Albert Barnes Commentary Isaiah 41

The design of this chapter is the same as that of the preceding, and it is to be regarded as the continuation of the argument commenced there. Its object is to lead those who were addressed, to put confidence in God. In the introduction to (Isaiah 40:0) it was remarked, that this is to be considered as addressed to the exile Jews in Babylon, near the close of their captivity. Their country, city, and temple had been laid waste. The prophet represents himself as bringing consolation to them in this situation; particularly by the assurance that their long captivity was about to end; that they were about to be restored to their own land, and that their trials were to be succeeded by brighter and happier times. In the previous chapter there were general reasons given why they should put their confidence in God - arising from the firmness of his promises, the fact that he had created all things; that he had all power, etc.

In this chapter there is a more definite view given, and a clearer light thrown on the mode in which deliverance would be brought to them. The prophet specifies that God would raise up a deliverer, and that that deliverer would be able to subdue all their enemies. The chapter may be conveniently divided into the following parts:

1. God calls the distant nations to a public investigation of his ability to aid his people; to an argument whether he was able to deliver them; and to the statement of the reasons why they should confide in him (Isaiah 41:1).
2. He specifies that he will raise up a man from the east - who should be able to overcome the enemies of the Jews, and to effect their deliverance (Isaiah 41:2–4).
3. The consternation of the nations at the approach of Cyrus, and their excited and agitated fleeing to their idols is described (Isaiah 41:5–7).
4. God gives to his people the assurance of his protection, and friendship (Isaiah 41:8–14). This is shown:
   1. Because they were the children of Abraham, his friend, and he was bound in covenant faithfulness to protect them (Isaiah 41:8–9).
   2. By direct assurance that he would aid and protect them; that though they were feeble, yet he was strong enough to deliver them (Isaiah 41:10–14).
5. He says that he will enable them to overcome and scatter their foes, as the chaff is driven away on the mountains by the whirlwind (Isaiah 41:15–16).
6. He gives to his people the special promise of assistance and comfort. He will meet them in their desolate condition, and will give them consolation as if fountains were opened in deserts, and trees producing grateful shade and fruit were planted in the wilderness (Isaiah 41:17–20).
7. He appeals directly to the enemies of the Jews, to the worshippers of idols. He challenges them to give any evidence of the power or the divinity of their idols; and appeals to the fact that he had foretold future events; that he had raised up a deliverer for his people in proof of his divinity, and his power to save (Isaiah 41:21–29). The argument of the whole is, that the idol-gods were unable to defend the nations which trusted in them; that God would raise up a mighty prince who should be able to deliver the Jews from their long and painful calamity, and that they, therefore, should put their trust in Yahweh.

Keep silence before me - The idea is, that the pagan nations were to be silent while God should speak, or with a view of entering into an argument with him respecting the comparative power of himself and of idols to defend their respective worshippers. The argument is stated in following verses, and preparatory to the statement of that argument, the people are exhorted to be silent. This is probably to evince a proper awe and reverence for Yahweh, before whom the argument was to be conducted, and a proper sense of the magnitude and sacredness of the inquiry .

And it may be remarked here, that 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 an 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 .

O islands - (איים 'iyiym). This word properly means islands, and is so translated here by the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic. But the word also is used to denote maritime countries; Countries that were situated on seacoasts, or the regions beyond sea (see the note at Isaiah 20:6).

The word is applied, therefore, to the islands of the Mediterranean; to the maritime coasts; and then, also, it comes to be used in the sense of any lands or coasts far remote, or beyond sea (Isaiah 24:15; the notes at Isaiah 40:15; Isaiah 41:5; Isaiah 42:4, 10, 12; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 25:22; Daniel 11:18). Here it is evidently used in the sense of distant nations or lands; the people who were remote from Palestine, and who were the worshippers of idols. The argument is represented as being with them, and they are invited to prepare their minds by suitable reverence for God for the argument which was to be presented.

And let the people renew their strength - On the word ‘renew,’ see the note at (Isaiah 40:31). Here it means, ‘Let them make themselves strong; let them prepare the argument; let them be ready to urge as strong reasons as possible; let them fit themselves to enter into the controversy about the power and glory of Yahweh’ .

Let us come near together to judgment - The word ‘judgment’ here means evidently controversy, argumentation, debate. Thus it is used in (Job 9:32). The language is that which is used of two parties who come together to try a cause, or to engage in debate; and the sense is, that God proposes to enter into an argumentation with the entire pagan world, in regard to his ability to save his people; that is, he proposes to show the reasons why they should trust in him, rather than dread those under whose power they then were, and by whom they had been oppressed. Lowth renders it, correctly expressing the sense, ‘Let us enter into solemn debate together.’

Who raised up – This word (העיר hē‛yr) is usually applied to the act of arousing one from sleep (Song of Solomon 2:7; Song of Solomon 3:5; Song of Solomon 8:4; Zechariah 4:1); then to awake, arouse, or stir up to any enterprise. Here it means that God had caused the man referred to here to rise up for the overthrow of their enemies; it was by His agency that this man had been led to form the plans that would result in their deliverance. This is the first argument God urges to encourage His people to put confidence in Him and to hope for deliverance. The fact that He had raised up and qualified such a man for the work, He urges as proof that He would certainly protect and guard His people.

The righteous man from the east – Hebrew, צדק tsedeq – ‘righteousness.’ The Septuagint renders it literally, Δικαιοσὺνην Dikaiosunēn – ‘righteousness.’ The Vulgate renders it, ‘The just;’ the Syriac as the Septuagint. The word here evidently means, as in our translation, the just or righteous man. It is common in Hebrew, as in other languages, to put the abstract for the concrete. Regarding the person referred to here, there have been three principal opinions, which it may be proper to briefly notice.

1. The first is that which refers it to Abraham. This is the interpretation of the Chaldee Paraphrast, who renders it, ‘Who has publicly led from the east Abraham, the chosen of the just;’ and this interpretation has been adopted by Jarchi, Kimchi, Abarbanel, and by Jewish writers generally. They say that it means that God had called Abraham from the east; that He conducted him to the land of Canaan, and enabled him to vanquish the people who resided there, and particularly that he vanquished the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, and delivered Lot from their hands (Genesis 14:0); and that this is designed by God to show them that He who had thus raised up Abraham would also raise them up in the east. However, there are objections to this interpretation that seem insuperable, a few of which may be mentioned.

   • The country from which Abraham came, the land of Chaldea or Mesopotamia, is not commonly in the Scriptures called ‘the east,’ but the north (Jeremiah 4:6; Jeremiah 6:1; Jeremiah 23:8; Jeremiah 25:9, 25:26; Jeremiah 31:8; Jeremiah 46:10; Jeremiah 50:3; Daniel 11:6, 11:8, 11:11). This country was situated northeast of Palestine, and it is believed it is nowhere in the Scriptures called the country of the east.

   • The description given here of what was accomplished by him who was raised up from the east is not one that applies to Abraham. It supposes more important achievements than any that signalized the father of the faithful. There were no acts in the life of Abraham that can be regarded as subduing the ‘nations’ before him; as ruling over ‘kings;’ or as scattering them like the dust or the stubble. Indeed, he appears to have been engaged in only one military adventure – the rescue of Lot – and that was of so slight and unimportant a character as not to form the peculiarity of his public life. Had Abraham been referred to here, it would have been for some other trait than that of a conqueror or military chieftain.

   • We will see that the description and the connection require us to understand it as referring to another—Cyrus.

2. A second opinion is that it refers directly and entirely to the Messiah. Many of the fathers, such as Jerome, Cyril, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Procopius, held this opinion. But the objections to this are insuperable.

   • It is not true that the Messiah was raised up from the east. He was born in the land of Judea and always lived in that land.

   • The description here is by no means one that applies to him. It is the description of a warrior and a conqueror; of one who subdued nations and scattered them before him.

   • The connection and design of the passage do not admit of this interpretation. That design is to lead the Jews in exile to put confidence in God and to hope for a speedy rescue. To achieve this, the prophet directs them to the fact that a king appeared in the east and scattered the nations. From these facts, they were to infer that they themselves would be delivered and that God would be their protector. But how would this design be accomplished by a reference to so remote an event as the coming of the Messiah?

3. The third opinion, therefore, remains: that this refers to Cyrus, the Persian monarch, by whom Babylon was taken, and by whom the Jews were restored to their own land. In support of this interpretation, a few considerations may be mentioned.

   • It agrees with the fact regarding the country from which Cyrus came for purposes of conquest. He came from the land which is everywhere in the Scriptures called the East.

   • It agrees with the specifications that Isaiah elsewhere makes, where Cyrus is mentioned by name, and where there can be no danger of error regarding the interpretation (Isaiah 45:1–4, 45:13). Thus in Isaiah 46:11, it is said of Cyrus, ‘Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my commandments from a far country.’

   • The entire description here is one that applies remarkably to Cyrus, as will be shown more fully in the notes on the particular expressions that occur.

   • This supposition accords with the design of the prophet. It was to be an assurance to them not only that God would raise up such a man but also that they would be delivered. As this was intended to comfort them in Babylon, it was intended that when they were informed of the conquests of Cyrus, they were to be assured of the fact that God was their protector. Those conquests, therefore, were to be regarded by them as proof that God would deliver them. This opinion is held by Vitringa, Rosenmuller, and probably by a large majority of the most intelligent commentators. The only objection of weight to it is that suggested by Lowth, that the character of ‘a righteous man’ does not apply to Cyrus.

But to this it may be replied that the word may be used not to denote one who is pious or a true worshipper of God, but one who was disposed to do justly or who was not a tyrant. Especially, it may be applied to him on account of his delivering the Jews from their hard and oppressive bondage in Babylon and restoring them to their own land. That was an act of eminent public justice. The favors he showed them in enabling them to rebuild their city and temple were such as to make it not improper for this appellation to be given to him.

It may be added also that Cyrus was a prince eminently distinguished for justice and equity, and for a mild and kind administration over his own subjects. Xenophon, who has described his character at length, has proposed him as an example of a just monarch, and his government as an example of an equitable administration. All the ancient writers celebrate his humanity and benevolence (compare Diodorus Siculus 13.342, and the Cyropaedia of Xenophon everywhere). As there will be frequent occasion to refer to Cyrus in the notes on the following chapters, it may be proper here to give a very brief outline of his public actions, so that his agency in the deliverance of the Jews may be more fully appreciated.

Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, the Persian, and of Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. Astyages is in Scripture called Ahasuerus. Cambyses was, according to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 1), king of Persia, or, according to Herodotus (1.107), a nobleman. If he was the king of Persia, of course Cyrus was the heir of the throne. Cyrus was born in his father’s court, A.M. 3405, or 595 B.C., and was educated with great care. At the age of twelve years, his grandfather, Astyages, sent for him and his mother Mandane to court, and he was treated, of course, with great attention.

Astyages, or Ahasuerus, had a son by the name of Cyaxares, who was born about a year before Cyrus, and who was heir to the throne of Media. Some time after this, when the son of the king of Assyria invaded Media, Astyages, with his son Cyaxares and his grandson Cyrus, marched against him. Cyrus defeated the Assyrians but was soon after recalled by his father Cambyses to Persia, so that he might be near him.

At the age of sixteen, indeed, and when at the court of his grandfather, Cyrus signalized himself for his valor in a war with the king of Babylon. Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had invaded the territories of Media, but was repelled with great loss, and Cyrus pursued him with great slaughter to his own borders. This invasion of Evil-Merodach laid the foundation of the hostility between Babylon and Media, which was not terminated until Babylon was taken and destroyed by the united armies of Media and Persia.

When Astyages died, after a reign of thirty-five years, he was succeeded by his son Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus. He was still involved in a war with the Babylonians. Cyrus was made general of the Persian troops, and at the head of an army of 30,000 men was sent to assist Cyaxares, whom the Babylonians were preparing to attack. The Babylonian monarch at this time was Neriglissar, who had murdered Evil-Merodach and usurped the crown of Babylon.

Cyaxares and Cyrus carried on the war against Babylon during the reigns of Neriglissar and his son Laborosoarchod, and of Nabonadius. The Babylonians were defeated. Cyrus carried his arms into the countries to the west beyond the river Halys (a river running north into the Euxine Sea), subdued Cappadocia, conquered Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, and subdued almost all Asia Minor.

Having conquered this country, he returned, recrossed the Euphrates, turned his arms against the Assyrians, then laid siege to Babylon and took it (see the notes on Isaiah 13:0; Isaiah 14:0), and subdued that mighty kingdom. During the life of Cyaxares his uncle, he acted in conjunction with him.

On the death of this king of Media, Cyrus married his daughter, and thus united the crowns of Media and Persia. After this marriage, he subdued all the nations between Syria and the Red Sea, and died at the age of seventy, after a reign of thirty years.

Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus, is called Darius the Mede in Scripture (Daniel 5:31), and it is said there that Babylon was taken by him. However, Babylon was taken by the valor of Cyrus, though acting in connection with and under Cyaxares. It is said to have been taken by Cyaxares, or Darius, though it was done by the personal valor of Cyrus. Josephus (Antiquities 12.13) says that Darius, with his ally Cyrus, destroyed the kingdom of Babylon.

Jerome assigns three reasons why Babylon is said in the Scriptures to have been taken by Darius or Cyaxares: first, because he was the older of the two; second, because the Medes were at that time more famous than the Persians; and third, because the uncle ought to be preferred to the nephew. The Greek writers say that Babylon was taken by Cyrus, without mentioning Cyaxares or Darius, doubtless because it was done solely by his valor. For a full account of the reign of Cyrus, see Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Herodotus, and the ancient part of the Universal History, vol. 4, Ed. Lond. 1779, 8vo.

Called him to his foot – Lowth renders this, ‘Has called him to attend his steps.’ Noyes renders it, ‘Him whom victory meets in his march.’ Grotius, ‘Called him that he should follow him,’ and he refers to Genesis 12:1; Joshua 24:3; Hebrews 11:8. Rosenmuller renders it, ‘Who has called from the East that man to whom righteousness occurs at his feet,’ that is, attends him. But the idea seems to be that God had influenced him to follow Him as one follows a guide at his feet, or close to him.

Gave the nations before him – That is, subdued nations before him. This is justly descriptive of the victorious career of Cyrus. Among the nations whom he subdued were the Armenians, the Cappadocians, the Lydians, the Phrygians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians, comprising a very large portion of the world known at that time. Cyrus subdued, according to Xenophon, all the nations lying between the Euxine and Caspian seas on the north, to the Red Sea on the south, and even Egypt, so that his own proclamation was true: ‘Yahweh, God of heaven, hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth’ (Ezra 1:2).

And made him rule over kings – As the kings of Babylon, of Lydia, of Cappadocia, who were brought into subjection under him, and acknowledged their dependence on him.

He hath given them as the dust to his sword – He has scattered, or destroyed them by his sword, as the dust is driven before the wind. A similar remark is made by David (Psalms 18:42):

Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind,
I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.

And as driven stubble – The allusion here is to the process of fanning grain. The grain was thrown by a shovel or fan in the air, and the stubble or chaff was driven away. So it is said of the nations before Cyrus, implying that they were utterly scattered.

To his bow – The bow was one of the common weapons of war, and the inhabitants of the East were distinguished for its use. The idea in this verse is very beautiful and is one that is often employed in the Sacred Scriptures and by Isaiah himself (Psalms 1:4; Psalms 35:5; the notes on Isaiah 17:13; Isaiah 29:5).

He pursued them – When they were driven away. He continued to follow, and consigned them to defeat and ruin.

And passed safely – The marginal note, following the Hebrew, reads, ‘In peace.’ This means he followed them uninjured; they had no power to rally, he was not led into an ambush, and he was safe as far as he chose to pursue them.

Even by the way that he had not gone with his feet – This refers to a route he was not accustomed to marching; an unusual journey; in a land of strangers.

Cyrus had spent his early years east of the Euphrates. In his conquests, he crossed that river and extended his march beyond even the Halys River to the western extremity of Asia, and even to Egypt and the Red Sea.

The idea here is that he had not traveled in these regions until he did so for purposes of conquest – an idea that is strictly in accordance with the truth of history.

Who has accomplished and done it? – By whom has all this been accomplished? Has it been by the arm of Cyrus? Has it been by human skill and powers? The design of this question is obvious. It is to direct attention to the fact that all this had been done by God, and that he who had raised up such a man, and had accomplished all this by means of him, had power to deliver his people.

Calling the generations from the beginning – The idea here seems to be that all the nations that dwell on the earth in every place owed their origin to God . The word ‘calling’ here seems to be used in the sense of commanding, directing, or ordering them; and the truth taught is that all the nations were under his control, and had been from the beginning. It was not only true of Cyrus, and of those who were subdued before him, but it was true of all nations and generations. The object seems to be to lift up the thoughts from the conquests of Cyrus to God’s universal dominion over all kingdoms from the beginning of the world.

I the Lord, the first – Before any creature was made; existing before any other being. The description that God here gives of himself as the first and the last is one that is often applied to him in the Scriptures, and is one that properly expresses eternity (Isaiah 48:12). It is remarkable also that this expression, which so obviously implies proper eternity, is applied to the Lord Jesus in Revelation 1:17; Revelation 22:13.

And with the last – The usual form in which this is expressed is simply the last (Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12). The idea here seems to be, ‘and with the last, I am the same;’ that is, I am unchanging and eternal. None will subsist after me, since with the last of all created objects I shall be the same that I was in the beginning. Nothing would survive God; or in other words, he would exist forever and ever. The argument here is that to this unchanging and eternal God, who had thus raised up and directed Cyrus, and who had control over all nations, they might commit themselves with unwavering confidence, and be assured that he was able to protect and deliver them.

The isles saw it - The distant nations (see the note at Isaiah 41:1). They saw what was done in the conquests of the man whom God in this remarkable manner had raised up; and they had, therefore, received a demonstration of the mighty power of Yahweh above the power of idols.

And feared - They were alarmed and trembled. All were apprehensive that they would be subdued and driven away as with the tempest.

The ends of the earth - Distant nations occupying the extremities of the globe (see the note at Isaiah 40:28).

Drew near, and came - They came together for the purpose of mutual alliance and self-defense. The prophet evidently refers to what he says in the following verses, that they formed treaties; endeavored to prepare for self-defense; looked to their idol-gods, and encouraged each other in their attempts to offer a successful resistance to the victorious arms of Cyrus.