the fact that the Messiah must become the light of the nations, and that he himself is sent to preach Christ, that he must announce the Gospel to the Gentiles. This argument is entirely legitimate, but it in no way makes the “you” in the first instance and of itself to be taken in a collective sense. The discourse is about one; but because that one is He to whose image and likeness the rest who are His must be conformed, who said that He must be followed, who is the Head of the body, the Church, whose members are the baptized, it follows that what is said of Christ is often in its own way extended also to Christians.
Why St Jerome, who cites the version of Theodotion and indicates Aquila’s agreement, and who prefers the interpretation concerning Christ to that concerning the Jewish nation and at the end of the commentary takes this passage only of the Messiah, nevertheless translated “to the abhorred nation,” who could say—or who would allow himself to be led away from the proper sense by that translation?
Maldonatus, Mariana, Calmet, Dereser, and Schegg think that these words should be understood of the Jewish nation. Calmet indeed, in addition to this interpretation, does not deny that it could be explained of Cyrus, and he asserts that there are also fairly plausible reasons for those who interpret it of Isaiah; nor does he exclude John the Baptist; and finally he affirms that everything is fulfilled in Christ. But such a multitude of explanations would rather leave us impoverished. St Thomas, in the earlier place, explains it of the Jewish nation; then he adds: or of Christ, who in the Passion was despised and judged as a servant. But since in verses 6 and 8 the discourse is about the Messiah, in the intermediate verse 7 the same address cannot be directed to another. I have already given above other reasons why, in the literal sense, this prophecy is made here about the Servant of the Lord, that is, the Messiah. Finally, I note that Bar Hebraeus here and in verse 1 understands Zerubbabel.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment