Isaiah 61 - Introduction

The Proclamation of Glad Tidings to Zion

i. Isa 61:1-3. The speaker (see below) introduces himself as the herald of the coming salvation. Anointed with the spirit of the Lord, he is commissioned to cheer and comfort the distressed people of God by the announcement of a day of spiritual emancipation and privilege which issues in eternal splendour.

ii. Isa 61:4-9. In the end of Isaiah 61:3 the soliloquy has passed insensibly into objective description of the glorious future of Israel; and this is the subject of the remainder of the prophecy. The old waste places shall be rebuilt (Isaiah 61:4); Israel shall be recognised as the priestly people among the nations, while strangers feed its flocks and till its fields (Isaiah 61:5); the people shall receive double compensation for their past sufferings, and the blessing of Jehovah shall visibly rest on them (Isaiah 61:7).

iii. Isa 61:10-11. The prophet, speaking as it would appear in the name of the community, exults in the glorious prospect thus disclosed of a spiritual spring-time when Jehovah shall cause righteousness and praise to sprout before all the nations.

It will be seen that in substance the passage deals with the same theme as ch. 60, the future blessedness of Zion. The important difference is the prominence given in the opening monologue (Isaiah 61:1) to the personality and mission of the speaker. The question necessarily arises, Who is this speaker? Whilst the Targum and perhaps a majority of well-known commentators assign the speech to the prophet himself, a number of the best authorities regard it as a self-delineation of the ideal Servant of Jehovah such as we have found in ch. Isaiah 49:1-6 and Isaiah 50:4-9. The question is one of much difficulty, and the chief points involved are the following: (1) The name "Servant of the Lord" does not here occur. But this really counts for nothing, since the same is true of ch. Isaiah 50:4-9, where it cannot be doubted that it is the Servant who speaks. (2) It is said that the prophet invariably keeps his own personality in the background and that where any other than Jehovah speaks of Himself at length, it is always the Servant. This is true of the author of ch. 40 55, but is much less obvious if the present passage has to be assigned to a later writer. The prophet's consciousness of his own mission is strongly expressed in ch. Isaiah 58:1, probably also in ch. Isaiah 62:1, and it is unsafe to assert that he might not have expanded it in such terms as are here used. Another exception to the rule is found in the earlier part of the book in ch. Isaiah 48:16 (which may however be an interpolation. see on the verse). (3) There are undoubtedly affinities between the conception here and the portrait of the Servant; e.g. the gift of the spirit (Isaiah 42:1), the helpful and consoling ministry (Isaiah 50:4; Isaiah 42:3), the message of emancipation (Isaiah 42:7; Isaiah 49:9). On the other hand the function claimed by the speaker cannot be said to transcend that of a prophet, and seems to fall below the level of the Servant's great work. He is only the herald of salvation, whereas the Servant is its mediator; there is nothing here to suggest the profound moral influence which is the characteristic of the Servant's ministry to Israel, for it does not appear that the mission of consolation here described consists in anything else than the proclamation of the coming glory. We miss also the element of universalism which is so conspicuous in the Servant's work; and the allusion to a "day of vengeance" strikes a note which is never found in the undoubted utterances of the Servant. (4) Although it is a begging of the question to assert that the personification of the Servant ceases with ch. 53, it is certainly difficult to find a place for this portrait in the cycle of Servant-passages. These passages shew a well-marked progression and connexion of thought, and one must hesitate to believe that after the climax in ch. 53 the same personage should again appear in what must be considered a subordinate character. On the whole the objections to taking the words as those of the prophet appear less cogent than those against attributing them to the Servant, but it is probable that the writer was familiar with the earlier portraits of the Servant and that his conception of his prophetic office was influenced by them. That our Lord quotes the passage as descriptive of Himself and His message (Luke 4:18 f.) does not decide the question, for the ideal prophet is as truly a type of Christ as the Servant himself.