Deeper Commentary
Isaiah 50:1 Thus says Yahweh, Where is the bill of your mother’s
divorce, for which I have put her away? Or which of My creditors is it to
whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were you sold, and for
your transgressions was your mother put away- We
have reached the point in the previous chapter where the apparently
abandoned Zion finds that she has children she never knew about-
ultimately referring to the Gentile converts made whilst she was in a
state of separation from God her husband. Now we have explained to us the
difficulties with her previous sons, who clearly saw the exile as unjust,
as we have recorded in Ezekiel. But in the immediate intended
context, "Zion" may refer to the community in Jerusalem while her “sons”
symbolize the returning exiles. Zion's sons are spoken of clearly in
Lamentations and Is. 51:20: "Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head
of all the streets". Those "sons" who were slain and sent to Babylon never
in fact did return for the most part, they declined the offer of
redemption. And so the "sons" of Zion become the Gentiles in the final
fulfilment. Now these children [perhaps primarily those at the time of the
exile] are addressed, and they have explained to them what actually
happened with their absent mother. And they are also reminded that they
too are sinners and sold themselves into slavery, and Zion's captivity was
actually their fault.
Zion was indeed sent away by God, but He
remained married to her and we are left with the intentionally ambiguous
challenge: Where [or what] is the bill of her divorce? What kind of
divorce? And can the bill even be found? Has God perhaps destroyed it? The
word for sending away is that used of Adam being sent out from Eden,
although in hope of return (Gen. 3:23,24). Is. 50:2 likewise alludes to
God's calling out to Adam: "Why when I called, was there none to answer?".
The seed of the woman was to enable man's return, through overcoming the
seed of the serpent. And that clearly looks forward to the Lord's work on
the cross.
Jer. 3 says that God did divorce the 10 tribes, but Judah sinned worse than them. It would seem the case God didn't divorce Judah: "Turn O backsliding children, says the Lord, for I am married unto you" (Jer. 3:14). This highlights His special grace to Judah- and points up their deep wrongness in refusing it.
So the intent of the questions is
something like this: "I wrote no bill of divorce, nor have I any creditors
whose demands I met by selling you into slavery. These are not the real
reasons for the separation that has taken place between you and Me, and
for My sending you into captivity".
It could be argued that God had divorced the ten tribes and given them a
bill of divorce (Jer. 3:8). But although Judah had sinned even worse, by
grace He didn't do this. It would seem the case God didn't either didn't
divorce Judah, or all the same considered her His wife despite their
divorce: "Turn O backsliding children, says the Lord, for I am married
unto you" (Jer. 3:14). They had sold themselves
to exile in Babylon by worshipping Babylon's gods; the same figure is used
in Judges. Or we could understand that the bill of divorce cannot be found
because God had so totally forgiven their sins.
This can be read as God's answer to the Jewish objection that God had as it were gotten rid of them as His wife for His own ends, such as getting cash benefit. And so He invites them to look again at the bill of divorce and remind themselves of the reasons for the divorce; LXX " Of what kind is your mother's bill of divorcement?". It was because of their gross unfaithfulness. Ezekiel had to reason with the exiles in a similar way, arguing against their idea that God had been unreasonable to them.
The simplest reading is that the exiles were complaining that God had sent them into captivity for His own benefit, not because they had deserved it. Ezekiel speaks to the same wrong attitudes. God's reply is that they sold themselves. Or we can read this as God saying that He had indeed divorced them and sold them- and they need to ask why this was. It was because of the huge debt of their sins. Hence CEV "I didn't divorce your mother or sell you to pay debts; I divorced her and sold you because of your sins". But that paraphrase is also problematic. In one sense, it was Israel and not God who had debts. Perhaps the idea is that their debts to Him were so great that He sold them to the Babylonians as slaves. And yet the metaphors beg questions. Not least, why was God so driven to force His own family member to pay debt that He sold them? The debt was to Him- why was He so insistent they pay up? That is the seriousness of sin, and the cost of their redemption was fully paid by Him so that there was some justice in this glorious, costly plan of redemption. The idea is that it was Israel who had accumulated the debt, and so God as the head of the family had had to sell them into debt slavery to clear it. But then He Himself clears the debt.
But further, here Isaiah urged the Jews
to return to the land by saying that God had forgiven them, and on this
basis He appealed for them to both ‘repent’ and ‘return’ to the land. The
two terms are related. Thus He showed His grace; forgiveness preceded, not
followed, repentance. Is. 44:22 is clear about this: “I have swept away
your transgressions like clouds [therefore] return to me, for I have
[already] redeemed you”. Perhaps the question as to where the bill of
divorce was could imply that it didn't exist; God was angry with their
sins, but kept no record of them- hence He could comfort Judah that there
was actually no documentary evidence for their divorce and therefore she could
return to Him. As Paul put it, the goodness of God leads to repentance
(Rom. 2:4). And we are asked to show that same “goodness” of God to
others, being “kind [s.w. ‘goodness’] one to another… forgiving one
another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32). We
too are to show this grace of forgiveness-before-repentance; but perhaps
in no other area has formalized, institutionalized Christianity failed
worse. If XYZ shows us she’s repented of her divorce,
then we’ll forgive her and accept her in fellowship [as if, in any
case, we are the ones who need to forgive her]. These are graceless and
yet terribly common attitudes. The Greek word translated “goodness” is
rendered “gracious” in 1 Pet. 2:3- newly converted babes in Christ taste
of this gracious goodness, and it leads to repentance.
"Her term of service is over, that the debt owed for her iniquity has been satisfied" (Is. 40:2) suggests a kind of transactional approach which some find inappropriate. Zion had a debt to pay she could only deal with by selling herself as a slave for a period. But they are the terms used. A debt was paid or cleared; although not necessarily by her labour! "Without money you will be redeemed" (Is. 52:3). For the language of "redemption" will be used about Zion; someone had redeemed her, had met the debt. For that is what 'redemption' alludes to her. Clearly sin is presented as debt; Is. 50:1 is clear: "Do you think I sold you into captivity like a man who sells his children as slaves? No, you went away captive because of your sins; you were sent away because of your crimes". God did not sell them into slavery, they sold themselves, just as Elijah said of Ahab: "you have sold yourself to do evil" (1 Kings 21:20). Indeed the captivity occurred because they sold themselves to do evil (2 Kings 17:17). We likewise are "sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14). But somehow the debt had been cleared, not by Zion's slave labour, and so she need not serve any longer. The fact the Jews chose to remain in Persia is exactly for the same reasons as people prefer to remain in bondage to sin when faced with the Gospel of redemption. How that was achieved is not at this point made clear. God could simply forgive debt. But the servant song of Is. 53 surely gives the deeper answer- it was the death of the Messianic servant which provided the technical answer as to "how" this was achieved. We could render Is. 40:2: “Indeed, she will receive double from the hand of Yahweh in exchange for all of the suffering on account of her sins". This double blessing is that if Is. 61:7: "Instead of your shame you shall have double; and instead of dishonour they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess double". It is in Is. 53 that we have the explanation as to how suffering for sin can lead to this double blessing- it was through the suffering servant, representative of Israel and yet morally perfect.
Isaiah 50:2 Why, when I came, was there no man?-
We could read this as God being amazed that no man had responded to His message to return and restore the Kingdom. But Is. 59:16 says He was amazed there was no intercessor. None of the potential Messiahs made good on their potential. Or the idea may be that God is explaining why Judah had gone into exile. He had 'come' to them in the prophets, but there was nobody who responded to His call. Yet in :4 we read the servant saying that He had responded. So on balance it seems that this is indeed a reference to Judah's failures to respond to God's word- but the servant, who has been defined as the true "Israel" in Is. 49, did respond. And wonderfully so. The servant has his ear opened to Yahweh's word (:5) whereas Israel kept their ears shut to that word (Is. 48:8, and that is emphasized throughout Isaiah, see Is. 8:11-9:6; 30:8-14; 42:18-25). As discussed on Is. 49, the Lord Jesus was and is all God's people ought to have been. He is "Israel". This is why we are bidden obey the servant and follow His example in :10: "obey the voice of His servant... He who walks in darkness, and has no light, let him trust in the name of Yahweh, and rely on his God" just as :4-9 have shown the servant to have done during His sufferings. In the initial context of the exile, no Messiah figure arose to provide this pattern. Those who walked in darkness (:10) were the exiles, for they were promised deliverance from the dark dungeon of Babylon. They were to obey the servant figure. All this is transferred to us and our following of the Lord Jesus in order to leave the darkness of our "Babylon".
The Messiah figure was to appear at a time when the cities of Israel were desolate and needed rebuilding, and when the people had been told “Go forth” of Babylon, and Zion’s “builders” would hastily work, despite feeling themselves to be “exiles” (Is. 49:6,9,17 RVmg.,21 RV). There could have been a Messiah figure at the restoration. “But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me” (Is. 49:14). They didn’t have the faith to believe that God’s grace was enough to really forgive them for the sins that had led them into captivity, and for their apostasy in Babylon, where they had been spiritually “marred” (Jer. 13:7). And so the planned Messiah figure and Kingdom never fully happened. And God laments this: “Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? When I called, was there none to answer?” (Is. 50:2). Nobody responded to the Divine call to repentance as God 'came' to them in the prophets, nor for a Messiah. No Messiah figure appeared; or the reference may also be to the paucity of response when Cyrus announced the possibility of returning to the land.
There even seems at times a difficulty on God's part to understand why the people He had loved could hate Him so much: "Have I been a wilderness to Israel, or a land of thick darkness? Why then do my people say, We will no more come to thee?" (Jer. 2:31); "Why then has this people turned away?" (Jer. 8:5); "Why have they provoked me to anger?" (Jer. 8:19; Jer. 2:14; Jer. 30:6; Is. 5:4; Is. 50:2). "What more could I have done for my vineyard... why did it yield wild grapes?" (Is. 5:1-7). This is so much the anguished cry of bewildered middle aged parents as they reflect upon a wayward child. This Divine struggle to understand reflects the extraordinary depth of His love for them; and it warns us in chilling terms as to the pain we can cause God if we spurn His amazing love.
When I called, was there
none to answer? Is My hand shortened at all, that it can’t redeem?-
Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stink, because there is no water, and die for thirst- "To deliver" continues the language of deliverance from debt and debt slavery. God is asking 'Do I really not have the means to buy you out of your debt?'. He did, but allowed them to go through the process of trying to pay off the debt they couldn't pay. And allowing the debt of sin to be dealt with legitimately.
God sent His prophets to appeal to Israel for repentance. They
could have lead to repentance. But Israel would not. The word
they heard was powerful, so powerful it could dry up the Red Sea in a
moment (hence the dead fish; or a reference to Ex. 7:21); but despite that
power, the Jews didn't respond to it, considering that God was unable to
redeem from exile. So they didn't return / repent, both to their God and
to His land. Their impenitence was related to their disbelief that the
Kingdom was really possible, even though they accepted Yahweh's existence
and were loyal to the culture of being His people. The
marriage feast was totally ready and waiting for the Jewish people; they
could have had it. But they didn’t want it, and so the course of human
history was extended. Therefore finally God sent His Son. The Lord Jesus
Himself was amazed that no other man had achieved the work which He had
to; and therefore He clad Himself with zeal and performed it (Is. 41:28;
50:2; 59:16 cp. Rev. 5:3,4). God knew that salvation in the end would have
to be through the death of His Son. But there were other possible
scenarios for the repentance and salvation of mankind, which no man
achieved. And so, as in the parable of the servants sent to get fruit from
the vineyard, there was left no other way but the death of God’s only Son.
We have to note the similarities with denomination Christianity. There is
an external culture of 'belief' in God and His Son, but when individuals
are asked whether
Isaiah 50:3 I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth
their covering- This could refer to God's deep mourning for all the
wasted potential; He had empowered the people to return (:2), but they
didn't, and no Messiah figure arose as had been potentially possible. For
the degree of unrealized or wasted potential is fundamentally connected to
our depth of mourning.
Isaiah's constant references back to the Exodus deliverance are to make
the point that what God had done then, He could just as easily do for the
exiles as they left Babylon / Egypt. Is. 50:2,3 could be read as a
statement of God's possibilities, bringing out the huge
potential power which God could wield for the exiles: "If I
were to rebuke the sea it would dry up! I
could
turn rivers
into a wilderness... I could clothe the heavens with blackness".
All this conditional language and grammar shows the great potential which
Israel could have tapped into had they wished.
Isaiah 50:4 The Lord Yahweh has given me the tongue of those who are
taught, that I may know how to sustain with words him who is weary-
The Lord is described here as the ideal disciple. He had "the tongue of the learned" a disciples’ tongue (see Is. 8:16), He studied the Divine master morning by morning "as the learned", after the manner of disciples. Again we see Him as our representative, Himself first a disciple, a pattern to us as His disciples. Likewise He was called "Israel" because He was the ideal people of Israel. And in :6 "I gave my back to the smiters" is the language of Ps. 129:3 about the sufferings of Israel as a nation in exile. The appeal in :10 to hear His voice obediently is legitimate because He Himself had done so ( LXX “let him hearken"). The servant has the disciples' tongue in that the words he speaks are the words of his teacher, God. The Lord supremely fulfilled this, speaking the Father's words and not His own, to the point that He was "the word made flesh".
The previous verses have lamented Judah's refusal to hear the call to repentance. But now the Saviour Servant speaks of how He was trained by Yahweh to teach people, Israel especially, the true way; and then to exemplify and embody that teaching in His own suffering and death (:6,7). Clearly these things refer to the Lord Jesus. The LXX speaks of His ability to teach and instruct us His people: "The Lord even God gives me the tongue of instruction, to know when it is fit to speak a word". But "those who are taught" is literally 'the disciples', the taught ones. He spoke to them in their own tongue, in their own terms and language; and He was taught to do this. This would explain why the Lord used the language of demon possession rather than correcting those wrong ideas.
He wakens me morning by morning, He wakens my ear to hear as those who are taught- "Those who are taught" are literally 'the disciples'. He was taught by God, morning by morning, to hear as the disciples heard. He was progressively led to appreciate the perspective of those far less spiritual than Himself. He was taught the ability to hear as we hear, although as God's Son He Himself heard with far quicker and deeper perception than we do.
He “learned obedience” through experience, “by the things which He suffered”; thus gaining that practical learning which adapted Him for “speaking a word in season” to suffering men (Heb 5:8). The contrast is with how God daily appealed to Judah and they refused to listen, “daily rising up early” (Jer. 7:25). In Mk. 1:35 we have the practical picture of the Lord's early morning sessions with His Father. The image is drawn from a master wakening his pupils early for instruction.
The Lord Jesus “morning by morning” heard God’s word “as the learned”
(Is. 50:4 AV); but the Hebrew words for “accustomed” in Jer. 13:23 and
“learned” in Is. 50:4 are the same. God teaches by repetition- which may
be out of vogue in the experience / problem based learning philosophy of
current education, but it’s God’s way.
The Lord was noted for rising up early and praying (Mk. 1:35). Is. 50:4
prophesies of the Lord Jesus that morning by morning, God awoke His ear
"to learn as a disciple". That last phrase is surely to signal the
intended similarities between the Lord's path of growth, and that of all
disciples. How we start our days is really so important. The next two
verses go on to predict that because of this morning-by-morning teaching
process, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting" (Is.
50:5,6). Thus we come to the cross, the life of cross carrying, as
the end result of our morning reflections. It was from His own experience
that the Lord could bid us take up our cross- His cross- each
morning. The unbelieving world is repeatedly characterized as walking in a
crooked path (Lk. 3:5; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15 and often in Proverbs).
Quietly starting every day right is part of our walking in a straight
path, following the way of the cherubim; and by walking in that straight
daily path we will not have opportunity to stumble (Heb. 12:13).
Isaiah 50:5 The Lord Yahweh has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious,
neither turned away backward- The early morning teaching sessions
between Father and Son resulted in His ear being opened to perceive the
death of the cross. And He was not rebellious. He as "Israel" was
representative of sinful Israel (see on Is. 49:1-3); it was the exiles who
were to have their ears opened. But they refused, preferring to remain
deaf (see on Is. 42:20; 43:8; 48:8). But His ears were opened because He
wanted to hear; unlike them He was not rebellious (s.w. Is. 1:20; 63:10);
He did not "turn away backward" as the idolaters of Judah did (s.w. Is.
42:17; Jer. 38:22). He triumphed at every point where we as Israel fail.
To be right with God, Israel had to identify with Him. We become in Him by
baptism, and thus His righteousness is imputed to us (Gal. 3:27-29).
Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the strikers, and my cheeks to those who
plucked off the hair; I didn’t hide my face from shame and spitting-
Giving His back to the smiters reflects His body language displayed in His sufferings, offering the other cheek to be smitten (Mt. 5:39), in a spirit of giving His life and body. The symbol of which we take in the communion bread. "My cheeks to those who plucked off the hair" is LXX "I gave my cheeks to buffering" i.e. to being smitten with the open hand, which was literally fulfilled in the Lord's case (Mt. 26:67; Mk. 14:65). The spitting likewise (Mt. 26:67; 27:30). The Lord said in Lk. 17:32 that the prophecies of His sufferings included the prediction that He would be spat upon. Only Is. 50:6 mentions this, so we can be sure that this is true of the Lord Jesus.
Time and again in the restoration prophecies we encounter statements intended to answer the skepticism felt by the exiles about the promises of redemption from Babylon (Is. 40:27-31; Is. 42:22; Is. 43:22; Is. 46:12; Is. 48:4,8; Is. 49:14). See on Is. 49:24. The servant was called to sustain the “dispirited” by the prophetic word (Is. 50:4). And yet passages like Is. 50:4-11 and even Is. 53 speak of how the servant met even physical abuse as well as rejection in his ministry to his fellow Jews. Indeed the servant feels that his mission to them has been a failure (Is. 49:1-6), a complaint met by God’s promise that his mission would be in some way reapplied to the Gentiles in their captivity to sin. The way the servant is beaten and has his hair pulled out (Is. 50:4-11) reminds us of how the prophet Jeremiah was treated the same way by the Jews when his message was rejected (Jer. 20:2; Jer. 37:15). The servant was spat at by his fellow Jews- an expression of utter contempt (Job 30:10). Whilst the servant prophecies find their later fulfilment in the Lord Jesus, it seems to me that in their first context, they speak of how a prophet or prophets at the time of the exile were rejected and even beaten up by their fellow Jews. Indeed, Isaiah ends on a negative note, describing the judgments to come upon the Jews who had rejected the message of deliverance from Babylon (Is. 66:24).
As explained on :5, the cross was the end point of the Lord's early morning teaching sessions with His Father. And so He unlike every other victim of crucifixion and torture willingly gave His body parts to His torturers.
Jesus commanded us not to physically resist the forces of
evil: “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him
also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your
cloak also” (Mt. 5:39,40). Christ is the example in this: “I
gave My
back to those who struck Me ...” (Is. 50:6).
Isaiah 50:7 For the Lord Yahweh will help me; therefore I have not been
confounded-
Though his body is beaten, plucked,
and handled as if it were an animal body, and he is subjected to ridicule
and humiliation (:6), the servant is not ashamed. That was a psychological
miracle, attributable to God. "Confounded" or "ashamed" is the same word
for "shame" as in :6. The Lord didn't seek to avoid the shame, because He
trusted that God would help Him not to experience shame. His abusers must
surely have noticed that His body language was so different to the
crucifixion victims they often abused and shamed before their deaths. The
Lord was not ashamed. And it is this same quiet assurance which is shared
with all in Him; see on :9.
It
Therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I
shall not be disappointed- This again is understandable in the
context of the cross. The Lord set His face to go to Jerusalem, and the final sacrifice which
would be there (Lk. 9:51). He hardened His face like a rock;
and yet the wicked similarly harden their faces like a rock to go in the
way of the flesh (Jer. 5:3). We are hardened in our path, one way or the
other. Jeremiah had his face hardened in response to his own hardening of
face (Jer. 1:17; 5:3), and the wicked in Israel likewise were hardened
(Jer. 3:3; 4:30)
Isaiah 50:8 He is near who justifies me; who will bring charges against
me? Let us stand up together: who is my adversary? Let him come near to
me-
We note the legal language.
Justification, having charges brought, an adversary, standing up together
in court (as in Is. 47:12,13). Now it is the Lord Jesus as it were in the
dock. He was struck and spat upon during His mock trial before the
crucifixion- but He remembered that the ultimate judgment was before God,
and in His mind, challenged His accusers to stand up with their
accusations before God. Knowing God would justify Him. Indeed a pattern
for us when facing false accusation and being wrongly judged by men. The
declaration of His innocence was in the resurrection (Rom. 1:4) and the
judgment upon His false accusers spoken of in :9 could refer to the events
of AD70 and the last day. The case against Him would collapse before God's
righteous judgment, like the moldering of a moth-eaten garment.
As explored on :7, those who feel the real justification of the Spirit, the real power of imputed righteousness, will not be unsettled by human criticism or "charges" brought. For the nearness of God's justification in Christ is more than sufficient. Is. 56:1 is a parallel passage, speaking of how Yahweh's righteousness (imputed to us by His justification of us in Christ) is "near to come", and His salvation soon to be revealed. As Paul develops in Rom. 1-8, we are saved by the imputation of righteousness, justification by faith. But that is yet to be revealed, although it could have been "near" even in time for the exiles. They refused these wonderful things, but they are true for us too, as we await the soon revelation of the Lord Jesus at judgment day. Keeping this hope in view means we shall ultimately have nobody and nothing charged against us, there will be no legal adversary in court with us at the last day. And this means that we handle accusation, both justified and false, in that perspective. And yet it is criticism and the shame which arises from it which can psychologically and spiritually destroy people in this life.
Isaiah 50:9 Behold, the Lord Yahweh will help me; who is he who shall
condemn me?-
This is the language of Rom. 8:33. But
the "me", referring here to the Lord Jesus, is applied to us. We are in
Him. He stands in the dock uncondemned and justified. And so do we. This
is the huge, unspeakable significance of being "in Christ": "If God is for
us, who can be against us? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?
It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who
died— more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who
indeed is interceding for us". The Lord was declared righteous by God
through His death on the cross, yet these very words are applied to us. A
related idea is found in the Messianic prophecy of Ps. 118:6: "Yahweh is
on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?". Yahweh justified
the Lord Jesus (:8). To justify clearly means to declare righteous. The
Lord Jesus was vindicated by God in the court case against Him and the
resurrection was His declaration as right (Rom. 1:4). We have here
in Is. 50 His very thoughts as He was spat upon, tried and falsely
accused. He was telling Himself how God was His judge, and none of the
accusations were true nor valid. And then Romans 8 applies His thoughts
there- to us, justified in Him!
As explained on :8, with God on our side in the final
judgment, as both judge and advocate, there are no charges against us nor
legal adversaries left in the court room. Yahweh had repeatedly offered the "servant" His "help"
Behold, all they shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat them up- The "they" are any possible adversaries who might bring charges against us. This had particular relevance to all the adversaries to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. With Yahweh justifying the returned exiles, the court room was effectively empty of adversaries, all charges were to be seen in the perspective of God's ultimate justification of His people (see on :8). These words are also found in Job 13:28, where it is God who consumes them, as it were manifesting Himself in a tiny moth. We find the same ideas in Is. 51:6, where the "they" is the 'heavens and earth' of any system, be it Persia / Babylon or an unbelieving Jewish system, which is adversarial to God's people and purpose. The contrast is with how the clothing of Israel in the wilderness did not "wax old" (s.w. Dt. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21). The exodus and journey to the promised land is repeatedly alluded to in Isaiah as a pattern for the exiles to follow in returning to Judah, and for us in our exodus from this world and journey towards the Kingdom.
Isaiah 50:10 Who is among you who fears Yahweh, who obeys the voice of His
servant? He who walks in darkness, and has no light, let him trust in the
name of Yahweh, and rely on his God-
“Who among you reveres Yhwh, listens to his servant’s voice? One who has walked in deep darkness and had no brightness must trust in Yhwh’s name and lean on his God”. God had made the darkness light for them, but still there had to be some freewill response from the exiles. See on :11. The "darkness" initially was that of exile in Babylon; see on Is. 49:9. A Messianic figure was to arise, whose voice they were to obey, and thereby trust in their God. This didn't happen at the time, and so it is all reapplied to the Lord Jesus as the servant. But the servant whose voice was to be obeyed was intended to be Cyrus. "Who is among you who fears Yahweh... his God?" is the language of Ezra 1:3. Yahweh had promised support for them if they returned to the land; He would preserve them on the way. "Voice" is s.w. Ezra 1:1 about the proclamation of Cyrus, the servant (Is. 45:1). Yet Ezra was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers to guard them on the journey only because he had earlier told the king that Yahweh would be with them (Ezra 8:22), as if he really did want the support but was ashamed to ask for it. He disallowed Isaiah’s prophesy that the restored Israel would never be ashamed [s.w. Ezra 8:22; 9:6] nor confounded (Is. 45:17; 49:23; 54:4). Nehemiah accepted such support when he came up from Babylon (Neh. 2:9).
The Yahweh Name is the most essential challenge to faith. "I will be" is a challenge to believe that what is not yet seen will be on the basis of what has been and what is. We must trust / believe in the Name of Yahweh (Is. 50:10). The emphasis is perhaps upon the word "him". As the Lord Jesus clearly trusted God throughout the trauma of His sufferings (:8,9), so let every believer likewise trust. But considering the Lord's absolute faith / trust at that time, this is quite some challenge. But this is where the Lord's personality and final sacrifice are not to simply be admired from afar- He as He was is an abiding invitation to us all to follow His example.
Isaiah 50:11 Behold, all you who kindle a fire, who adorn yourselves with
torches around yourselves; walk in the flame of your fire, and among the
brands that you have kindled. You shall have this of My hand; you shall
lie down in sorrow- Why this reference to paganism and idolatry
immediately after the call to obey the voice of God's servant Cyrus and
leave Babylon (:10)?
Isaiah frequently shows the folly of worshipping Babylonian idols. And yet
it seems that it was Judah’s worship of these idols that kept them in
Babylon. Those who feared Yahweh had none of the light
provided by the Babylonian idols; but the majority preferred Babylon’s
light to Zion’s.
Previous Chapter
