5. Critical Evaluation

Isaiah 42:1–17 portrays a figure—God’s Servant—who is equipped with a divine mission of bringing forth legal judgement (מִשְׁפָּט, mišpāṭ) “to the Gentiles” (laggōyīm), spiritual enlightenment, a new covenant, and a decisive victory over idolatry. The passage includes a call for praise from the dwellers of the geographic territory promised to Abraham (pbuh) and, crucially, includes the areas inhabited by the Arabs (Kedarites).”

Having identified clear parallels between Isaiah 42:1-17 and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), a critical evaluation is necessary to assess claims made regarding other figures commonly associated with this prophecy—namely Jesus (pbuh), Israel, and Cyrus. While some aspects of the prophecy can partially align with these figures, several critical elements do not match when carefully examined. Below, each of these interpretations is critiqued in light of the explicit details of Isaiah 42’s text.

5.1. The Servant is Jesus (pbuh)?

Many Christian exegetes link Isaiah 42 with New Testament passages such as Matthew 12:18–21, which explicitly cites Isaiah 42:1-4 and applies it to Jesus (pbuh). In these citations, Jesus’ role as “a light to the Gentiles” is emphasised (cf. Luke 2:32). Furthermore, the descriptions of a humble, meek Servant (Isa. 42:2–3) correlate with the Gospel depictions of Jesus’ gentleness and compassion. Jesus’ message, as presented in the New Testament, eventually spread beyond Jewish communities, suggesting a Gentile dimension that Christian interpreters see as foreshadowed in Isaiah 42’s global emphasis— “the isles shall wait for his law” (42:4). However, several crucial discrepancies emerge:

1.     From a Christian standpoint, Jesus’ earthly ministry culminates in his crucifixion— an event that, at least on the surface, appears as a “failure,” a moment of “discouragement,” and being “forsaken by God.”[1] This seems inconsistent with texts such as “He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgement in the earth (vv. 4)” and “I will hold thine hand, and will keep thee (vv. 6).” Christian theology maintains that the crucifixion was followed by the Resurrection and ultimate triumph. However, the immediate and visible establishment of eschatological judgement “in the earth” did not take place during Jesus’ lifetime. According to most Christian traditions, the final establishment of global judgement is deferred to the Second Coming—a future eschatological event.[2] For the immediate Israelite audience of Jesus’ admonitions, God’s judgement did manifest itself not during his presence on earth, but after his departure, in the form of the destruction of the Second Temple and the Jewish diaspora from the Holy Land. Nevertheless, this judgement was limited to the Israelites and did not extend to the Gentile idolaters, as one might expect from a reading of Isaiah 42.

2.     Isaiah 42:4 presents the Servant as a lawgiver whose “torah” will spread among distant peoples, indicating a new divine instruction or covenant that wins eager acceptance beyond Israel. This matches a Moses-like figure who institutes a fresh body of religious teaching rather than merely reinforcing an existing law. By contrast, the Gospels do not portray Jesus (pbuh) as bringing a fundamentally new legal framework; although he reinterprets Mosaic commandments, he does not supplant them with a comprehensive code of law. He proclaims the arrival of God’s kingdom and calls for repentance, love of enemies, and inward righteousness, but he never implements a sweeping legal system. While Christianity subsequently developed doctrines and ecclesiastical structures, its Scripture affirms that Jesus came “not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it (Matt. 5:17–20).” The image of a prophet who transforms an entire region through a fresh revelation of divine legislation, leading multitudes to adopt the new faith, finds a closer historical parallel in the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The text in Isaiah 42 implies a new dispensation or covenant that would be a beacon to non-Israelite people. Jesus’ teaching did indeed have ethical and eschatological elements, but from a historical-critical perspective, the new legal framework that reorganised an entire society’s laws, norms, and spiritual structure is more concretely reflected in the law (Shariah) that emerged with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

3.     The text in Isaiah 42 emphasises locales historically associated with the Arabian region as the Servant’s prophetic territory. It situates the Servant’s ministry among the Ishmaelites and the region of the Ḥijāz, pointing directly to places such as Makkah and Madīnah. This is fundamentally different from the known itineraries of Jesus of Nazareth (pbuh), whose ministry unfolded in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. From the Gospels, there is no historical record of Jesus travelling to or preaching in Arabia, nor of Kedarite or Sela-based communities welcoming him or calling out God’s praises in response to his appearance. While Christian teaching holds that Jesus' mission ultimately extends salvation beyond Israel, the text in Isaiah 42 speaks of a more immediate presence in Kedar and a direct transformation of its inhabitants.

4.     Isaiah 42:13–17 describes a servant who, after an extended period of forbearance, wages active warfare against entrenched idolatry, ultimately toppling pagan structures and leading entire communities from spiritual blindness into monotheistic faith. This sequence, marked by a lengthy phase of non-retaliation followed by divinely sanctioned battles, does not readily match Jesus' historical ministry. Although Jesus (pbuh) did challenge religious corruption and call people to repentance, he neither led military campaigns nor dismantled pagan worship through force. Instead, the Gospel accounts emphasise Jesus’ teachings of nonviolence and a spiritual kingdom “not of this world,”[3] rather than the subjugation of hostile forces by military means.

5.     The Targum Jonathan inserts the word ‘Messiah’ after the Servant in Isaiah 42:1, describing him as a chosen figure through whom God will bring judgement to the nations. Given that Jesus (peace be upon him) is universally recognised as the Messiah in both Christian and Muslim traditions, the question arises whether this identification necessarily renders Isaiah 42 a prophecy concerning him. In Biblical Hebrew, משיח (mashiakh) literally means "anointed one," referring primarily to an individual consecrated by God for a special role. The term historically was not exclusive to a single eschatological figure but was applied broadly to a variety of key individuals, including:

·        Priests (e.g., Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22)

·        Kings (e.g., Saul in 1 Sam. 24:6, David in 2 Sam. 23:1)

·        Even foreign rulers chosen by God for a divine purpose, notably Cyrus the Great in Isaiah 45:1 ("Thus says the Lord to His anointed [Messiah], to Cyrus…").

Thus, within the Hebrew Bible itself, "Messiah" (משיח) has a broad and flexible semantic range, referring not exclusively to a future saviour figure but to any person divinely designated and empowered for a specific mission, particularly one involving leadership, reform, or deliverance. Given the term’s semantic range in biblical and Targumic usage, the Servant/Messiah figure in Isaiah 42:1 need not exclusively point towards Jesus (pbuh). The title is broad enough within biblical semantics to encompass any divinely chosen and empowered figure who brings about transformative religious, moral, and socio-political reform—conditions historically met comprehensively by Muhammad (pbuh). Thus, while the traditional Christian interpretation of Jesus (pbuh) as "the Messiah" is well-established and internally coherent from a Christological perspective, it is not historically, linguistically, or theologically necessary that Isaiah 42’s messianic figure must exclusively be Jesus (pbuh). The term's usage within the Bible itself, as well as Jewish interpretative traditions, clearly admits a wider scope. Islamic tradition generally reserves the title "Al-Masīḥ" exclusively for Jesus, Son of Mary (pbuh).[4] Yet, the core meaning of the Hebrew and Aramaic term—divinely chosen, consecrated, and authorized leader—fully applies to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in a functional and theological sense, even though Islamic sources do not typically call him "Masīḥ."

Thus, while some Christological elements resonate with Isaiah 42, certain geographical and legal details do not align perfectly with Jesus’ historical ministry.

5.2. The Servant is Israel?

In certain Jewish interpretative traditions, it is common to read Isaiah 42 as referring to Israel collectively or, in some readings, to a righteous remnant within Israel. This interpretation arises naturally from texts like Isaiah 41:8–9 and 44:1, where Israel is explicitly called the “Servant” of God. This exegesis understands Israel’s vocation as bringing knowledge of the One God to the pagan nations—thus, “a light to the nations” (Isa. 42:6) can be read as Israel’s broader mission. Yet, Isaiah 42 presents critical characteristics that do not fit Israel:

1.      The specific wording in Isaiah 42:1–17 often reads more naturally as describing an individual rather than a collective. The words “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” (42:3) is a description of a personal demeanour, not a characteristic easily applied to a nation. The language suggests a particular style of leadership, more akin to a humble individual than to a national collective. The Servant is said to be “a covenant of the people” (ḇərîṯ ‘ām), which suggests a distinction between the Servant and “the people”—most plausibly Israel. As noted earlier in section 4.2, Christopher North carefully weighing the possible readings of בְּרִית עָם (ḇrîṯ ʿām) argues that while some have proposed collective interpretations—viewing the Servant as Israel itself—the internal logic of the passage supports a personal, individual figure. According to Isaiah 42:4, the Servant “shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgement in the earth.” Israel, historically, did grow faint, failed, and was repeatedly discouraged, as acknowledged elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Deut. 28:33). If the Servant is idealised in this way, it is more fitting to see him as a paradigmatic individual (prophetic or messianic), rather than a historically fallible nation. Further ahead, Isaiah 42:18–25 abruptly shifts focus from the Servant of verses 1–17— with whom God is pleased, who is righteous and a “light for the Gentiles”—to a servant who is blind and deaf, and suffering under divine displeasure. Many interpreters understand these latter verses to refer specifically to Israel in her disobedient state. This sharp contrast supports the view that the “Servant” of Isaiah 42:1–17 cannot simply be the nation of Israel.

2.     Within the historical and theological framework of traditional Judaism, the Torah—the foundational covenantal document given to Moses—is understood predominantly as an exclusive covenant between God and the children of Israel. Rabbinic Judaism has never historically viewed itself or the Torah as directly covenantally binding upon the gentile nations. Rather, classical Jewish tradition asserts that gentiles are bound only by the more general and universal ethical code of the Noahide laws, distinct from the detailed and comprehensive Mosaic covenant given to Israel alone. The idea of Israel itself becoming “a covenant” (Isa. 42:6) for gentile peoples surpasses traditional Jewish conceptions of their covenantal relationship with God. Judaism, historically and theologically, does not regard its covenantal law (Torah) as universally applicable or binding upon non-Israelites, nor does it conceive of the nation of Israel itself as constituting a new universal covenant to humanity. This stands in marked contrast to Isaiah 42, which explicitly foresees a Servant who is not merely illustrative of ethical ideals but who actually constitutes or mediates a new, universal covenantal dispensation for the nations. Such a depiction aligns far better with the historical reality of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who explicitly introduced a universal message and law, rather than the historically particularistic mission that Judaism has traditionally understood for itself and its Torah.

3.     While Israel undoubtedly holds a role among the nations, Isaiah 42 portrays the Servant as one who brings forth eschatological judgement (mišpāṭ, dīn, krīsis) to the Gentiles—a role that aligns more coherently with an individual divinely appointed for this mission. During the exilic and post-exilic periods, Israel lacked the authority or influence necessary to establish divine judgement among the nations. In fact, Israel itself stood as a recipient of divine judgement, having incurred God’s punishment for its repeated violations of the covenant.

4.     The text’s focus on Kedar (42:11) and its immediate region suggests a transformation or revival happening within Arabia. Historically, Israel’s national mission was largely centred around the land of Canaan/Palestine, not the Arabian Peninsula. While Jewish communities existed in Arabia (e.g., in the Madīnah/Ḥijāz region prior to Islam), the text’s portrayal of an entire region praising God in a distinctive form (tehillāh) and singing a “new song” (42:10) because of this servant indicates a figure whose influence directly impacted those desert settlements.

5.     Isaiah 42:5-8 and 17 explicitly state that the Servant will achieve a definitive victory over idol worship. Biblical history consistently portrays ancient Israel as persistently struggling with idolatry, rather than decisively overcoming it. Although the Babylonian exile was a turning point after which overt paganism significantly declined among Jewish communities, the territory demarcated in vv. 10-12 itself continued under foreign dominion, remaining largely influenced by polytheistic Hellenistic and Roman cultures. While Second Temple Judaism was staunchly monotheistic, the region itself continued to host prominent pagan temples and religious practices well into the era of Roman control. This region remained consistently polytheistic (e.g., Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Nabatean, and Arabian polytheism) long after Israel’s establishment as a nation. The Hebrew Bible itself testifies to repeated failures rather than sustained triumphs in permanently uprooting idolatry from even Israel’s immediate borders, let alone the broader Abrahamic inheritance. The historical record from scripture thus contrasts sharply with the comprehensive, decisive victory envisioned in Isaiah 42, where the Servant is depicted not only as confronting idolatry but successfully eliminating it, causing idolaters to be “utterly put to shame.” While Israel historically struggled—and often failed—to eliminate idol worship even from its immediate territory, Islam under the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions definitively eradicated polytheism throughout Arabia,[5] historically fulfilling Isaiah’s vision of an unprecedented and complete victory over idols in the specific region promised to the Prophet Abraham’s progeny.

5.3. The Servant is Cyrus?

Some scholars propose Cyrus, the Persian emperor, as the Servant described by Isaiah, based on other mentions of Cyrus elsewhere (Isa. 44:28, 45:1). In Isaiah 45:1, Cyrus is directly referred to as God’s “anointed” (מָשִׁיחַ) because he allowed the exiled Judeans to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Some scholars point to continuity between Isaiah 42’s emphasis on justice and liberation and the release of Jewish captives under Cyrus. While Cyrus fits the profile of a conqueror appointed by God to achieve specific goals, several essential elements are incompatible:

1.     Isaiah 42 not only emphasises liberation but also a profound spiritual renewal, highlighting the Servant’s role in defeating idolatry and bringing a new divine dispensation to the world. Cyrus is not described in the Hebrew Bible as a prophet or spiritual reformer; rather, he is lauded for political and military accomplishments aligned with divine providence.

2.     Isaiah 42:6–7 describes the Servant explicitly as one whom God appoints as a mediator or embodiment of a new divine covenant: “I will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison…” (KJV). The language suggests more than mere political deliverance; it indicates a profound spiritual transformation marked by a covenantal renewal and moral illumination extending beyond Israel to include the nations (Gentiles). While Cyrus the Great is recognised historically and biblically as a liberating figure for the Jewish people—particularly for authorising the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple after the Babylonian exile (Ezra 1:1–4)—his role, actions, and legacy do not match the spiritual and covenantal dimensions articulated in Isaiah 42. Cyrus' decree, historically documented both in Ezra and the Cyrus Cylinder (c. 539 BCE), was primarily administrative and political, aiming at stabilising and legitimising Persian rule by allowing diverse religious communities under Persian control to worship freely.

3.     While Cyrus is rightly renowned for his progressive religious policies, particularly exemplified by the decree permitting the Jewish exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1–4; 2 Chron. 36:22–23), historical evidence clearly indicates that he did not explicitly establish monotheism or actively eliminate idolatry within his vast empire. Rather, Cyrus' religious approach was pluralistic and pragmatic, rooted primarily in political expediency rather than theological convictions regarding monotheism. Cyrus' famous edict, preserved in the Cyrus Cylinder, provides significant insight into his religious policy. The cylinder explicitly presents Cyrus as chosen by the Babylonian god Marduk to restore worship and rebuild temples for various deities, rather than enforcing exclusive worship of a singular God. The reference to restoring temples for multiple Babylonian and Mesopotamian deities strongly indicates Cyrus' religious inclusivity and personal polytheism, contradicting the notion that he might have advocated exclusive worship of the God of Israel. This historical conclusion aligns closely with the biblical portrayal of Cyrus in Isaiah 45:4–5, where the text itself explicitly acknowledges Cyrus' ignorance of the God of Israel.

4.     Cyrus' historical exploits, while geographically extensive, were primarily focused on the broader Near East, particularly in Persia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and the Levant. The most significant of these actions was the conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE, which allowed the Jewish exiles to return home and rebuild their temple. Yet, despite Cyrus' broad territorial dominion, historical records provide no evidence that his policies or conquests extended significantly into the Arabian Peninsula, nor is there any indication that he attempted or accomplished a religious or cultural transformation among the Ishmaelite tribes inhabiting that region. Isaiah 42:11’s emphasis on Kedar praising God suggests a unique Arabian context.

_______________

[1] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matt. 27:46)

[2] Christians broadly agree that Jesus will return to consummate history, but they differ in how they interpret the millennium (Revelation 20) and the sequence of end-time events. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are typically amillennial, viewing the “thousand years” as symbolic and seeing the Second Coming, resurrection, and final judgement as one event. Many historic Protestant traditions share this amillennial or postmillennial stance. In contrast, numerous evangelical and fundamentalist groups are premillennial, often teaching a “rapture” followed by Christ’s visible return to establish a literal thousand-year kingdom on earth, preceded by increasing global turmoil and culminating in a final rebellion and the last judgement. Adventists emphasise Christ’s imminent return in a historic premillennial framework.

The notion of Jesus’ physical Second Coming appears incongruent with scriptural evidence from both the Qur'ān and the reliable sayings attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Bible. An instructive parallel is found in the expectation of the prophet Elijah’s return in Jewish eschatological tradition, which was metaphorically fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist (pbuh), as explicitly stated by Jesus (pbuh) himself (Matt. 11:14; 17:10–13). This strongly suggests that prophetic 'returns' in biblical tradition were often symbolic, signifying spiritual continuity or divine vindication rather than literal bodily reappearances. The imminent expectation of Christ’s return depicted in the canonical Gospels (e.g., Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32) can plausibly be interpreted metaphorically, referring to the arrival of God's judgement historically realised through the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the subsequent ascendancy of Christians over Jews, rather than a literal bodily return. Similarly, the Qur’ān, while elaborating extensively on Jesus’ life, teachings, and eschatological significance, remains notably silent regarding his supposed return. Passages from the Qur’ān often invoked in support of his Second Coming (e.g., 4:159), have been interpreted in multiple ways by classical exegetes. Moreover, Qur’ān 5:117 records Jesus explicitly disclaiming any knowledge of events following his earthly departure, a position difficult to reconcile with later assertions of his physical return.

[3] “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36)

[4] According to Ghāmidī, Messiah “is a title of Jesus (pbuh). There was a tradition among the Israelites according to which prophets and kings were declared so after a type of sacred oil was rubbed on their heads. For Jesus (pbuh), it was as if this declaration was made right after his birth in his cradle directly by the Almighty Himself. Thus, this title of Messiah became specific for him. In the Gospels, he is called the Messiah of God for this very reason.”

— Ghāmidī and Saleem, Al-Bayān, vol. 1, 270, n. 839.

[5] Explaining the special status of the Arabian Peninsula and its surrounding territories, Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī writes: “After the conquest of Makkah, all contracts with the idolaters of the Arabian Peninsula were revoked on this basis as well. The injunction لا يجتمع دينان في جزيرة العرب (‘Two religions cannot coexist in the land of Arabia’) [Mālik ibn Anas, al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, vol. 2, 892 (no. 1584)] should also be understood in light of this directive. Consequently, on this very basis, in the land of Arabia, neither can a place of worship be built for anyone other than God, nor can a polytheist or disbeliever be allowed to reside. All these directives pertain specifically to this centre of monotheism—the land of Arabia—and do not apply to any other part of the world.”

—Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī, Selected Essays of Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī, comp. Shehzād Saleem (New Delhi: Al-Mawrid Hind Foundation, 2019), 329–30.