Isaiah 55:4-5

(a) Most modern authorities hold that the person spoken of in Isaiah 55:4 is the historical David, and that Isaiah 55:4 institute a parallel between the position he occupied in the heathen world of his time and that which Israel shall occupy in the future; the thought expressed, therefore, is that the Messianic hope is transferred from the dynasty to the nation. The view is thus succinctly stated by Driver; "as David became ruler of subject nations (2 Samuel 8), a knowledge of his religion, however imperfect, spread among them; thus he was a -witness" to them. This position of David is idealised in Psalms 18:43 (-Thou makest me a head of nations; a people whom I have not known shall serve me"); and the position, as thus idealised, is here enlarged, and extended in a spiritualsense to Israel (Isaiah 55:5)." (Isaiah 2, p. 156.) (b) Others think that the reference in Isaiah 55:4 is to the future Messianic king (who is called David in Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23 f.), so that the two verses represent under two aspects the future greatness of Israel. (c) An intermediate position is taken by some, viz., that Isaiah 55:4 goes back to the promise made to David, but regards it as one destined to be fulfilled in the person of his son the Messiah. It is very difficult to decide between these conflicting explanations. Against (b) and (c) it is urged (1) that the tenses in Isaiah 55:4 are perfects and are naturally understood of the historic past, since those of Isaiah 55:5 are futures. (2) The idea of a personal Messiah appears nowhere else in the prophecy. (3) A further objection, which however savours of fastidiousness, is that the Messiah is never named David absolutely, even in Jeremiah 30 and Ezekiel 34. On the other side it may be said, (1) that the distinction of tense is accounted for by the fact that Isaiah 55:4 speaks of what is really past (viz. Jehovah's decree concerning the Messiah), whereas Isaiah 55:5 refers to a consequence still to be manifested. (2) Although the idea of the Messiah is not found elsewhere in the book, there is nothing in the prophet's conceptions inconsistent with it; where he thinks of Israel as a restored nation he will naturally think of it as represented by a Davidic king. (3) Neither in the fundamental passage (2 Samuel 7) nor in any of those which point back to it (2 Samuel 23; Psalms 18, 89) is anything said of David being a "witness" to the true religion; and it could hardly occur to anyone to think of him as in the firstinstance a witness and in the seconda prince. The third view (c) seems on the whole the best; the original covenant guarantees an endless dominion to the family of David, and after the restoration this will assume a spiritual character and expand into universal empire in the reign of the Messiah. This interpretation, however, is complicated by the further question as to the relation of the Messiah to the Servant of the Lord. If the Servant be the ideal Israel there is of course no difficulty; the two conceptions stand side by side and are independent. But if he be an individual, he is almost necessarily to be identified with the ideal king, although features are thus introduced into the portrait of the Messiah of which hardly a trace is found in the subsequent literature, until the conception of Messiahship through suffering and death was realised in Christ.