Verses 21-29
4. THE SECOND CONVERSION OF PROPHECY INTO A TEST OF DIVINITY
21 37Produce your cause, saith the Lord;
Bring forth your 38strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.
22 Let them bring them forth, and show us what shall happen:
Let them show the former things, what they be,
That we may 39Consider them, and know the latter end of them;
Or 40declare us things for to come.
23 Show the things that are to come hereafter,
That we may know that ye are gods:
Yea, do good, or do evil,
41That we may be dismayed, and behold it together.
24 Behold, ye are 42of nothing,
An abomination is he that chooseth you.
25 I have raised up one from the north, and he 45shall come:
Prom the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name:And he shall come upon 46princes as upon mortar,
And as the potter treadeth clay.
26 Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know?
And beforetime, that we may say, 47He is righteous?
Yea, there is none that 48showeth, yea, there is none hthat declareth,
Yea, there is none that hheareth your words.
27 49The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them:
And I will give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings.
28 50For I beheld, and there was no man;
Even among them, and there was no counsellor,
That, when I asked of them, could 51answer a word.
29 Behold they are all vanity;
Their works are nothing:
Their molten images are wind and confusion.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
See List for the recurring of the words: Isaiah 41:21. רִיב–קָרְבוּ. Isaiah 41:22. הבאות—אחרית. ver.23. אתיות אָחוֹר––. Isaiah 41:25. טִיט––רָמַם––יוֹצֵר––חֹמֶר. Ver 26. מֵרֹאשׁ Isaiah 41:28. יוֹעֵץ Isaiah 41:29. תֹהוּ––רוּחַ––אֶפֶם––אָוֶן נֶמֶךְ––
Isaiah 41:21. עַצֻּמָה is ἅπ. λεγ. The root meaning is robora, comp. עָצוּם “strong,” עֲצוּמִים “strength, might,” Psalms 10:10, תַּֽעֲצוּמם “fires,” Ps. 68:36.
Isaiah 41:23. אַף with וְ in the second clause appears not merely to have the meaning sive—sive, but there lies in אף something intensive in relation to what precedes, that we may best express by “yea.”—That וְ acquires the meaning “or,” appears from alternative questions “whether—or,” “num—an” being regularly expressed in Hebrew by אִם–וְאִם, and also that, exceptionally, simply וְ connects the two clauses (Jeremiah 44:28; Ewald § 352 b).—The Kal נִרְאֶה (so K’thibh is to be read, whereas K’ri is to be pronounced וְנֵרֶא) occasions surprise. Perhaps we should read נֵרָא (first pers. plur. imperf. Niph., comp. יֵרָא Exodus 34:3; וַיֵרָא Genesis 12:7; Genesis 17:1, etc.). As this first pers. plur. imp. Niph. happens not to occur again in the Old Testament, perhaps the Masorets preferred to point the consonants like the first pers. plur. imperf. Kal., which often occurs in the full form, but which also fails to occur in the apocopated form.
Isaiah 41:24. I translate &מֵאֶֽפַע מֵאַיִן here “out of the nothing,” whereas Isaiah 40:17 I maintained the comparative meaning of מִן 1 think that we are justified in this by the difference of the verbs used in the two places. There נֶחְשַׁב was predicate, here it is the notion of being. There the rhetorical, exaggerated “more than nothing” was more suitable; here it suits better to take מן as indicative of origin.—There is no need of treating אפע as a copyist’s error for מֵאֶפֶם as many recent commentators do. The serpent name אֶפְעֶה (Isaiah 30:6; Isaiah 59:5) i.e., “ sibilans, the whistler,” is proof enough that there is a verb פעה, kindred in sense to הֶבֶל, “breath, wind” (see on אפעה Isaiah 42:14). From this may be derived אֶפְעַי, from which אֶפַע, like אֶמֶשׁ from אַמְשַׁי אֶשֶׁךְ, from אַשְׁכַּי.
Isaiah 41:25. וַיַּאת contracted from וַיַּאַת, occurs only here, whereas the form וַיִּתֵא (from יֶֽאֱתֶה Proverbs 1:27; Job 37:22) occurs Deuteronomy 33:21.—קרא בשׁם is undoubtedly used in the sense of calling on God in worship. In itself the expression means “to call with the name,” not in the name; for בְּ is used here as instrumental. This appears from the fact that the expression elsewhere means a) “to call, name (one) with their name:” Exodus 35:30; Numbers 32:42; Isaiah 45:4 (I called to thee by means of thy name), or, with omission of the personal object, Isaiah 43:1; Isaiah 45:3, etc.—b) “to shout, proclamare, proclamationem facere, κηρύσσειν, to give an announcing, instructing call by means of the name.” Thus, as I think, in those obscure passages, Exodus 33:19; Exodus 34:5, with which also Isaiah 45:5 connects. Here God sends forth a call in Moses’ ears, which is done by naming the Jehovah-name and giving its meaning, ibid Isaiah 41:6.––––I do not think that סְגָבִים is a specific Persian word. The word schihne, to which appeal is made, is modern Persian. The word is used Jeremiah 51:23; Jeremiah 51:28; Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel 23:12; Ezekiel 23:23, and occurs in these passages as designation for Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian dignitaries. Thus the word appears to have been, I may say, international. Ezra uses it once Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah oftener: Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:8; Nehemiah 5:7, etc. Later it even passed over into the vocabulary of recent Hebrew. Since Ezekiel speaks of Assyrian סגנים, we may assume that there were such, and as Babylon and Persia obtained dominion after Assyria, we may conjecture that the name came to them from Assyria. Then it cannot seem strange that Isaiah uses the word. מָנָן is, however, really an Assyrian word. “The root sakan (שָׁבַן), connected with בוּן, is in Assyrian the usual word for ‘to place, appoint,.” Sakan, accordingly, denotes properly the one appointed, commissioned, then the. representative, vicegerent. Thus Schrader l. c. p.270. Moreover, the word corresponds to the מצפון and ממזרח–שׁמשׁ. For one sees also from מגנים, that the raised-up ruler will be one who issues from the region of the Iranian tongue.
Isaiah 41:26. מִלְּפָנִים only here.
Isaiah 41:28. מֵאֵלֶּה is constr. Prœgnans: for the preposition מִן depends on a verb that is only ideally present. We must derive the notion “seeking out” from וְאֵרֶא.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. We showed above that with our Prophet the promise of deliverance out of exile, and the turning of this promise to account as proof of divinity, go hand in hand. Having now described in Isaiah 41:1-20 the redeemer (Isaiah 41:2-3) and the redeemed (Isaiah 41:8-16) and the destined salvation (Isaiah 41:17-20), the Prophet goes on here to turn them to account in the way referred to. He had made a beginning of this in Isaiah 41:4-7 after the first mention of the saviour from the East, but did not carry out the thought there. It appears as if he would there content himself with a passing reference in contrast with the fright of the heathen at the alarming demands made on their faith in idols. But now, having presented all that related to the deliverance from exile, he proceeds in earnest. He pays no more regard to that reluctance proceeding from a bad conscience. He sets forth with all seriousness that the Lord regards His prediction of the deliverance as a proof of His divinity, and the inability of idols to predict anything, or in fact to do anything, as a proof of their nothingness. The more exact development consists in this, that here Jehovah challenges the idols themselves directly to a contest, and that, more plainly than in Isaiah 41:2 sq., He proffers His prediction as a proof of His divinity. Although the idols do not at all relish the contest, still they must come on and take up the gauntlet (Isaiah 41:21-23). On their failure to tell anything they are pronounced to be nothing (Isaiah 41:24). Then Jehovah repeats the prediction of a deliverer from the East (Isaiah 41:25), and again shows that not the idols have foretold this (Isaiah 41:26), but that He, Jehovah, would give this deliverer to His people for a saviour, and at the same time as a pledge of the fulfilment of further promises that reach into a still more remote future (Isaiah 41:27). Finally the Prophet himself resumes the discourse, in order to establish the nothingness of his idolatrous quasi colleagues. For if the idols are nothing, so, too, must their interpreters show that they are know-nothings.
2. Produce your cause——chooseth you.
Isaiah 41:21-24. The Lord challenges the idols to come on and bring to a practical decision this cause, long pending in thesi, and produce the proofs that they have for their cause. One thinks involuntarily of Elijah’s challenge to the priests of Baal, 1 Kings 18:21 sqq. Jehovah is often called King of the chosen people (comp. on Isaiah 43:15); but the expression King of Jacob occurs only here (comp אֲבִיר יעקכGen 49:24; Isaiah 49:26; Isaiah 60:16; Psalms 132:2; Psalms 132:5, and משֵׁל ביעקבPsa 59:14). In Isaiah 41:22 the Lord addresses Israel, claiming them for His side, and identifying His and their cause. יַגִּישׁוּ connects as repetition with הגישו Isaiah 41:21. What they shall produce is their עצמות “bulwarks.” In what this producing proof shall consist is further explained by the words תקרינה־ויגידו (see Isaiah 45:21). By הרְשׁנות commentators understand either prius praedicta (Gesenius: “say what ye have formerly prophesied”), or the immediate future in contrast with the more remote, which they say is expressed by הבאות and אתיות לאחור. But in my opinion the former conflicts with the article, and the latter with usus loq. which forbids the distinction between ראשׁנות and באות as near and remote future. I think that ראשׁנת in contrast with הבאות can mean nothing but the past contrasted with the future. The immediate and proper meaning of the word is undoubtedly “first, beginning, original things.” Thus Genesis 41:20הַפָּרוֹת הר׳ are “the cows that first appeared.” Thus everywhere ראשׁגות are the first or beginning things or facts; whether prophecies or other things must be determined in each case by the context. Comp. Isaiah 42:9; Isaiah 43:9; Isaiah 43:18; Isaiah 46:9; Isaiah 48:3. Here the Lord demands of the idols, that they shall either give correct information of the past, thus, as it were, of the roots or foundations of the course of the world, so that one may thereby infer what the future will be, or they shall foretell the future directly. The Prophet, as appears to me, assumes here that we may foretell the future directly and indirectly, as e.g., it is the same whether I say: the fruit of this tree will be apples; or the roots are those of an apple tree. For if the latter be true, then the fruit must be apples. The correct knowledge of the future depends on a correct knowledge of the past. Both have riddles revealed only to the omniscience of God, and hence both are tests of divinity. Such, I think, is the Lord’s meaning when He calls on the idols to produce the fundamental things of the past, and that according to their inmost being (מָה הֵבָּה). If they do this correctly, then it will be possible for attentive reflection (נָשִׂימָה לבֵּנוּ only here in Isaiah; comp. Exodus 9:21; Job 1:8; Job 2:3; Ezekiel 44:5) to know correctly the issue, thus the conclusion that falls in the future. Comp. especially Isaiah 46:10 sq., where the Lord names as a prerogative of His divinity the power to foretell from the beginning he final issue, from ancient time what has not yet come to pass. By אוֹ, “or else,” the alternatives offered to the idols to foretell the future directly, if they will.
Isaiah 41:23, the Prophet proceeds, summing up the idea of ראשׁנות and באות, both which relate to he future; Shew the things that are to be hereafter, i.e., whose realization is fixed for a more remote period. The concluding clause and we will know, etc., states ironically what must result if the idols meet the demand: they will then be recognized as gods. But the Lord proceeds, moderating His demand to the utmost, in order to strike his opponents only the harder: yea, do good or do evil (a proverbial expression, comp. Jeremiah 10:5; Zephaniah 1:12). Let them anyway do something. It is not meant; let them prophesy good or bad. The idea of their prophesying at all is dismissed with נרעה—“that we may know,” etc. The clause ונשׁתעה ו׳ (“to look eye in eye in conflict,” like התראה2Ki 14:8; 2 Kings 14:11) presents the conclusion from what precedes. If the idols accept the challenge, then there may be a contest. If not, then eo ipso they are defeated. The idols neither accept nor decline; hence the Lord concludes with the contemptuous words of Isaiah 41:24. Are the idols nothings, then of course, those that choose them (comp. on Isaiah 41:8) are an abomination to the Lord. The expression תּועֵבָה, especially combined with יהוה, is very frequent in Deut. (Deuteronomy 12:31; Deuteronomy 17:1; Deuteronomy 18:12; Deuteronomy 22:5, etc.) especially in reference to idolatry.
3. I have raised up——confusion.
Isaiah 41:25-29. Having proved the inability of idols to prophesy, the Lord produces a prophecy, that is a pledge of His divinity. Thus He risks all on this prophecy. His honor perishes if it is not fulfilled. As He does not fear the latter, but utters it with absolute confidence, He gives for the present, not indeed a judicial proof of His divinity, but still He raises a legal presumption in favor of it (prœsumtio juris, which, as is known, is something very different from a presumption (conjecture) in the common sense). And that even is something great, for it suffices for those that are honestly willing to know the truth. In Isaiah’s time still the people wavered between Jehovah and idols. Isaiah’s endeavor was to bring them to a decision for the Lord. These prophecies (40–66), meant for future consolation, were intended to affect also the present, i.e., to move the nation to believe in the Lord. If, then, Isaiah in Hezekiah’s time stood up so confidently for Jehovah, as he does here, every one at all susceptible of the truth must have said to himself: the Prophet would not dare so to speak were he not conscious of being warranted to do so. For he risks the utter ruin of his and his God’s cause, if this prophecy turn out to be an imposture. The prophecy, Isaiah 41:25, is somewhat oracular in form. In contents it has that obscurity peculiar to all images of the future, which rise so distant from the beholder that one is unable to detect their connection with the present, and thus the successive, organic genesis of their forms. It is further worthy of notice that the prophecy, Isaiah 41:25, connects with Isaiah 41:2-3. I have raised up, Isaiah 41:25, is like an answer to “who raised up,” Isaiah 41:2; from the north and from the rising define more particularly the simple “from the rising,” Isaiah 41:2; he shall call on my name corresponds to “called him to his foot,” Isaiah 41:2; and the following words that begin with יבוא, as Isaiah 41:3 closes, describe the irresistibleness of him that is called essentially in the same way as Isaiah 41:2 b, Isaiah 41:3, with only this difference, that Isaiah 41:2 speaks of nations and kings in general, whereas Isaiah 41:25 the word סגנים (“satraps”) points even more plainly to the theatre where the one called performs. That העירותי, Isaiah 41:25, is without an object, corresponds to the terseness proper to the oracular style. The object is easily supplied, partly from Isaiah 41:2, partly from the following, ויאת וגו׳. That the one promised is called from the North, but comes from the East, is not to be pressed. The Prophet would only intimate that his point of departure is not merely the East, as might appear from Isaiah 41:2, but also from the North. We know how this occurred in the case of Cyrus. He arose as ruler of the (by him) united kingdoms of Media and Persia, the former of which lay north, the latter east of Babylon. יקרא בשׁמי, He shall call on my name (see Text. and Gram.) mentions another characteristic of the one called. That Cyrus actually did this appears from 2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2 sqq. He must have received vivid impressions of the reality of the God of Israel. Comp. on this Pressel in Herz., R.-Enc. III, p. 232. We will not inquire whether Cyrus, in calling Jehovah “the God of heaven,” identified Him with Ahuramazda or not (comp. Zoeckler on 2 Chronicles 36:23). But it is historically attested in the most credible manner, and is in itself perfectly comprehensible, that God, who in general let the heathen go their own way (Acts 14:16), should in an exceptional way give them extraordinary revelations of His being. In the period preceding the Christian era He did this in two significant epochs through Israel, in consequence of its missionary vocation, viz., in the two exiles, the Egyptian and the Babylonian. In both instances the revelation came to the dominant world-power at the moment of its highest prosperity. In regard to Egypt comp., e.g., Lepsius (Chronol. d. Egypter, I., p. 359), who calls the period of Moses and of the departure of the Israelites “the most illustrious time of all Egyptian history.” In regard to Babylon the same thing appears from the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is designated as the golden head (Daniel 2:38). The Lord would not let Himself be without witness to those who knew no limits to their power, for their own sakes partly, partly for His own name’s sake, partly for the sake of mankind in general, partly for the sake of Israel. The Lord would show His power to Pharaoh, that His name might be declared throughout all the earth, and to accomplish His judgments on all the gods of Egypt (Exodus 9:16; comp. Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 8:19; Isaiah 14:4; Isaiah 14:17-18; Isaiah 14:25). And that this purpose was achieved appears from the confessions of Pharaoh himself, of his servants, and of his army (Exodus 9:20; Exodus 9:27; Exodus 10:7; Exodus 10:16; Exodus 14:25). As regards the Babylonian Exile, the entire first half of the book of Daniel is meant to show how Jehovah so marvellously glorified Himself on those nations and their kings, that they cannot escape acknowledging Him as the true God (comp. my work: Jeremiah and Babylon, p. 2 sqq.), at least for the moment (for we know nothing of any outward, observable abiding effect—at most the adoration of the Magi, Matthew 2:0, might be appealed to here. What (according to Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:28 sq.; Daniel 4:34; Daniel 5:17 sqq.; Daniel 6:25 sqq.), Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Darius the Mede knew, was any way preliminary to the knowledge on the basis of which Cyrus issued his edict, Ezra 1:2 sqq. Certainly we cannot impute to Cyrus less knowledge than that ascribed to his predecessors in the passages cited. If we were right in saying that “he shall call on my name” corresponds to “has called him to his foot,” Isaiah 41:2, then this is to be defined, that according to Isaiah 41:2 the Lord called Cyrus, and according to Isaiah 41:25 Cyrus called on the Lord. It is further said of Cyrus that he will come on satraps as on mortar, etc. בֹּוא, in the sense of hostile coming like Isaiah 28:15; Psalms 35:8; Job 15:21; Job 20:22; Proverbs 28:22. In all these passages בּוֹא stands with the accusative (localis).
The Prophet, Isaiah 41:26, assumes the standpoint of the fulfilment. He represents to himself that then the inquiry will naturally arise: who hath declared this from the beginning, that we may know, i.e., that we might know beforehand the coming of these things (Isaiah 41:22-23)? And who announced it from early time, so that now we might say: right? צדיק is what corresponds to a norm: not only a moral, or some special juridical norm, but also the norm of truth. Hence אֱמֶת, Isaiah 43:9, stands in a precisely similar connection. Yet the last-named meaning is supported by no other example. Hence it seems to me likely that the Prophet joins with it the sense of moral Rightness. A god whose prophecy fails is morally condemned. But if it comes to pass, he is morally justified; he is no liar, but truly what he gives himself out to be (comp. Isaiah 14:21). But again there has never been any announcement and bringing to the ears on the part of the idols, nor hearing on the part of men (Isaiah 41:22-23). אף (comp. Isaiah 40:24), recurring thrice, paints with a certain breadth the absence on every hand of what was requisite.
Isaiah 41:27, the Prophet defines more particularly the salvation that the one called of God shall bring to the people of God. It was said, Isaiah 41:25, in general, that he would call on the name of the Lord, and destroy the hostile powers. Now he is defined to be the first-fruit of the salvation destined for Zion. The LXX. translate ἀρχὴν Σιὼν δώσω. Peschito: primordia Sionis haec sunt. As far as I can see, all expositors construe רִאשׁוִן as nominative and relating to Jehovah; and either supply אָמַרְתִּי, or connect רְשׁון with אֶתֵּן. The words הנה הבם are by some put in the mouth of Jehovah, by others in Zion’s mouth, by others in that of the מְבַשֵׂר, and the suffixes (pronouns) are referred now to the exiles, now to the deliverer, now to facts of redemption, now to the idols. I refer ראשׁון to Cyrus. In an eminent sense he was the beginner of the redemption. Israel’s decline lasted till the close of the Exile. With difficulty (Daniel 9:25), slowly, and with great alternations, it mounts up; but still it mounts up. The believers that looked for the restitution of Israel in all its promised glory directly after the seventy years, under the anointed son of David, struggle with many assaults of doubt, as they observe only very meagre beginnings of a redemption (comp. Daniel 10:1-3, and Auberlen, D. Proph. Daniel, p. 132 sq.) But the laws of prophetic perspective were hid from them, which sees the end already in the beginning, though long periods of vicissitude separate one from the other. Cyrus is called מְשִׁיחַ יהוה, Isaiah 45:1. He was not the proper and true Messiah, but he was the first after the great period of judgment. He was the first-fruit—messiah, the beginner of the restoration of Israel. His edict, Ezra 1:2 sqq., was the first step toward realizing for Israel that שׁוּב (“return”), that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all their successors represent as the sum total of bodily and spiritual redemption for Israel. I construe הִנֵּה הִנָּם as an exclamation of the Prophet, by which he points to the consequences of that first-fruit—redemption. For the notion “first” includes that of “following” or “consequences.” In spirit the Prophet sees these before him, and points to them with a brief הנה הנם. He calls Cyrus a מְבַשֵּׂר: what more joyful news could the Lord propose for His people than that they may return home to rebuild Jerusalem? בִּשַּׂר, comp. on Isaiah 40:9.
As Isaiah 41:26 is related to Isaiah 41:25, so Isaiah 41:28-29 are related to Isaiah 41:27. Each of these prophetic lamps shines in strong contrast with the picture of the nothingness of idols that acts as a foil. Only it seems to me that so far there is a difference, in that Isaiah 41:26 the Prophet has in mind the idols themselves, whereas in Isaiah 41:28-29 he has in mind their worshippers, especially their priests (see below). Isaiah 41:28 has three gradations. The first clause is obscure; it speaks only of the looking around and the non-existence of something, but one knows not what one has looked about for. The second clause makes known those among whom the Prophet has looked, and what he was looking for. He seeks a יוֹעֵץ “counsellor, one, however, that can prophetically resolve the riddles of the future. This is made plain in the third clause: but there was no counsellor of whom I could inquire and who could give me answer. The reason of this is given Isaiah 41:29 : the gods that should inspire the answer in their worshippers are no gods but the manufacture of those who worship them. Thus Isaiah 41:29 speaks of those that make the idols, and not of the idols themselves. And because “they all” (בֻּלָּם) are identical with the אֵלֶּה (“them) of Isaiah 41:28, among whom no counsellor is found, therefore Isaiah 41:28 speaks not of the idols, but of their servants, and especially of those who, on account of their office, should be qualified to give counsel and render a decision, thus the priests and prophets. And because it is not to be supposed that the Lord looks for a counsellor and giver of decrees, therefore the subject of וְאֵרָא (“I looked about”) Isaiah 41:28, is not Jehovah, but the Prophet. Thus the chapter concludes with an apostrophe of the true Prophet to the false ones, and אֵלֶה is said δεικτικῶς. With this reference to the manufacture of idols, the Prophet returns to the thought with which he also closed the first strophe (Isaiah 41:6-7).
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The second part of Isaiah lays unusual stress on the inability of idols to prophesy. As this, on the one hand, is a proof of the nothingness of idols, so on the other, Jehovah’s ability to foretell the future is made a proof of His divinity. Hence, when the Lord challenges the idols to a contest in prophesying, and then on His part stands forth with an imposing prophetic performance, that has for its subject the deliverance of Israel from the Exile, one sees that two objects are combined, viz.: He comforts His people, and He proves His divinity. Thus we see that the Prophet’s view-point is partly at the end of the Exile and partly before the Exile. The former because he sees the deliverer quite clearly and distinctly before him; the latter because it is all important for him to display his Lord as knowing the remote future, and thus as true God. Thus he would win Israel by representing on the one hand the omniscence of their God, and on the other His faithful love and power. And this object was attained. Israel would assuredly not have buried their gross idolatry in the Exile, had they not verified both the threatenings and the promises of Jehovah’s Prophet in the most signal manner. But this grand effect could only be produced by the promises being recognized on all sides as genuine, old prophecies. Prophecies that gave themselves out for old, but hitherto hidden must have raised doubts, and contradicted themselves. For it is expressly said Isaiah 45:19; Isaiah 48:16 that these things were not spoken in secret.
2. [On Isaiah 41:1. “The same reasons will apply to all approaches which are made to God. When we are about to come before Him in prayer or praise; to confess our sins and to plead for pardon; when we engage in argument respecting His being, plans, or perfections; or when we draw near to Him in the closet, the family, or the sanctuary, the mind should be filled with awe and reverence. It is well, it is proper, to pause and think of what our emotions should be, and of what we should say before God. Comp. Genesis 28:16-17.”—Barnes.
3. On Isaiah 41:6-7. “Do sinners thus animate and quicken one another in the ways of sin? And shall not the servants of the living God both stir up one another to, and strengthen one another in, His service?”—M. Henry.]
4. On Isaiah 41:8 sqq. The Lord here founds His comforting promise on the election in Abraham. Compare with this the saying of John Baptist: “Begin not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” etc., Luke 3:8-9. This sounds contradictory. But one must distinguish between the individual and the whole. Not every individual generation, in general no individual part, great or small, of the totality of Israel can insist on the election of Abraham, and regard itself as exempt and unimpeachable on that account. For history teaches that great judgments have come on individuals and on the nation almost to their annihilation. But, of course, a remnant will always remain, if only just large enough to afford seed for a new generation. The Lord says this expressly in the great inaugural vision, Isaiah 6:11-13, and such, too, is the meaning of that significant Shear-Jashub (Isaiah 10:20 sqq.). The Apostle Paul has this meaning when he says: “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” Romans 11:29.
5. On Isaiah 41:9-10. “A rich treasure of manifold comfort: 1) that God strengthens us; 2) that God calls us; 3) that He accepts us as servants; 4) that He chooses us; 5) that He does not reject us; 6) that He is with us; 7) that He is our God; 8) that He helps and preserves us. This ought to be turned to good account by everyone whatever may chance to be His need.”—Cramer.
6. On Isaiah 41:14 sqq. What a contrast! A poor little worm, and a new threshing instrument with double-edged points that rends mountains to pieces! When was the church of either the Old or New Testament ever such a threshing instrument? First of all, the Babylonian Empire was threshed to pieces that Israel might be free. Afterwards many kingdoms and nations were threshed in pieces and made subject to the Roman Empire that the church of the New Testament might grow and spread abroad. Afterwards the Roman Empire itself was threshed in pieces to gain for the church a new, fresh, healthy soil in the Germanic nations. But finally the Germanic nations will in turn be threshed in pieces that the church may become the free, pure kingdom of Christ ruling over all. So the church, the poor little worm Jacob, rends in pieces one form of the world-power after another, until it issues from the last as the glorious bride of the Lord.
7. On Isaiah 41:21 sqq. “It was customary to expect of seers and prophets such a deep look into the obscurity of the past and present, as Saul imputed to his Seer (1 Samuel 9:0), as well as prevision into the future; which, in the Hellenic world, is illustrated in the Homeric Kalchas, as a knower of what exists, of what was, as well as of what will be (Hom. Ilias. I. 70)” Ed. Mueller. Parallelen zu den Weiss. u. Typen des A. T. aus dem hell. Alterth. in Jahrbücher d. Klass. Philol. VIII. Suppl. Band. I. Heft. p. 108.
HOMILETICAL HINTS
1. On Isaiah 41:8-13. God chose Abraham, and in Abraham the Israel of the Old Testament, and in Israel of the Old Testament the Israel of the New Testament. This fact of the election certifies to the church the sure pledge of its final conquest, for 1) the Lord cannot forsake the congregation of the elect; 2) He must make an end of those that contend against them.
2. On Isaiah 41:14-16. The church as it seems, and as it Isaiah 1:0) It seems to be a worm, a poor crowd; 2) It is really a. strong in the Lord (Isaiah 41:14-16Isaiah 41:14-16Isaiah 41:14-16 a); b, joyful in the Lord (Isaiah 41:16 b).
3. On Isaiah 41:17-20. He that is exposed to trials, who trusts in God, is not to be bewailed, since for Him; 1) life is indeed a desert; 2) but the desert becomes a paradise by the miraculous hand of God; 3) the miraculous hand of God summons him to grateful recognition.
4. On Isaiah 41:21-29. Against the modern heathenism, that in the place of the living, personal God would set abstractions that operate mechanically and unconsciously, one may prove the existence of the personal God by reference to the prophecies that were undoubtedly given and have been fulfilled. Only the living God can prophesy and fulfil. For 1) Divine omniscience is needed to foreknow the future; 2) Divine omnipotence and wisdom are needed to fulfil what has been foretold.
5. On the entire 41 chapter see Johann Christian Holzhen, Pastor in Mortitz, “Pastor divinitus electus et legitime vocatus, the divinely elected and legitimately called preacher.” A sermon, or rather tract in twelve chapters. Lübeck, 1695, 8vo.
Footnotes:
[37]Heb. Cause to come, near.
[38]bulwarks.
[39]Heb. set our heart upon them.
[40]make us hear.
[41]And we will confront one another, and inspect with one another.
[42]Or, worse than nothing.
[43]Or, worse than a viper.
[44]wind.
[45]has
[46]satraps.
[47]Right.
[48]showed: declared: heard.
[49]A first-fruit to Zion—see, see it comes—a messenger of joy I will give to Jerusalem.
[50]But.
[51]Heb. return.
Be the first to react on this!
