Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · Isaiah Capitolo 41

Summons to the contest: “Be silent to me, ye islands; and let the nations procure fresh strength: let them come near, then speak; we will enter into contest together.” The words are addressed to the whole of the heathen world, and first of all to the inhabitants of the western islands and coasts. This was the expression commonly employed in the Old Testament to designate the continent of Europe, the solid ground of which is so deeply cut, and so broken up, by seas and lakes, that it looks as if it were about to resolve itself into nothing but islands and peninsulas. על החרישׁ is a pregnant expression for turning in silence towards a person; just as in Job 13:13 it is used with min, in the sense of forsaking a person in silence. That they may have no excuse if they are defeated, they are to put on fresh strength; just as in Isaiah 40:31 believers are spoken of as drawing fresh strength out of Jehovah's fulness. They are to draw near, then speak, i.e., to reply after hearing the evidence, for Jehovah desires to go through all the forms of a legal process with them in pro et contra . The m ishpât is thought of here in a local sense, as a forum or tribunal. But if Jehovah is one party to the cause, who is the judge to pronounce the decision? The answer to this question is the same as at Isaiah 5:3. “The nations,” says Rosenmüller, “are called to judgment, not to the tribunal of God, but to that of reason.” The deciding authority is reason, which cannot fail to recognise the facts, and the consequences to be deduced from them.

return to '

The parties invited are now to be thought of as present, and Jehovah commences in Isaiah 41:2: “Who hath raised up the man from the rising of the sun, whom justice meets at his foot, He giveth up nations before him, and kings He subdues, giveth men like the dust to his sword, and like driven stubble to his bow?” The sentence governed by “who” ( mı̄ ) ends at l e raglō (at his foot); at the same time, all that follows is spoken with the echo of the interrogative accent. The person raised up is Cyrus, who is afterwards mentioned by name. The coming one (if, that is to say, we adhere to the belief in Isaiah's authorship of these addresses) first approaches gradually within the horizon of the prophet's ideal present; and it is only little by little that the prophet becomes more intimately acquainted with a phenomenon which belongs to so distant a future, and has been brought so close to his own eyes. Jehovah has raised up the new great hero “from the east” ( m immizrâch ), and, according to Isaiah 41:25, “from the north” also. Both of these were fulfilled; for Cyrus was a Persian belonging to the clan of Achaemenes ( Hakhâmanis ), which stood at the head of the tribe, or of the Pasargadae. He was the son of Cambyses; and even if the Median princess Mandane were not his mother, yet, according to nearly all the ancient accounts, he was connected with the royal house of Media; at any rate, after Astyages was dethroned, he became head and chief of the Medes as well as of the Persians (hence the name of “Mule” which was give to him by the oracle, and that given by Jerome, “ agitator bigae ”). Now Media was to the north of Babylonia, and Persia to the east; so that his victorious march, in which, even before the conquest of Babylon, he subjugated all the lands from the heights of Hinduku to the shores of the Aegean Sea, had for its starting-point both the east and north.

(Note: See Pahl'es Geschichte des Oriental. Alterthums. (1864), p. 170ff.)

The clause לרגלו יקראהוּ צדק is an attributive clause, and as such a virtual object: “him whom (supply עת־אשׁר ) justice comes to meet ( קרא ) = קרה , Ges. §75, vi.) on his track” (cf., Genesis 30:30; Job 18:11; Habakkuk 3:5). The idea of tsedeq is determined by what follows: Jehovah gives up nations before him, and causes kings to be trodden down (causative of râdâh ). Accordingly, tsedeq is either to be understood here in an attributive sense, as denoting the justice exercised by a person (viz., the justice executed successfully by Cyrus, as the instrument of Jehovah, by the force of arms); or objectively of the justice awarded to a person (to which the idea of “meeting” is more appropriate), viz., the favourable result, the victory which procures justice for the just cause of the combatant. Rosenmüller, Knobel, and others, are wrong in maintaining that tsedeq ( ts e dâqâh ) in chapters 40-66 signifies primarily justice, and the prosperity and salvation as its reward. The word means straightness, justice, righteousness, and nothing more (from tsâdaq , to be hard, firm, extended, straight, e.g., rumh - un - tsadq , a hard, firm, and straight lance); but it has a double aspect, because justice consists, according to circumstances, of either wrath of favour, and therefore has sometimes the idea of the strict execution of justice, as in this instance, sometimes of a manifestation of justice in fidelity to promises, as in Isaiah 41:10. יתּן is repeated here in Isaiah 41:2 (just like וילמדהו in Isaiah 40:14) with the same subject, but in a different sense. To make sword and bow the subject, in the sense of “his sword gives (sc., 'the foe'),” is a doubtful thing in itself; and as cherebh and qesheth are feminines, it is by no means advisable. Moreover, in other instances, the comparative כ leaves it to the reader to carry out the figure indicated according to his own fancy. And this is the case here: He (Jehovah) makes his sword as if there were dust, his bow as if there were hunted stubble (Böttcher), i.e., pounding the enemy like dust, and hunting it like flying stubble. Our text has כּעפר , but in certain codices we find כּעפר with tzere ; and this reading, which is contrary to rule, has in its favour the express testimony of Moses the punctuator.

(Note: In his הנקוד דרכי (rules of pointing), with which the Masora finalis is surrounded.)

return to '

The conqueror is now still further described in futures, which might be defined by העיר , and so express a simultaneous past (synchronistic imperfects), but which it is safer to take as standing traits in the picture drawn of the conqueror referred to. “He pursueth them and marcheth in peace by a course which he never trod with his feet.” He marches victoriously further and further, shâlōm ,” i.e., “in safety” (or, as an adjective, safely; Job 21:9), without any one being able to do him harm, by a course (accus. Ges. §138, 1) which he has not been accustomed to tread with his feet ( ingredi ).

return to '

The great fact of the present time, which not one of the gods of the heathen can boast of having brought to pass, is now explained. Jehovah is its author. “Who hath wrought and executed it? He who calleth the generations of men from the beginning, I Jehovah am first, and with the last am I He.” The synonyms פּעל and עשׂה are distinguished from each other in the same way as “to work” (or bring about) and “to realize” (or carry out). Hence the meaning is, Who is the author to whom both the origin and progress of such an occurrence are to be referred? It is He who “from the beginning,” i.e., ever since there has been a human history, has called into existence the generations of men through His authoritative command. And this is no other than Jehovah, who can declare of Himself, in contrast with the heathen and their gods, who are of yesterday, and tomorrow will not be: I am Jehovah, the very first, whose being precedes all history; and with the men of the latest generations yet to come “I am it.” הוּא is not introduced here to strengthen the subject, ego ille “I and no other,” as in Isaiah 37:16, which see); but, as in Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 56:4; Isaiah 48:12, it is a predicate of the substantive clause, ego sum is ( ille ), viz., 'Elōhı̄m ; or even as in Psalms 102:28 (cf., Job 3:19 and Hebrews 13:8), ego sum idem (Hitzig). They are both included, without any distinction in the assertion. He is this, viz., God throughout all ages, and is through all ages He, i.e., the Being who is ever the same in this His deity. It is the full meaning of the name Jehovah which is unfolded here; for God is called Jehovah as the absolute I, the absolutely free Being, pervading all history, and yet above all history, as He who is Lord of His own absolute being, in revealing which He is purely self-determined; in a word, as the unconditionally free and unchangeably eternal personality.

return to '

Jehovah has thus placed Himself in opposition to the heathen and their gods, as the God of history and prophecy. It now remains to be seen whether the idols will speak, to prove their deity. By no means; not only are they silent, but they cannot speak. Therefore Jehovah breaks out into words of wrath and contempt. “Behold, ye are of nothing, and your doing of nought: an abomination whoever chooseth you.” The two מן are partitive, as in Isaiah 40:17; and מאפע is not an error of the pen for מאפס , as Gesenius and others suppose, but אפע from עפע = פּה (from which comes פּה ), פּעה , Isaiah 42:14 (from which comes אפעה , Isaiah 59:5), to breathe, stands as a synonym to און , הבל , רוח . The attributive clause בּכם יבחר (supply אשׁר חוּא ) is a virtual subject (Ewald, §333, b): ye and your doings are equally nil; and whoever chooses you for protectors, and makes you the objects of his worship, is morally the most degraded of beings.

return to '

The more conclusively and incontrovertibly, therefore, does Jehovah keep the field as the moulder of history and foreteller of the future, and therefore as God above all gods. “I have raised up from the north, and he came: from the rising of the sun one who invokes my name; and he treads upon satraps as mud, and like a potter kneadeth clay.” The object of the verb hâ‛ı̄rōthı̄ (I have wakened up) is he who came when wakened up by Jehovah from the north and east, i.e., from Media and Persia ( ויּאת = ויּאתּ for ויּאת , with evasion of the auxiliary pathach , Ges. §76, 2, c), and, as the second clause affirms, who invokes or will invoke the name of Jehovah (at any rate, qui invocabit is the real meaning of qui invocat ). For although the Zarathustrian religion, which Cyrus followed, was nearest to the Jehovah religion of all the systems of heathenism, it was a heathen religion after all. The doctrine of a great God ( baga vazarka ), the Creator of heaven and earth, and at the same time of a great number of Bagas and Yazatas, behind whose working and worship the great God was thrown into the shade, is (apart from the dualism condemned in Isaiah 45:7) the substance of the sacred writings of the Magi in our possession, as confirmed by the inscriptions of the Achemenides.

(Note: Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, pp. 134, 135.)

But the awakened of Jehovah would, as is here predicted, “call with the name, or by means of the name, of Jehovah,” which may mean either call upon this name (Zephaniah 3:9; Jeremiah 10:25), or call out the name (compare Exodus 33:19; Exodus 34:5, with Exodus 35:30) in the manner in which he does make use of it in the edict setting the exiles free (Ezra 1:2). The verb יבא which follows (cf., Isaiah 41:2) designated him still further as a conqueror of nations; the verb construed with an accusative is used here, as is very frequently the case, in the sense of hostile attack. The word Sâgân , which is met with first in Ezekiel - apart, that is to say, from the passage before us - may have owed its meaning in the Hebrew vocabulary to its similarity in sound to sōkhēn (Isaiah 22:15); at any rate, it is no doubt a Persian word, which became naturalized in the Hebrew ( ζωγάνης in Athenaeus, and Neo-Pers. sichne , a governor: see Ges. Thes.), though this comparison is by no means so certain

(Note: Spiegel has the following remarks upon the subject: There is but very little probability in the etymologies which can be suggested for the word sâgân through the help of the old Persian. The new Persian shihne cannot be traced beyond Neo-Persian, and even there it is somewhat suspicious on account of the ḥ which it contains, and which is not Persian. The only real Persian word to which I could think of tracing it is shahr , a city (old Bactrian khshathra , or shoithra , a place of abode); or it might possibly have sprung from shoithraka , a supposititious word, in the sense of governor of a district, but with the r changed into n (a change which only occurs in Huzvaresh) and the h into ḥ . There are also difficulties in the comparison of the old Bactrian canh , to say or express solemnly. An adjective canhâna (expressing, commanding), formed from this verb, would be pronounced canhâna or even câna in old Persian; and from this Sâgân would have to be obtained, so that we should still want the n to take the place of the Gimel. At the same time, there is a still harsher form of the root canh in the Gatha dialect, namely cak (not the same as the Sanskrit cak , to be strong, as Haug supposes), though this comparison is by no means so certain, from which the Neo-Persian sachan , sachun , a word, is derived; so that it appears to have been also current in old Persian. Accordingly, the form cakâna may also have been used in the place of canhâna , and this might suit in some degree for sâgân .)

as that σατράπης is the same as the Ksatrapâv of the inscriptions, i.e., protector of the kingdom.

(Note: See H. Rawlinson, Asiatic Journal, xi. 1, p. 116 ss.; and Spiegel, Keilinschriften, p. 194.)

Without at all overlooking the fact that this word s e gânı̄m , so far as it can really be supposed to be a Persian word, favours the later composition of this portion of the book of Isaiah, we cannot admit that it has any decisive weight, inasmuch as the Persian word pardēs occurs even in the Song of Solomon. And the indications which might be found in the word s e gânı̄m unfavourable to Isaiah's authorship are abundantly counterbalanced by what immediately follows.

return to '