LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 gift OF 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 Accessions No . i5ip fT^O- Class No. 
 
N 
 
 « 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 "ST 
 
 1 t 
 
 u 
 
 \^A 
 
 ■ft 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^J 
 
 > 
 
 
 &&* 
 
the 
 
 EARLIER PROPHECIES 
 
 OF 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER, ,£&. 
 
 PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 
 
 >* OF 
 
 CHIVES 
 
 NEW-YORK & LONDON: 
 
 WILEY AND PUTNAM. 
 
 1846. 
 
 t> 
 
■3 v 
 
 t 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by 
 
 Joseph Addison Alexander, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 
 
 \ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 To prevent misapprehension and facilitate the use of the fol- 
 lowing work, some explanation may be needed with respect to its 
 design and execution. The specific end at which it aims is that 
 of making the results of philological and critical research available 
 for purposes of practical utility. In attempting to accomplish this 
 important purpose, it was soon found indispensable to fix upon 
 some definite portion of the reading public, whose capacities, ac- 
 quirements, and wants might be consulted in determining the 
 form and method of the exposition. Some learned and ingenious 
 works in this department have been rendered to a great extent 
 practically useless, by the want of a determinate fitness for any 
 considerable class of readers, being at once too pedantic for the 
 ignorant and too elementary for the instructed. In the present 
 case there seemed to be some latitude of choice, and yet but one 
 course on the whole advisable. Works exclusively adapted to the 
 use of profound orientalists and biblical scholars are almost prohib- 
 ited among ourselves at present, by the paucity of competent wri- 
 ters and congenial readers. Works designed for the immediate 
 use of the unlearned must of necessity be superficial and imper- 
 fect, and are proved by experience to be not the most effective 
 means of influencing even those for whom they are expressly writ- 
 ten. The obscurer parts of Scripture, or at least of the Old Tes- 
 tament, can be most effectually brought to bear upon the popular 
 mind by employing the intermediate agency of an intelligent and 
 educated ministry. The people may be best taught in such cases 
 through their teachers, by furnishing a solid scientific basis for their 
 popular instructions. Under the influence of these considerations 
 an attempt has here been made to concentrate and economize the 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 labours of the ministry in this field, by affording them a partial 
 succedaneum for many costly books, and enabling them to profit 
 by the latest philological improvements and discoveries, without 
 the inconveniences and even dangers which attend a direct resort 
 to the original authorities. 
 
 What has now been said will explain a feature of the plan, 
 which might at first sight seem to be at variance with the ultimate 
 design of the whole work, to wit, the exclusion of the practical 
 element, or rather of its formal exhibition in the shape of homilet- 
 ical and doctrinal reflections. A work upon Isaiah so constructed 
 as to constitute a series of lectures or expository sermons, instead 
 of doing for the clergy what they need and what they wish, would 
 be attempting to do for them that which they can do far better for 
 themselves, by presenting one of the many forms in which the 
 substance of the book may be employed for the instruction and 
 improvement of their people. The effect of this consideration is 
 enhanced by an impression, which the author's recent labours have 
 distinctly made upon his mind, that much of the fanciful and alle- 
 gorical interpretation heretofore current has arisen from a failure 
 to discriminate sufficiently between the province of the critical in- 
 terpreter and that of the expository lecturer or preacher, the effect 
 of which has been to foist into the Scriptures, as a part of their 
 original and proper sense, a host of applications and accommoda- 
 tions, which have no right there, however admissible and even 
 useful in their proper place. Let the professional interpreter con- 
 tent himself with furnishing the raw material in a sound and mer- 
 chantable state, without attempting to prescribe the texture, colour, 
 shape, or quantity of the indefinitely varied fabrics into which it is 
 the business of the preacher to transform it. From these consid- 
 erations it will be perceived that the omission now in question has 
 arisen, not merely from a want of room, and not at all from any 
 disregard to practical utility, but on the contrary from a desire to 
 promote it in the most effectual manner. 
 
 Another point, which may be here explained, is the relation of 
 the following commentary to the authorized English Version of 
 Isaiah. It was at first proposed to make the latter the immediate 
 basis of the exposition, simply calling in the aid of the original to 
 rectify the errors or clear up the obscurities of the translation. 
 
PREFACE. v 
 
 The primary reason for abandoning this method was its tendency 
 to generate an indirect and circuitous method of interpretation. A 
 still higher motive for the change was afforded by its probable 
 effect in promoting thorough biblical learning, and discouraging the 
 sluggish disposition to regard the common version as the ultimate 
 authority, and even to insist upon its errors or fortuitous peculiar- 
 ities as parts of a divine revelation. The contrary disposition to 
 depreciate the merits of the English Bible, by gratuitous depar- 
 tures from its form or substance, is comparatively rare, and where 
 it does exist is to be corrected, not by wilful ignorance, but by 
 profound and discriminating knowledge of the version and original. 
 The practical conclusion, in the present case, has been to make 
 the Hebrew text exclusively the subject of direct interpretation, 
 but to give the common version all the prominence to which it is 
 entitled by its intrinsic excellence and by its peculiar interest and 
 value to the English reader. It may be thought that the shortest 
 and easiest method of accomplishing this object would have been 
 that adopted by Maurer, Knobel, and some other writers, who, 
 without giving any continuous version of the text, confine their 
 comments to its difficult expressions. It was found upon experi- 
 ment, however, that much circumlocution might be spared in many 
 cases by a simple version, or at most by an explanatory para- 
 phrase. A literal translation of the whole text has therefore been 
 incorporated in the present work, not as a mere appendage or ac- 
 companiment, much less as a substitute or rival of the common 
 version, which is too completely in possession of the public ear 
 and memory to be easily displaced even if it were desirable, but 
 simply as a necessary and integral part of the interpretation. The 
 grounds of this arrangement will be stated more fully in the Intro- 
 duction, of which it may as well be said in this place as in any 
 other, that it makes no pretensions to the character of an exhaus- 
 tive compilation, but is simply, as its name imports, a preparation 
 for what follows, consisting partly in preliminary statements, partly 
 in general summaries, the particulars of which are scattered 
 through the exposition. 
 
 Another question, which presented itself early in the progress 
 of the work, was the question whether it should be a record of the 
 author's individual conclusions merely, or to some extent a history 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 of the interpretation. The only argument in favour of the first 
 plan was the opportunity which it afforded of including all Isaiah 
 in a single volume. As to economy of time and labour, it was 
 soon found that as much of these must be expended on a simple 
 statement of the true sense as would furnish the materials for a 
 synopsis of the different opinions. The latter method was adopted, 
 therefore, not merely for this negative reason, but also for the sake 
 of the additional interest imparted to the work by this enlargement 
 of the plan, and the valuable antidote to exegetical extravagance 
 and crudity, afforded by a knowledge of earlier opinions and even 
 of exploded errors. These advantages were reckoned of sufficient 
 value to be purchased even by a sacrifice of space, and it was 
 therefore determined to confine the present publication to the 
 Earlier Prophecies (ch. i-xxxix), the rest being reserved to form 
 the subject of another volume. This separation was the more con- 
 venient as the Later Prophecies (ch. xl-lxvi) are now universally 
 regarded as a continuous and homogeneous composition, requiring, 
 in relation to its authenticity, a special critical investigation. 
 
 But although it was determined that the work should be his- 
 torical as well as exegetical, it was of course impossible to com- 
 pass the whole range of writers on Isaiah, some of whom were 
 inaccessible, and others wholly destitute of any thing original, and 
 therefore without influence upon the progress of opinion. This 
 distinction was particularly made in reference to the older writers, 
 while a more complete exhibition was attempted of the later liter- 
 ature. Some recent writers were at first overlooked through ac- 
 cident or inadvertence, and the omission afterwards continued for 
 the sake of uniformity, or as a simple matter of convenience. Some 
 of these blanks it is proposed to fill in any further prosecution of 
 the author's plan. The citation of authorities becomes less fre- 
 quent and abundant, for the most part, as the work advances and 
 the reader is supposed to have become familiar with the individual 
 peculiarities of different interpreters, as well as with the way in 
 which they usually group themselves in schools and parties, after 
 which it will be generally found sufficient to refer to acknowledged 
 leaders or the authors of particular interpretations. The promi- 
 nence given to the modern German writers has arisen not from 
 choice but from necessity, because their labours have been so 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 abundant, because their influence is so extensive, and because one 
 prominent design of the whole work is to combine the valuable 
 processes and products of the new philology with sounder princi- 
 ples of exegesis. Hence too the constant effort to expound the 
 book with scrupulous adherence to the principles and usages of 
 Hebrew syntax, as established by the latest and best writers. The 
 reference to particular grammars was gradually discontinued and 
 exchanged for explanations in my own words, partly for want of a 
 conventional standard, alike familiar to my readers and myself, 
 partly because the latter method was soon found upon experiment 
 to be the most effectual and satisfactory, in reference to the; object 
 which I had in view. 
 
 The appearance of the work has been delayed by various 
 causes, but above all by a growing sense of its difficulty and of in- 
 capacity to do it justice, together with a natural reluctance to con- 
 fess how little after all has been accomplished. To some it will 
 probably be no commendation of the work to say, that the author 
 has considered it his duty to record the failure as well as the suc- 
 cess of exegetical attempts, and to avoid the presumption of know- 
 ing every thing as well as the disgrace of knowing nothing. His 
 deliberate conclusion from the facts with which he has become 
 acquainted in the prosecution of his present task, is that quite as 
 much error has arisen from the effort to know more than is revealed, 
 as from the failure to apply the means of illustration which are 
 really at our disposal. As advantages arising from delay in this 
 case may be mentioned some additional maturity of judgment and 
 the frequent opportunity of reconsideration, with the aid of con- 
 temporary writers on Isaiah, of whom seven have appeared since 
 this book was projected, besides several auxiliary works of great 
 importance, such asFiirst's Concordance, Nordheimer's Grammar, 
 Hiivernick's Introduction, Robinson's Palestine, the later numbers 
 of Gesenius's Thesaurus, and the last edition of his Manual Lexi- 
 con. It is proper to add that, although the plan was formed and 
 the collection of materials begun more than ten years ago, the 
 work has been wholly, and some parts of it repeatedly, reduced to 
 writing as it passed through the press. The advantage thus se- 
 cured of being able to record the last impressions and to make use 
 of the latest helps, has this accompanying inconvenience, that 
 
vin PREFACE. 
 
 changes insensibly take place in the details of the execution, tend- 
 ing to impair its uniformity without affecting its essential charac- 
 ter. To such external blemishes it is of course unnecessary to 
 invite attention by any more particular description or apology. 
 
 Since the printing of the volume was completed, the typo- 
 graphical errors have been found to be more numerous than was 
 expected, although for the most part less injurious to the work 
 than discreditable to the author, who is justly accountable for this 
 defect, on account of the very imperfect state in which the manu- 
 script was furnished to the printer. Instead of resorting to the 
 usual apologies of distance from the press and inexperience in the 
 business, or appealing to the fact that the sheets could be sub- 
 jected only once to his revision, he prefers to throw himself upon 
 the candour and indulgence of his readers, and especially of those 
 who have experienced the same mortification. At the same time, 
 it will not be improper to direct the attention of the reader, at the 
 very outset, to a few of the errata, which more immediately affect 
 the sense, or do not readily correct themselves. — P. 3, 1. 11, for 
 verb read rest. — P. 47, 1. 7, for heard read hard. Of the errors in 
 the Hebrew, which for the most part may be easily corrected by a 
 reference to the Hebrew Bible, only one or two will be enumer- 
 ated here. On p. 110, 1. 29, for tNM read trtbtt — P. 198, 1. 15, 
 for nix read *na.— P. 224, 1. 21, for tajfj? read K*m. — P. 408, 1. 3, 
 for *T*rt read ibw.— P. 469, 1. 9, read ?|?n\— P. 513, 1. 12, read 
 bsb ■jpjfc. — P. 515, 1. 11, read noXkoL The want of uniformity in 
 the insertion or omission of the Hebrew points is certainly a blem- 
 ish, but will not, it is hoped, occasion any, serious inconvenience, 
 even to the inexperienced reader. It arose from the accidental 
 combination of two different methods, each of which has its 
 advantages, the one as being more convenient for beginners, the 
 other as favouring the useful habit of deciphering the unpointed 
 text, and rendering typographical correctness more attainable. 
 
 Princeton, April 20, 1 846. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The English words prophet, prophesy, and prophecy, have long been 
 appropriated, by established usage, to the prediction of future events. To 
 prophesy, according to the universal acceptation of the term, is to foretell, 
 and a prophet is one who does or can foretell things yet to come. This 
 restricted application of the terms in question has materially influenced the 
 interpretation of the prophetic scriptures by modern and especially by Eng- 
 lish writers. It is necessary, therefore, to compare the common use of these 
 expressions with the corresponding terms in Greek and Hebrew. 
 
 The Greek nQoqnqjrig (from nQocprjfii) is used in the classics not only to 
 denote specifically a foreteller, but more generally an authoritative speaker 
 in the name of God, in which sense it is applied to the official expounders 
 of the oracles, and to poets as the prophets of the muses, i. e. as speaking in 
 their name, at their suggestion, or by their inspiration. This latitude of 
 meaning, in the classical usage of the term, agrees exactly with its applica- 
 tion in the Greek of the New Testament, not only to those gifted with the 
 knowledge of futurity, but in a wider sense to inspired teachers or expound- 
 ers of the will of God in the primitive church. It is evident, therefore, that 
 our prophet, prophesy, and prophecy, are much more restricted in their 
 import than the Greek words from which they are derived, as employed 
 both by the classical and sacred writers. 
 
 It may be said, however, that in this restricted usage we adhere to the 
 primary and proper import of the terms, as the ngo in nooyrmi and nQocpTJttjg, 
 no less than the prae in praedico, must have originally signified before, i. e. 
 beforehand. Even this might be plausibly disputed, as the primary sense 
 of kqo would seem to be not temporal but local, the idea of priority in time 
 . being given by the best lexicographers as secondary to that of antecedence 
 or priority in place, in which case the particle in composition may have 
 originally signified, not so much the futurity of the things declared, as the 
 authority of the person who declared them. (Compare nqoBarmg, nQoiGTdpe- 
 vog, antistes, praetor, praefectus, foreman.) But even granting that the 
 obvious and common supposition is correct, viz., that the noo in noo^m and 
 
 A 
 
x INTRODUCTION. 
 
 its derivatives has primary reference to time, the actual extension of the 
 terms to other authoritative declarations, and especially to those made in 
 the name of God, is clear from the usage both of the classics and of the 
 New Testament. Looking merely to these sources of elucidation, we might 
 still assert with confidence, that the modern use of the words prophet and 
 prophecy is more restricted than that of the Greek terms from which they 
 are derived. 
 
 But this is a very small part of the evidence on which the affirmation 
 rests. The prophets, of whom the New Testament chiefly speaks, are not 
 heathen prophets, nor even the nooyriTai of the apostolic churches, but the 
 prophets of the old dispensation. The terms applied to them must there- 
 fore be interpreted, not merely by a reference to etymology, or to classical 
 usage, or to that of the New Testament itself, but by an appeal to the 
 import and usage of the Hebrew terms, which the Greek ones are designed 
 to represent. As soon as we resort to this source of illustration, the doubt 
 which seemed to overhang the question, when considered as a question of 
 Greek usage, disappears. We have here no probabilities to balance as to 
 the primary import of a particle, no extension of the meaning of the whole 
 word to account for or explain away. The etymology of &033, and the 
 cognate verbal forms, makes it impossible to look upon foresight or prediction 
 as their primary and necessary import. The only derivation, which can 
 now be regarded as philologically tenable, is that which makes the word 
 originally signify the act of pouring forth or uttering, a natural figure in all 
 languages for speech, and more especially for public, solemn, and continuous 
 discourse. In actual usage, the Hebrew words are admitted by modern 
 writers of all schools and creeds to signify specifically one who speaks (or 
 the act of speaking) for God, not only in his name and by his authority, but 
 under his influence, in other words, by divine inspiration. The precise 
 meaning of the noun K12J is clear from Exodus 7 : 1, where the Lord says 
 unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy 
 brother shall be thy prophet, i. e. thy interpreter, thy organ of communica- 
 tion. (See Gesenius's Thesaurus, s. v. J*^.) The etymology proposed by 
 Redslob, which gives fiOM the sense of a person sprinkled or baptized with 
 the Spirit of God, if it can be established, only makes the primary and 
 essential reference to inspiration still more certain than the common one. 
 The few departures from this simple elementary idea, which the lexicons 
 still recognise, may all be reduced to it more easily and naturally than to 
 any other. For example, when Abraham is called a prophet (Gen. 20 : 7), 
 there is no need of diluting the sense of the expression into that of a mere 
 friend of God, which is sufficiently implied in the strict and common sense 
 of an inspired person. It is equally unnecessary, on the other hand, to 
 give the verb the sense of raving or becoming mad, when applied to Saul 
 
INTRODUCTION. XI 
 
 (1 Sam. 18 : 10), since it is there expressly mentioned that an evil spirit 
 from God had come upon him, so that he was really inspired, however fear- 
 ful and mysterious the nature of the inspiration may have been. A com 
 plete induction of particulars would show, with scarcely the appearance of 
 a doubtful case or an exception, that the essential idea, running through the 
 whole Hebrew usage of the verb and noun, is that of inspiration. The 
 suggestion of Gesenius, that the verb is used exclusively in passive or re- 
 flexive forms because the prophet was supposed to be under a controlling 
 influence, is not improbable in itself, and harmonizes fully with the usage of 
 the words as already stated. 
 
 Another obvious deduction from the usage of the language is, that 
 although Wdg, like many other terms of such perpetual occurrence, is em- 
 ployed both in a wider and a more restricted sense, the distinction thus made 
 is not that between inspiration in general and the foresight of the future in 
 particular. There is probably not a single instance in which the word 
 denotes the latter, except as one important function of the power which it 
 properly describes. The gift of prophecy included that of prophetic fore- 
 sight, but it included more. The prophet was inspired to reveal the will of 
 God, to act as an organ of communication between God and man. The 
 subject of the revelations thus conveyed was not and could not be restricted 
 to the future. It embraced the past and present, and extended to those 
 absolute and universal truths which have no relation to time. This is what 
 we should expect a priori in a divine revelation, and it is what we actually 
 6nd it to contain. That the prophets of the old dispensation were not mere 
 foretellers of things future, is apparent from their history as well as from their 
 writings. The historical argument is stated forcibly by Gill when he ob- 
 serves, that Daniel proved himself a prophet by telling Nebuchadnezzar what 
 he had dreamed, as much as by interpreting the dream itself; that it was 
 only by prophetic inspiration that Elijah knew what Gehazi had been doing ; 
 and that the woman of Samaria very properly called Christ a prophet, be- 
 cause he told her all things that ever she did. In all these cases, and in 
 multitudes of others, the essential idea is that of inspiration, its frequent 
 reference to things still future being accidental, i. e. not included in the uni- 
 form and necessary import of the terms. 
 
 The restriction of these terms in modern parlance to the prediction of 
 events still future has arisen from the fact that a large proportion of the 
 revelations made in Scripture, and precisely those which are the most sur- 
 prising and impressive, are of this description. The frequency of such 
 revelations, and the prominence given to them, not in this modern usage 
 merely, but in the word of God itself, admit of easy explanation. It is partly 
 owing to the fact that revelations of the future would be naturally sought 
 with more avidity, and treated with more deference, than any other by 
 
xii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 mankind in general. It is further owing to the fact that of all the kinds of 
 revelation, this is the one which affords the most direct and convincing proof 
 of the prophet's inspiration. The knowledge of the present or the past or 
 of general truths might he imparted by special inspiration, but it might also 
 be acquired in other ways ; and this possibility of course makes the evidence 
 of inspiration thus afforded more complete and irresistible than any other. 
 Hence the function of foretelling what was future, although but a part of 
 the prophetic office, was peculiarly conspicuous and prominent in public 
 view, and apt to be more intimately associated with the office itself in the 
 memory of man. 
 
 These considerations seem sufficient to account, not only for the change 
 of meaning which the words have undergone in later usage, but also for the 
 instances, if any such there be, in which the Bible itself employs them to 
 denote exclusively prophetic foresight or the actual prediction of the future. 
 But there is still another reason, more important than either of these, afforded 
 by the fact, that the old dispensation, with all its peculiar institutions, was 
 prospective in its character, a preparation for better things to come. It is 
 not surprising, therefore, that a part of this economy so marked and promi- 
 nent as prophecy, should have exhibited a special leaning towards futurity. 
 
 This naturally leads us from the theoretical idea of a prophet as a person 
 ■speaking by divine authority and inspiration, to the practical consideration of 
 the end or purpose aimed at in the whole prophetic institution. This was not 
 merely the relief of private doubts, much less the gratification of private curi- 
 osity. The gift of prophecy was closely connected with the general design of 
 the old economy. The foundation of the system was the Law, as recorded in 
 the five books of Moses. In that, as an epitome; the rest of the Old Testa- 
 ment is contained, at least as to its seminal principles. The single book of 
 Deuteronomy, and that the very one with which critical caprice in modern 
 times has taken the most liberties, exhibits specimens of every style employed 
 by the sacred writers elsewhere. Still more remarkably is this true of the 
 whole Pentateuch, in reference not merely to its manner but its matter, as 
 comprising virtually all that is developed and applied in the revelations of 
 the later books. To make this developement and application was the busi- 
 ness of the prophets. The necessity of such an institution was no after- 
 thought. The law itself provides for it. The promise of a prophet like 
 unto Moses, in the eighteenth of Deuteronomy, according to one of its most 
 plausible interpretations, comprehends the promise of a constant succession 
 •of inspired men, so far as this should be required by the circumstances of the 
 people, of which succession Christ himself was to be the greatest. 
 
 This promise was abundantly fulfilled. In every emergency requiring 
 such an interposition, we find prophets present and active, and in some 
 important periods of the history of Israel they existed in great numbers. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xm 
 
 These, though not all inspired writers, were all inspired men, raised up and 
 directed by a special divine influence, to signify and sometimes to execute 
 the will of God, in the administration of the theocracy. Joshua is expressly 
 represented as enjoying such an influence, and is always reckoned in the 
 Jewish tradition as a prophet. The judges who succeeded him were all 
 raised up in special emergencies, and were directed and controlled by a spe- 
 cial divine influence or inspiration. Samuel was one of the most eminent 
 prophets. After the institution of the monarchy we read constantly of pro- 
 phets distinct from the civil rulers. After the schism between Judah and 
 Ephraim, there continued to be prophets even in the kingdom of the ten 
 tribes. They were peculiarly necessary there indeed, because the people 
 of that kingdom were cut off from the sanctuary and its services, as bonds 
 of union with Jehovah. The prophetic ministry continued through the 
 Babylonish exile, and ceased some years after the restoration, in the person 
 of Malachi, whom the Jews unanimously represent as the last of their 
 prophets. 
 
 In tracing this succession, it is evident that the history attaches no 
 importance to the unbroken series of incumbents, and describes them as 
 deriving their prophetic character, not from their predecessors, but immedi- 
 ately from God. The cases of Joshua and Elisha are perhaps the only 
 ones in which a prophet is expressly said to have inducted his successor into 
 office ; and even if it could be fairly inferred from these, that such was the 
 ordinary practice, still the silence of the history implies that the validity of 
 the prophetic ministrations was dependent upon no external rite of transfer 
 and upon no unbroken continuity in the succession. This presumption is 
 the stronger as a perfect series cannot be made out, even by inference and 
 combination, from the recorded history, which usually speaks of the prophets 
 so as to suggest the idea, not so much of an order which could never be 
 
 DO ' 
 
 interrupted or suspended, as of one which should not wholly cease until its 
 purpose was accomplished, and should never be wanting in any emergency 
 which called for a divine interposition. In this, which is the true sense of 
 the promise, it was signally fulfilled, so that although we may not be able to 
 demonstrate a perpetual succession of inspired representatives or messengers 
 from God, we can safely affirm that he never left himself without witness, 
 or his people without counsel, consolation, or reproof. 
 
 With respect to the nature of the inspiration under which these prophets 
 spoke and acted, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself represents it as 
 plenary, or fully adequate to the attainment of its end. (2 Tim. 3: 16. 2 
 Pet. 1 : 21.) Where this end was external action, it was sufficiently 
 secured by the gift of courage, strength, and practical wisdom. Where the 
 instruction of God's people was the object, whether in reference to the past, 
 the present, or the future ; whether in word, in writing, or in both ; whether 
 
xiv INTRODUCTION, 
 
 for temporary ends, or with a view to perpetual preservation ; the prophets 
 are clearly represented as infallible, i.e. incapable of erring or deceiving, 
 with respect to the matter of their revelation. How far this object was se- 
 cured by direct suggestion, by negative control, or by an elevating influence 
 upon the native powers, is a question of no practical importance to those 
 who hold the essential doctrine that the inspiration was in all cases such as 
 to render those who were inspired infallible. Between this supposition and 
 the opposite extreme, which denies inspiration altogether, or resolves it into 
 mere excitement of the imagination and the sensibilities, like the afflatus of 
 a poet or an orator, there seems to be no definite and safe position. Either 
 the prophets were not inspired at all in any proper sense, or they were 
 so inspired as to be infallible. 
 
 As to the mode in which the required impression was made, it seems 
 both vain and needless to attempt any definite description of it. The ulti- 
 mate effect would be the same in any case, if not upon the prophet, upon 
 those who heard or read his prophecies. So far as any thing can be inferred 
 from incidental or explicit statements of the Scripture, the most usual method 
 of communication would appear to have been that of immediate vision, i. e. 
 the presentation of the thing to be revealed as if it were an object of sight. 
 Thus Micaiah saw Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd 
 (1 Kings 22: 17), and Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty throne (IsaL 
 6: 1). That this was the most usual mode of presentation, is probable not 
 only from occasional expressions such as those just quoted, but from the fact, 
 that a very large proportion of the prophetic revelations are precisely such 
 as might be painted and subjected to the sense of sight. The same conclu- 
 sion is confirmed by the use of the words seer and vision as essentially equi- 
 valent to prophet and prophecy. There is no need, however, of supposing 
 that this method of communication, even if it were the common one, was 
 used invariably. Some things in the prophecies require us to suppose that 
 they were made known to the prophet just as he made them known to 
 others, i. e. by the simple suggestion of appropriate words. But this whole 
 question is rather one of curiosity than use, even in reference to inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 A kindred question, but distinct from this, is that respecting the mental 
 and bodily condition of the prophet, under the influence of inspiration. 
 Whatever we imagine to have been the mode of the communication, whether 
 visual or verbal, in the general or in any given case, it may still be made a 
 question whether the prophet, in receiving such communications, was as 
 fully in possession of his faculties, and in the exercise of self-control, as at 
 any other time ; or whether, on the contrary, he was in what the Greeks 
 called wGramg, a state of passive subjection to a higher power, holding his 
 own faculties in temporary but complete abeyance. It is well known that 
 
INTRODUCTION. xv 
 
 the prophets and diviners of the heathen world, during their seasons of 
 pretended inspiration, exhibited the outward signs of violent excitement 
 often amounting to insanity. That this was not regarded as an accidental 
 circumstance, but as a natural and necessary sign of inspiration, may be 
 gathered from the etymological affinity between the Greek words fidvrtg and 
 ftavia or ^annual. The early Fathers uniformly speak of this maniacal 
 excitement as characteristic of the heathen inspiration, whether real or pre- 
 tended, and describe the inspiration of the Hebrew prophets as distinguished 
 by the opposite peculiarities of calmness, self-possession, and active intelli- 
 gence. This is distinctly and repeatedly asserted by Chrysostom, Augustin, 
 and Jerome, who ascribes the contrary opinion to Montanus and his follow- 
 ers. In our own day it has been revived, not only by Gesenius and others, 
 who deny the real inspiration of the prophets, but by Hengstenberg, who 
 steadfastly maintains it. In the first part of his Christology, he undertakes 
 to explain the disregard of chronological relations by the prophets, and their 
 fragmentary manner of exhibiting a subject, from the ecstatic state in which 
 they uttered their predictions. This opinion has not only been attacked 
 and ridiculed by later writers of a very different school, but disavowed by 
 others of the same school, especially by Havernick, who in his Introduction 
 to the Old Testament (§ 199) argues at length in favour of the doctrine 
 that the mental condition of the prophets in receiving their divine communi- 
 cations cannot have been a morbid one. The most serious objections to the 
 theory of Hengstenberg, besides its opposition to the common judgment of 
 the church in every age, and its apparent derogation from the dignity of the 
 prophetic character, are, the want of any clear support in Scripture, and 
 the inutility of such a supposition to attain the end at which he aims, 
 and which may just as well be answered by supposing that the peculi- 
 arities ascribed to the extraordinary state of the inspired writers, were 
 directly produced by something negative or positive in the divine communi- 
 cation itself. If they bring remote events into juxtaposition, the simplest 
 explanation of the fact is, not that they were in a state which rendered them 
 incapable of estimating chronological distinctions, but that these distinctions 
 were withheld from them, or that although acquainted with them they inten- 
 tionally overlooked them and combined the objects in another mode and on 
 another principle. This view of the matter is entirely sufficient to explain 
 what Peter says (I Pet. 1 : 12) without resorting to a supposition which, 
 unless absolutely necessary, is to be avoided as of doubtful tendency. 
 
 It has been disputed whether the prophets of the old dispensation had 
 any training for their work at all analogous to what we call a professional 
 education. Some have supposed the sons of the prophets, frequently men- 
 tioned in the books of Kings, to have been young men in a course of prepa- 
 ration for the prophetic ministry. To this it has been objected, that their 
 
xvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ministry depended on the gift of inspiration, for which no human training 
 could compensate or prepare them. But although they could not act as 
 prophets without inspiration, they might be prepared for those parts of the 
 work which depended upon culture, such as a correct mode of expression, 
 just as men may now be trained by education for the work of the ministry, 
 although convinced that its success depends entirely on the divine blessing. 
 It is not to be forgotten that the inspiration under which the prophets acted 
 left them in full possession of their faculties, native and acquired, and with 
 all their peculiarities of thought and feeling unimpaired. The whole subject 
 of prophetic education is, however, one of surmise and conjecture, rather 
 than of definite knowledge or of practical utility. 
 
 To the government the prophets do not seem to have sustained any 
 definite or fixed relation, as component parts of a political system. The 
 extent and manner of their influence, in this respect, depended on the char- 
 acter of the rulers, the state of affairs, and the nature of the messages which 
 they were commissioned to deliver. As a class, the prophets influenced the 
 government, not by official formal action, but as special messengers from 
 God, by whom he was represented in particular emergencies, and whose 
 authority could neither be disputed nor resisted by any magistrate without 
 abjuring the fundamental principles of the theocracy. Even the apostate 
 kings of Israel acknowledged the divine legation of the prophets of Jehovah. 
 
 The opinion that the priestly and prophetic functions were regarded as 
 identical, or commonly united in the same persons under the theocracy, is 
 wholly destitute of scriptural foundation. It is no doubt true that priests 
 might be inspired, and that the High Priest may have been so always ex 
 officio. Two of the most eminent prophets (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) were 
 unquestionably priests. But the sacerdotal and prophetic offices, as such, 
 were perfectly distinct, as well in function as in purpose, being instituted to 
 promote the same great end in different ways, the one by maintaining the 
 symbolical and sacramental forms of the theocracy, the other by correcting 
 their abuse, and keeping constantly in view their spiritual import and design, 
 as shadows of good things to come. 
 
 The relation of the prophets to the people and the manner of their inter- 
 course appear to have been subject to no uniform and rigid law. From 
 Elijah's hairy dress and John the Baptist's imitation of it, some have hastily 
 inferred that the prophets were commonly distinguished by a peculiar dress 
 and an ascetic mode of life. Whether the same conclusion can be drawn 
 from the sackcloth mentioned in Isaiah 20 : 2, is considered doubtful. The 
 truth appears to be, that from the very nature of the prophetic ministry, 
 it was exempted from the rules of rigid outward uniformity. Eichhorn has 
 justly mentioned as a characteristic difference between the heathen and 
 the Jewish prophets, that whereas the former tried to enhance their author- 
 
INTRODUCTION. xtii 
 
 Jty by darknes3 and seclusion and mysterious accompaniments, the latter 
 moved among the people without any such factitious advantages. 
 
 With respect to the promulgation and preservation of the prophecies, 
 there have been various opinions and many fanciful conjectures. Some 
 suppose the prophets to have been a kind of demagogues or popular orators, 
 whose speeches, unless previously prepared, were afterwards recorded by 
 themselves or others. Another supposition is that the prophets were inspired 
 writers, and that their prophecies were published only as written compositions. 
 A distinction as to this point has by some been drawn between the earlier 
 and the later prophets. From the death of Moses to the accession of Uz- 
 ziah, a period of nearly seven hundred years, a large proportion of the 
 prophets are supposed to have performed their functions orally and without 
 leaving any thing on record ; whereas after that period they were led to act 
 not only for the present but the future. We have no cause to doubt, how- 
 ever, that we now have in possession all that was written aforetime for our 
 learning. ' And in the case of any prophecy, the question whether it was 
 orally delivered before it was written, is comparatively unimportant, as our 
 only concern with it is in its written form. The idea that the prophecies 
 now extant are mere summaries of long discourses, is ingenious and plausible 
 in certain cases, but admits of no historical or certain demonstration. 
 
 A question of more moment is that with respect to the way in which 
 the writings were preserved, whether by private circulation as detached 
 compositions, or by solemn enrolment and deposit in the sanctuary. The 
 modern critics who dispute the integrity and genuineness of many passages 
 lean to the former supposition ; but the latter is unquestionably favoured by 
 the whole drift of Scripture and the current of ancient usage, sacred and pro- 
 fane, with respect to writings which were looked upon as sacred. It may 
 well be doubted whether among the ancient Hebrews there was any exten- 
 sive circulation of books at all, and it seems to me to be as hard to disprove 
 as to prove the position, that the only literature of the nation was THE 
 BOOK or SCRIPTURE ("BSfn), which from the time of Moses was kept 
 open, and in which the writings of the prophets may have been recorded 
 as they were produced. At all events, it seems unreasonable and at va- 
 riance with the tenor of Scripture to suppose that writings held to be inspired 
 were left to circulate at random and to share the fate of other composi- 
 tions, without any effort to attest their genuineness or to secure their preser- 
 vation. 
 
 Upon this improbable hypothesis some modern critics have constructed 
 a theory as to the formation of the Heberew Canon. They suppose that 
 the books now composing the Old Testament were long in circulation as 
 detached compositions, or at most in small collections ; but that after the 
 Babylonish exile, measures were taken to secure the national literature from 
 
xvni INTRODUCTION. 
 
 destruction by bringing together the most highly esteemed books then ex- 
 tant, to which others were added from time to time until the period of the 
 Maccabees. In a similar manner they account for the threefold division of 
 the Old Testament, into the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures (a^rs, ayio- 
 yqaya), found in all Hebrew manuscripts, and referred to, not only by Philo 
 and Josephus, but in the New Testament (Luke 24: 44). This they 
 account for, by supposing that the five books of Moses, because of their 
 superior authority, were first placed together by themselves ; that the earlier 
 histories and prophecies were then joined in a second volume ; and that a 
 fourth was opened for the reception of books which might be afterwards 
 discovered or composed. The obvious design of this whole theory is to 
 account for the admission of books into the canon, which these critics are 
 unwilling to recognise as ancient, such as Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, and 
 many of the Psalms. 
 
 Others attempt to account for the threefold division, as founded on the 
 subjects of the different books. But this supposition is precluded by the 
 fact, that historical books are found in all the three divisions ; Genesis in the 
 first ; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings in the second ; Chronicles, Ezra, 
 Nehemiah, Ruth, and Esther in the third ; to which it may be added, that 
 Daniel is found in the third division, and that Jeremiah's Prophecies are 
 separated from his Lamentations. 
 
 The uniform tradition of the Jews is, that the sacred books were finally 
 collected and arranged by Ezra and his contemporaries, under the guidance 
 of divine inspiration, and that the threefold division is coeval with the forma- 
 tion of the canon. As to the principle of the division, some of the Jewish 
 doctors teach that it is founded on the different degrees of inspiration under 
 which the books were written, the highest being that of Moses, and the lowest 
 that of the Hagiographa or Scriptures. This last opinion is not only desti- 
 tute of evidence or scriptural foundation, but at variance with the tenor of 
 the sacred writings and of dangerous tendency. 
 
 The most satisfactory solution of the fact in question is the one which 
 supposes the law to have been placed first as the foundation of the whole, 
 and the remaining books to have been divided, not with respect to their 
 contents or the degree of inspiration in their writers, but with respect to 
 their official character, the second great division being appropriated to the 
 writings of men who were not only inspired but prophets by profession, who 
 possessed not only the prophetic gift but the prophetic office, while the third 
 place was reserved for those who, although equally inspired, held no such 
 station. Thus the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, having been 
 composed, according to the ancient tradition, by D-^lpSS or official prophets, 
 are prefixed to the prophecies properly so called, while the writings of David 
 and Daniel, who were not such, are included in the third division. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xix 
 
 The principal difficulty in the way of this hypothesis arises from the fact, 
 that different writings of the same man, viz. Jeremiah, are found both in the 
 second and third division. This single exception to the general rule has been 
 accounted for by some, upon the ground, that the book of Lamentations, 
 although written by a Prophet in the strict sense, is more an expression of 
 personal feeling than the other prophecies ; by others, upon the ground of 
 its liturgical character, which naturally led to its insertion in the same part 
 of the Canon with the Psalms. Another objection to this whole explana- 
 tion of the threefold division has been drawn from the absence of entire 
 uniformity in the application of the name K^aa to the official or professional 
 prophet, and of Wh (seer) to an inspired person, simply as such. The diffi- 
 culty here referred to does not lie in the promiscuous use of nQoyfoqg in the 
 New Testament, where David, for example, is expressly called a Prophet. 
 This is sufficiently explained by the want of any Greek equivalent to seer. 
 But the same solution is not applicable to the use of both words seer and 
 prophet, in the Old Testament itself, with reference to one and the same 
 person. (E. g. Gad the seer, 1 Ch. 21 : 9 ; Gad the prophet, 2 Sam. 
 24: 11.) How far this rare departure from the usage ought to weigh 
 against the theory in general, or how far it may be accounted for by special 
 circumstances in the case of Gad, are questions which may be considered 
 doubtful. All that need be affirmed is that this hypothesis respecting the 
 division of the Hebrew Canon, although not susceptible of demonstration, is 
 more satisfactory and probable than any other which has been proposed. 
 
 The application of the name d^pS, ayioyqaya, or Scriptures, to the 
 third division only, has been variously explained ; but the simplest and most 
 natural solution is, that the first two divisions having been distinguished by 
 appropriate names, the third was left in possession of that which, if there had 
 been no division, would have been appropriate to the whole. Thus under- 
 stood, the three parts of the Canon are the Law, the Prophets, and the 
 (other) Scriptures. 
 
 In the second of these great divisions, that of the Prophets properly so 
 called, a prominent place, and for the most part the first place, has been 
 always held, so far as we can trace its history, by a book bearing the name 
 of Isaiah. A Talmudical tradition represents it as having formerly been 
 preceded by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Some of the modern German writers 
 take advantage of this statement, as a ground for the presumption that the 
 book in its present form was not. completed until after those of Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel. This supposition, the design of which is to facilitate the critical 
 rejection of the later prophecies, is not only an unauthorized inference from 
 a fact extremely dubious at best, but at variance with the simultaneous close 
 of the whole canon, which we have seen to be the only well-sustained 
 hypothesis. The Talmudists themselves explain the fact which they allege, 
 
xi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 > 
 
 upon the ground that Jeremiah and Ezekiel are for the most part minatory 
 
 prophets, and that the more consolatory writings of Isaiah were subjoined as 
 a relief and antidote. A far more probable solution is, that the arrangement 
 in question, if it ever prevailed, arose from the intimate connexion of the 
 second book of Kings with Jeremiah, and perhaps from a traditional ascrip- 
 tion of it to that prophet as its author. The necessity of any explanation 
 seems, however, to be superseded by the doubt which overhangs the fact 
 itself, especially when taken in connexion with the uniform position of Isaiah 
 before the other two, in the most ancient manuscripts now extant, both of 
 the Hebrew text and of the ancient versions. 
 
 The name Isaiah is a compound word denoting the Salvation of Jehovah, 
 to which some imagine that the Prophet himself alludes in ch. 8:18. The 
 abbreviated form (rt}2f£j) is never applied in Scripture to the Prophet, though 
 the rabbins employ it in titles and inscriptions. Both forms of the name 
 are applied in the Old Testament to other persons, in all which cases the 
 English Version employs a different orthography, viz. Jeshaiah or Jesaiah. 
 In the New Testament our Version writes the name Esaias, after the exam- 
 ple of the Vulgate, varying slightly from the Greek 'Hoatag, used both in 
 the Septuagint and the New Testament. To the name of the Prophet we 
 find several times added that of his father Amoz ("paa), which several of 
 the Greek Fathers have confounded with the name of the prophet Amos 
 (Diss), though they differ both in the first and last letter. This mistake, 
 occasioned by the Septuagint version, which writes both names alike (Laura's), 
 may be considered the more venial, as two of the latest writers on Isaiah in 
 the English language have, in the very act of setting Cyril and Eusebius 
 right, themselves committed a like error by misspelling the name Amos 
 (bias). The more ancient mistake may have been facilitated by a know- 
 ledge of the Jewish maxim, now recorded in the Talmud, that whenever a 
 prophet's father is named, the father was himself a prophet. The Jews 
 themselves, in this case, are contented with observing the affinity between 
 the names Amoz ("pEs) and Amaziah (tt-nsax), upon which they gravely 
 found a positive assertion that these men were brothers, and that Isaiah was 
 therefore of the blood-royal, being cousin-german to the first king mentioned 
 in the opening of his prophecies. This tradition has had great vogue 
 among Jews and Christians, some of whom account for the urbanity and 
 polish of Isaiah's manner as a natural effect of his nobility. It is unfortu- 
 nately true, however, that the Jewish doctors sometimes invent facts 
 for the purpose of filling up the chasms of history, and this is especially to 
 be suspected where the statement seems to rest on an etymological conceit 
 or any other fanciful analogy. At all events, we have no satisfactory assur- 
 ance of the truth of this tradition, any more than of that which makes the 
 prophet to have been the father-in-law of king Manasseh. The most 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 probable statement is that made by one of the most learned and judicious of 
 the rabbins (David Kimchi), that the family and tribe to which Isaiah be- 
 longed are now entirely unknown. Of his domestic circumstances we know 
 merely, that his wife and two of his sons are mentioned by himself (ch. 7: 
 3. 8:3, 4), to which some add a third, as we shall see below. 
 
 The only historical account of this Prophet is contained in the book 
 which bears his name, and in the parallel passages of Second Kings, which 
 exhibit unequivocal signs of being from the hand of the same writer. The 
 6rst sentence of Isaiah's own book, which is now commonly admitted to be 
 genuine, assigns as the period of his ministry the four successive reigns of 
 Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, one of the most eventful periods in 
 the history of Judah. The two first reigns here mentioned were exceed- 
 ingly prosperous, although a change for the worse appears to have com- 
 menced before the death of Jotham, and continued through the reign of 
 Ahaz, bringing the state to the very verge of ruin, from which it was not 
 restored to a prosperous condition until long after the accession of Hezekiah. 
 During this period the kingdom of the ten tribes, which had flourished 
 greatly under Jeroboam II., for many years contemporary with Uzziah, 
 passed through the hands of a succession of usurpers, and was at length 
 overthrown by the Assyrians, in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign over 
 Judah. 
 
 Among the neighbouring powers, with whom Israel was more or less 
 engaged in conflict during these four reigns, the most . important were Da 
 mascene Syria, Moab, Edom, and the Philistines, who although resident 
 within the allotted bounds of Judah, still endeavoured to maintain their posi- 
 tion as an independent and a hostile nation. But the foreign powers which 
 chiefly influenced the condition of south-western Asia during this period, 
 were the two great empires of Assyria in the east, and Egypt in the south- 
 west. By a rapid succession of important conquests, the former had sud- 
 denly acquired a magnitude and strength which it had not possessed for 
 ages, if at all. Egypt had been subdued, at least in part, by Ethiopia ; 
 but this very event, by combining the forces of two great nations, had given 
 unexampled strength to the Ethiopian dynasty in Upper Egypt. The 
 mutual jealousy and emulation between this state and Assyria, naturally 
 tended to make Palestine, which lay between them, a theatre of war, at 
 least at intervals, for many years. It also led the kings of Israel and Judah 
 to take part in the contentions of these two great powers, and to secure 
 themselves by uniting, sometimes with Egypt against Assyria, sometimes 
 with Assyria against Egypt. It was this inconstant policy that hastened 
 the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and exposed that of Judah 
 to imminent peril. Against this policy the prophets, and especially Isaiah, 
 were commissioned to remonstrate, not only as unworthy in itself, but 
 
 : 
 
xxn INTRODUCTION. 
 
 as implying a distrust of God's protection, and indifference to the fun- 
 damental law of the theocracy. The Babylonian monarchy, as Havernick 
 has clearly proved, began to gather strength before the end of this period, 
 but was less conspicuous, because not yet permanently independent of As- 
 syria. 
 
 The two most remarkable conjunctures in the history of Judah during 
 Isaiah's ministry, are, the invasion by the combined force of Syria and Israel, 
 in the reign of Ahaz, followed by the destruction of the kingdom of the ten 
 tribes, and the Assyrian invasion in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, ending 
 in the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib's army, and his own ignomin- 
 ious flight. The historical interest of this important period is further height- 
 ened by the fact, that two of the most noted eras in chronology fall within 
 it, viz. the era of Nabonassar, and that computed from the building of 
 Rome. 
 
 The length of Isaiah's public ministry is doubtful. The aggregate du- 
 ration of the four reigns mentioned in the title is above one hundred and 
 twelve years ; but it is not said that he prophesied throughout the whole 
 reign, either of Uzziah or Hezekiah. Some, it is true, have inferred that his 
 ministry was coextensive with the whole reign of Uzziah, because he is said 
 to have written the history of that prince (2 Chron. 26 : 22), which he 
 surely might have done without being strictly his contemporary, just as he 
 may have written that of Hezekiah to a certain date (2 Chron. 32 : 32), 
 and yet have died before him. Neither of these incidental statements can 
 be understood as throwing any light upon the question of chronology. Most 
 writers, both among the Jews and Christians, understand the first verse of 
 the sixth chapter as determining the year of king Uzziah's death to be the 
 first of Isaiah's public ministry. Some of the Jewish writers, who adopt 
 this supposition, at the same time understand Uzziah's death to mean his civil 
 death, occasioned by the leprosy with which he was smitten in the twenty- 
 fifth year of his reign, for his sacrilegious invasion of the house of God, so 
 that he dwelt in a separate house until his death. There seems to be no 
 sufficient ground for this explanation of the language, or for the alleged co- 
 incidence of the event with the twenty-fifth year of Uzziah's reign, any more 
 than for the notion of the oriental Christians, that Uzziah was deprived of 
 the prophetic office, for his sin in not withstanding Uzziah, and after twenty- 
 eight years of silence was restored in the year of that king's death, a fan- 
 ciful interpretation of the facts recorded in chap. vi. The modem writers 
 are agreed in understanding the expression literally, and in connecting the 
 last year of Uzziah's life with the first year of Isaiah's ministry. It is by no 
 means certain, as we shall see below, that the sixth chapter is descriptive of 
 Isaiah's inauguration into office, still less that it was written before any of 
 the others. But it cannot be denied that the chronological hypothesis just 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxin 
 
 stated is strongly recommended by the fact of its removing all objections to 
 the truth of the inscription (chap. 1:1) founded on the extreme longevity 
 which it would otherwise ascribe to the prophet, by enabling us at once to 
 deduct half a century. If we reckon from the last year of Uzziah to the 
 fourteenth of Hezekiah, the last in which we find any certain historical 
 traces of Isaiah, we obtain as the minimum of his prophetic ministry a pe- 
 riod of forty-seven years, and this, supposing that he entered on it even at 
 the age of thirty, would leave him at his death less than eighty years old. 
 And even if it be assumed that he survived Hezekiah, and continued some 
 years under his successor, the length of his life will after all be far less than 
 that of Jehoiada the High Priest who died in the reign of Joash at the age 
 of 130 years. (2 Chron. 24 : 15.) 
 
 The Jews have a positive tradition that he did die in the reign of Ma- 
 nasseh, and as a victim of the bloody persecutions by which that king is 
 said to have rilled Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to the other. 
 (2 Kings 21 : 16.) Some accounts go so far as to give the pretext upon 
 which the murder was committed, namely, that of discrepance between 
 Isaiah's teaching and the law of Moses, as well as the precise form of his 
 martyrdom by being sawn asunder, some say in the body of a tree, which 
 had opened to receive him. The substantial part of this tradition is re- 
 ceived as true by several of the Fathers, who suppose it to be clearly 
 alluded to ioHeb. 1 ljj£7. It has also found favour among many modern 
 writers, on the ground of its intrinsic credibility, and the antiquity of the 
 tradition. Hengstenberg assents to it moreover on the ground that it enables 
 us more easily to account for the peculiar features of the later prophecies 
 (ch. 40 — 66), by supposing them to have been written in the days of Ma- 
 nasseh, in the old age of the prophet, and after his retirement from active 
 life. Havernick, on the other hand, rejects the tradition, first, on the gene- 
 ral ground that fabulous accounts are especially abundant in the Jewish 
 martyrology, and then on the special ground, that this assumption leaves 
 us unable to account for the omission of Manasseh's name in the inscription 
 of the book, without admitting that the title may have been prefixed to a 
 partial collection of Isaiah's prophecies, or by the hand of a later writer, 
 which he holds to be unauthorized and dangerous concessions. To the 
 suggestion that Manasseh may have been omitted because under him Isaiah 
 had ceased to appear in public as a prophet and employed himself in writ- 
 ing, it is answered that if Uzziah is distinctly mentioned simply because 
 Isaiah was inducted into office at the close of his long reign, he could 
 scarcely have omitted Manasseh under whom so large a proportion of his 
 prophecies were written, if not publicly delivered. In weighing the argu- 
 ments of Havernick, it must not be overlooked that his hypothesis compels 
 him to regard ch. 37 : 38 as later than the times of Isaiah, simply because 
 
xxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the event there recorded must have taken place in the reign of Manasseb, 
 This fact, together with the insufficiency of his objections to the contrary 
 hypothesis, may at least dispose us to abstain from such a positive decision 
 of the question as would cut us off from the assumption of a longer term of 
 public service, however probable on other grounds, and however necessary 
 to the full solution of questions which may afterwards present themselves 
 during the process of interpretation. With this proviso, we may safely leave 
 the precise chronological question, as the Bible haves it, undetermined. 
 
 From the references, which have been already quoted, to the historical 
 writings of Isaiah, some have inferred that he was an official historiographer, 
 in which capacity the older prophets seem to have acted, as appears from 
 the canonical insertion of such books as those of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 
 and Kings, among the Prophets. We have no reason to suppose, however, 
 that Isaiah held any secular office of the kind, distinct from his prophetic 
 ministry. Nor is it clear in what sense the citation of Isaiah by the Chron- 
 icles as a historical authority should be understood. The reference may be 
 simply to the historical portions of his book, or to the corresponding passages 
 of Second Kings, of which, in strict discharge of his official functions, he may 
 well have been the author. That the books referred to were more copious 
 histories or annals, of which only summaries or fragments are now extant, is 
 a supposition which, however credible or even plausible it may be in itself, 
 is not susceptible of demonstration. The question as to the identity and 
 fate of these historical writings is of no importance to the exegesis of the 
 book before us. The books still extant under the name of the Vision and 
 Ascension of Isaiah are universally admitted to be spurious and apocryphal. 
 Our attention will therefore be exclusively confined to the canonical Isaiah. 
 
 This book not only forms a part of the Old Testament Canon as far as 
 we can trace it back, but has held its place there without any change of 
 form, size, or contents, of which the least external evidence can be adduced. 
 The allusions to this Prophet, and the imitations of him, in the later books 
 of the Old Testament, are not confined to any one part of the book or any 
 single class of passages. The apocryphal writers who make mention of it, 
 use no expressions which imply that it was not already long complete in its 
 present form and size. The same thing seems to be implied in the numer- 
 ous citations of this book in the New Testament. Without going here into 
 minute details, a correct idea of the general fact may be conveyed by simply 
 stating, that of the sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, as divided in our modern 
 Bibles, forty-seven are commonly supposed to be directly quoted or dis- 
 tinctly alluded to, and some of them repeatedly. The same thing may be 
 illustrated clearly on a smaller scale by stating, that in the twenty-one cases 
 where Isaiah is expressly named in the New Testament, the quotations are 
 drawn from the first, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twenty-ninth, 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxv 
 
 fortieth, forty-second, fifty-third, sixty-first, and sixty-fifth chapters of the 
 book before us. These facts, together with the absence of all countervail- 
 ing evidence, show clearly that the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:17) 
 known and quoted by our Lord and his apostles was, as a whole, identical 
 with that which we have under the same name. We find accordingly a 
 long unbroken series of interpreters, Jewish and Christian, through a course 
 of ages, not only acquiescing in this general statement, but regarding all the 
 passages and parts, of which the book consists, as clearly and unquestionably 
 genuine. This appears for the most part, it is true, not as the result of any 
 positive reasoning or investigation, but as a negative assumption, resting on 
 the want of any proof or even ground of suspicion to the contrary. Hence 
 it is that in the older writers on Isaiah, even down to the middle ol the 
 eighteenth century, the place now occupied by criticism, in the modern sense, 
 is wholly blank. No one of course thought it necessary to defend what had 
 never been attacked, or to demonstrate what had never been disputed. 
 
 This neglect of critical investigation and discussion, although easily 
 accounted for, as we have seen, led to a violent reaction towards the opposite 
 extreme, as soon as the first impulse had been given to that kind of learned 
 speculation. The critical processes employed, with paradoxical assurance, 
 on the Greek and Roman classics, by the school of Bentley, were transferred 
 to Scripture, and applied not only to particular expressions, but to whole 
 passages and even books. That this new method would be early carried to 
 excess, was not only to be apprehended as a possible contingency, but con- 
 fidently looked for as a natural and even unavoidable result. The causes which 
 facilitate inventions and discoveries tend also to exaggerate their value. Of 
 this general truth we have abundant illustration without going beyond the 
 field of biblical learning. The supposed discovery that Buxtorf and the 
 Rabbins had attached too much importance to the masoretic pointing, led 
 Cappellus, Houbigant, and Lowth, to reject it altogether — not only its 
 authority but its assistance — and to make the Hebrew text a nose of wax 
 between the fingers of an arbitrary and capricious criticism. The discovery 
 that sufficient use had never yet been made of the analogy of Arabic in He- 
 brew lexicography, led Schultens and his school to an extreme which seemed 
 to threaten a transfusion of the spirit of one language into the exhausted ves- 
 sels of another. In like manner, the idea that the Hebrew text had been too 
 uncritically handled, seems at first to have been wholly unaccompanied by 
 any apprehension that the process of correction could be either misapplied 
 or pushed so far as to defeat itself. In all such cases the first movements 
 must be tentative. The primary object is to ascertain what can be done. In 
 settling this point, it is necessary to assume provisionally more than is ex- 
 pected to abide the test of final and decisive experiment. The writers who 
 originally undertook to separate the genuine and spurious portions of Isaiah, 
 
 B 
 
xxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 acted of course on the presumption, that any part might prove unsound, and 
 therefore set no bounds to their avidity for textual reforms and innovations. 
 The natural result was a grotesque disguise and mutilation of the book by 
 means of numberless erasures, transpositions, combinations, gratuitous assump- 
 tions of imaginary authors, two or more of whom were often thought to be 
 identified within the bounds of one connected passage. 
 
 Particular examples of this critical mania, as displayed by Koppe, Eieh- 
 horn, Bertholdt, and others, will be given hereafter in the exposition. What 
 has been here said in the general will suffice to explain the fact that these 
 extravagant results, and the confusion into which they threw the whole subject 
 of interpretation, soon produced a new reaction. Rosenmuller, DeWette, and 
 especially Gesenius, who may be regarded as the representatives of a more 
 moderate and later school, have no hesitation in expressing their contempt for 
 the empirical and slashing criticism of their predecessors, and, as a proof of 
 their sincerity, assert the integrity and unity of many passages which Eichhorn 
 and his fellows had most wantonly dismembered. This is undoubtedly a 
 retrograde movement in the right direction, and as far as it goes has had a 
 salutary influence, by making the criticism of the Hebrew text something 
 more than idle guess-work or fantastic child's play. At the same time, it is 
 not to be dissembled that the ground assumed by these distinguished writers 
 is itself, to use a favourite expression of their own, unkriiisch and unwissen- 
 schaftlich, i. e. neither critical nor scientific. The ground of this charge is 
 that their own mode of critical procedure differs from that which they repu- 
 diate and laugh at, only in degree, i. e. in the extent to which it is applied. 
 They expunge, transpose, and imagine less ; but still they do all three, and 
 on precisely the same principles. They mark out no new method, they 
 establish no new standard, but are simply the moderate party of the same 
 school which they represent as antiquirt and exploded. 
 
 The consciousness of this defect betrays itself occasionally in the naivete 
 with which Gesenius and DeWette appeal to their critical feeling as the 
 ultimate ground of their decisions. The real principle of these decisions is 
 identical with that assumed by Eichhorn and his school, to wit, that where 
 there is a colourable pretext or the faintest probability in favour of a change, 
 it is entitled to the preference, always provided that it does not shock the 
 critical Gefuhl of the performer, a proviso which experience has proved to 
 be sufficient to prevent all inconveniences that might arise from a too rigor- 
 ous construction of the rule. If, for example, after three-fourths of a sen- 
 tence or a passage have been sacrificed because they may by possibility be 
 spurious, it is found convenient to retain the fourth, for any exegetical pur- 
 pose or to prove another point, it is effected without scruple or delay by 
 a response of the Gefuhl in its favour. In this convenient process, the 
 TiQmrov ipevdog of the radical reformers, as the earlier critics may be justly 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxvn 
 
 called, if not avowed in theory, is still held fast in practice, viz. the doctrine 
 that the general presumption is against the truth and authenticity of every 
 thing traditional or ancient, and in favour of whatever can by any means be 
 substituted for it. The difference between this and the old-fashioned criticism 
 seems to be the same as that between the principle of English jurisprudence, 
 that a person accused is to be reckoned innocent until he is proved guilty, 
 and the rule adopted in the criminal proceedings of some other nations, that 
 he ought to be held guilty till he proves his innocence. A fundamental 
 maxim of this whole school of criticism, upper and lower, first and last, 
 extreme and moderate, is this, that what is possible is pr.obable and may be 
 held as certain if it suits the convenience of the critic; in- other words, 
 " things must be as they may." 
 
 Another proof that this whole system is uncritical, or destitute of any 
 settled principle, distinct from that of the exploded method which it super- 
 sedes, is furnished by the absence of consistency and unity in its results. In 
 one important point, these writers, it is true, display a singular agreement. 
 This is their unanimous rejection of the twenty-seven chapters at the end of 
 the collection, as the product of a later age ; a unanimity arising neither 
 from the clearness of the case nor from any real unity of principle among 
 the critics who exhibit it, but simply from the fact, now universally admitted, 
 that these chapters form a continuous unbroken composition, so that in order 
 to be rid of any one part, it is requisite to sacrifice the whole. The parti- 
 cular grounds of this rejection will be stated and examined in a special intro- 
 duction to that portion of Isaiah. The comparison about to be made here 
 will be restricted to the remainder of the book, with the exception of the 
 four historical chapters which connect the two divisions (ch. xxxvi-xxxix), 
 and which have usually shared the same fate with the twenty-seven. 
 
 The earliest chapters are precisely those respecting which these critics 
 are the least divided. It is commonly agreed among them that the six first 
 are genuine productions of Isaiah, to which it can hardly be considered an 
 exception, that ch. 2 : 2-4 is supposed by many to be still more ancient. 
 The only observable dissent from this general judgment seems to be the 
 paradoxical opinion of the Dutch writer Roorda, that ch. 2 : 2-4 is the only 
 portion written by Isaiah, and that all the rest of the first five chapters is 
 the work of Micah ! Ch. 7 : 1-16 is regarded by Gesenius as probably not 
 the composition of Isaiah, who is mentioned in the third person. This opi- 
 nion is refuted by Hitzig and repudiated by the later writers. Koppe's idea 
 that the twelfth chapter is a hymn of later date, after being rejected by Ge- 
 senius, and revived by Ewald, has again been set aside by Umbreit. The 
 genuineness of ch, 13 and ch. 14 : 1-23 is more unanimously called in 
 question, on account of its resemblance to ch. 40-66, which this whole class 
 of critics~set aside as spurious. Ch. 15 and 16 are ascribed by Koppe and 
 
xxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Bertholdt to Jeremiah ; by Ewald and Umbreit to an unknown prophet 
 older than Isaiah ; by Hitzig, Maurer, and Knobel to Jonah ; by Hende- 
 werk to Isaiah himself. Eichhorn rejects the nineteenth chapter; Gesenius 
 calls in question the genuineness of vs. 18-20; Koppe denies that of vs. 
 18-25 ; Hitzig regards vs. 16-25 as a fabrication of the Jewish priest Oni- 
 as ; while Rosenmiiller, Hendewerk, Ewald and Umbreit, vindicate the 
 whole as a genuine production of Isaiah. The first ten verses of the twen- 
 ty-first chapter are rejected on the ground of their resemblance to the thir- 
 teenth and fourteenth. Ewald ascribes both to a single author; Hitzio- 
 denies that they can be from the same hand. Ewald makes the prophecy 
 in ch. 21 the- earlier; Hitzig proves it to be later. Koppe, Paulus, Eich- 
 horn, and Rosenmiiller, look upon it as a vaticinium ex eventu ; Gesenius, 
 Ewald, and the other later writers as a real prophecy. The twenty-third 
 chapter is ascribed by Movers to Jeremiah ; by Eichhorn and Rosenmiiller to 
 an unknown writer later than Isaiah ; by Gesenius and DeWette to Isaiah 
 himself; by Ewald to a younger contemporary and disciple of the prophet. 
 The continuous prophecy contained in ch. 24-27 Knobel shows to have 
 been written in Palestine about the beginning of the Babylonish exile ; Ge- 
 senius, in Babylon towards the end of the captivity, and by the author of 
 ch. 40-66 ; Umbreit, at the same time, but by a different author; Gram- 
 berg, after the return from exile ; Ewald, just before the invasion of Egypt 
 by Cambyses ; Vatke, in the period of the Maccabees ; Hitzig, in Assyria 
 just before the fall of Nineveh ; while Rosenmiiller, in the last editions of 
 his Scholia, ascribes it to Isaiah himself. Ch. 28-33 are supposed by 
 Koppe to contain many distinct prophecies of different authors, and by 
 Hitzig several successive compositions of one and the same author ; while 
 most other writers consider them as forming a continuous whole. This is 
 regarded by Gesenius and Hitzig, notwithstanding the objections of pre- 
 ceding critics, as a genuine production of Isaiah ; but Ewald doubts whe- 
 ther it may not be the work of a disciple. Most of the writers of this 
 school join ch. 34 and 35 together, as an unbroken context ; but Hitzig no 
 less confidently puts them asunder. Rosenmiiller, DeWette, and others, 
 set these chapters down as evidently written by the author of ch. 40-66, 
 while Ewald on the other hand maintains that this identity is disproved by 
 a difference of style and diction. 
 
 No attempt has here been made to detail the grounds of these conflicting 
 judgments, much less to decide between them. This will be done, so far 
 as it seems necessary, in the exposition, and particularly in the introductions 
 to the several chapters. The object aimed at in the foregoing statement is 
 to show, that no additional security or certainty has been imparted to the 
 criticism of the text by these empirical conjectures, and to confirm the pre- 
 vious assertion that they rest on no determinate intelligible principle or 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxix 
 
 standard of comparison. A further confirmation of the same position is 
 afforded by the tests of genuineness and antiquity, explicitly asserted and 
 applied by the writers of this school. A more correct expression would 
 perhaps be tests of spuriousness and later origin ; for, as we have already 
 seen, the use of a criterion, in the hands of these critics, is seldom to estab- 
 lish or confirm, but almost always to discredit what has commonly been 
 looked upon as genuine. 
 
 One of the surest proofs of spuriousness, according to the theory and 
 practice of this school, is the occurrence of idioms and words belonging to 
 a period of Hebrew composition later than the days of Isaiah. This 
 method of discrimination, however unobjectionable in itself, is nevertheless 
 often so employed as to be altogether violent and arbitrary in its application. 
 This is effected, first, by exaggerating, in the general, the real difference be- 
 tween the older and the later writings, and the practical facility of recognising 
 the peculiar style of either. Conclusions which have properly been drawn, 
 in one case, from a variety of premises, including the assumption of the date 
 as a fact already known, are most unreasonably drawn in others from a 
 single element or item of the same proof in default of all the rest. This 
 kind of sophistry is more delusive in the case of Hebrew than of Greek or 
 Latin criticism, partly because we have fewer data upon which to form a 
 judgment, partly because peculiar causes kept the written Hebrew more 
 unchanged than other languages within a given period, and tended to oblite- 
 rate in some degree the usual distinctive marks of earlier or later date. This 
 is particularly true if we assume, as there are some strong grounds for doing, 
 that the whole ancient literature of the Hebrews was contained in the canon 
 of their scriptures, so that later writings were continually formed upon a few 
 exclusive models. But whether this be so or not, the influence exerted by 
 the books of Moses on the style and language of succeeding writers was 
 immeasurably greater than in any other case at all analogous. 
 
 Besides this general and theoretical exaggeration of the difference be- 
 tween the older and the later Hebrew, there is also chargeable upon these 
 critics an habitual proneness to lose sight of the distinction between what is 
 really peculiar to the later books, or to the times in which they were com- 
 posed, and that which after all, on any supposition, must be common to the 
 different periods. That there must be a common stock of this kind is self- 
 evident ; and that it must be very great in comparison with that which is 
 peculiar and distinctive, is as fully established by the facts of this case and 
 the analogy of others like it, as any maxim of comparative philology. And 
 yet some German critics of the modern school, although they do not venture 
 to avow the principle, proceed in practice just as if they held the use of an 
 expression by a later writer to be in itself exclusive of its use by one of a 
 preceding age. And even when they do profess to make the distinction 
 
xxx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 just insisted on, they often make it in an arbitrary manner, or prevent its 
 having any practical effect, by confounding archaisms with neologisms, i. e. 
 mistaking for corruptions of a later age forms of expression which have 
 been transmitted from the earliest period in the dialect of common life, but 
 are only occasionally used in writing, and especially in poetry, until the 
 language ceases to be spoken, and the difference of learned and colloquial 
 style is thereby lost. The profounder study of comparative philology in 
 very recent times has shown the fallacy of many such objections to the 
 antiquity of certain passages, and at the same time shaken the authority of 
 similar criticism in other cases, not admitting of direct refutation. 
 
 The bad effect of these fallacious principles of criticism is often aggra- 
 vated by a want of consistency and fairness in their application. This is 
 especially apparent in the younger German writers of this school, who often 
 push to a practical extreme the theoretical assumptions of their more dis- 
 creet or more enlightened teachers. Even where this is unintentionally 
 done, it argues an eagerness to prove a point, or to sustain a foregone con- 
 clusion, not very likely to be found connected with a high degree of candour 
 and impartiality. A signal illustration of this critical unfairness is the practice 
 of evading the most certain indications of antiquity by noting them as imi- 
 tations of a later writer. Where the recent date of the composition is 
 already certain, the existence of such imitations may be certain also ; but 
 to assume them in the very process of determining the date, is little short of 
 an absurdity. By setting down whatever can be found in other later books 
 as proof of recent origin, and every thing which cannot as a studied imitation 
 of antiquity, the oldest writings extant may be proved to be a hundred or a 
 thousand years younger than themselves. Indeed it may be stated as a 
 fatal vice of this whole system, that it either proves too little or too much, 
 that it is either pushed too far or that it ought to be pushed further, that the 
 limit of its application is determined by no principle or rule but the conve- 
 nience or caprice of the interpreter. Stat pro ratione voluntas. The 
 critical process is too generally this, that where the admission of a passage 
 as genuine would lead to consequences undesirable in any point of view, 
 the critic fastens upon every singularity of thought or language as a ground 
 of suspicion, and the most unmeaning trifles by accumulation are converted 
 into arguments ; whereas in other cases altogether parallel, except that there 
 is no urgent motive for discrediting the passage, indications equally abundant 
 and conclusive are entirely overlooked. Sometimes the evidence of later 
 date is found exclusively in one part of a long unbroken context, all admitted 
 to be written by the same hand, though the critic fails to see that this ad- 
 mission is destructive of his argument so far as it is founded on diversity of 
 language as a test of age. For if a later writer can be so unlike himself, 
 why not an older writer also ? 
 
INTRODUCTION xxxi 
 
 This remark, however, is applicable rather to the question of identity 
 than that of age. For a favourite process of the modern critics, and espe- 
 cially of some below the highest rank, is that of proving a negative, by 
 showing that a passage or a book is not the work of its reputed author, with- 
 out attempting to show whose it is. Some of the means employed for the 
 attainment of this end might seem incredible, as serious attempts at argu- 
 ment, but for the formal gravity with which they are employed. Sometimes 
 the demonstration is effected by enumerating forms of expression, which 
 occur nowhere else in the undisputed works of the reputed author, and 
 inferring that he therefore could not have employed them in the case under 
 consideration. The first absurdity of this ratiocination lies in the very 
 principle assumed, which is, in fact if not in form, that whatever any writer 
 has said once, he must, as a general rule, have said again if not repeatedly. 
 Now what can be more certain or notorious than the fact that what the 
 greatest writers say most frequently, is that which is least characteristic, 
 while the thoughts and expressions which are most admired, quoted, and 
 remembered, are for the most part ana^ Xtyofteva, things which could only 
 be said once, which would not bear to be repeated, by themselves or others ? 
 What would be thought of an attempt to prove the Ars Poetica spurious, on 
 the ground that the words exlex, sesquipedalia, cotis, Htura, quincunce, and 
 the phrases purpureus p annus, ab ovo, lucidus ordo, callida junctura, norma 
 loquendi, in medias res, incredulus odi, sagax rerum, ad unguem, vivas 
 voces, ore rotundo, decies repetita, laudator temporis acti, the simile of the 
 mountain and the mouse, and the proverbial saying, occupet extremum scabies, 
 occur nowhere else in the writings of Horace ? But this case, strong as it 
 is, affords a very insufficient illustration of the theory and practice of the 
 German critics now in question. Not content with the assumption of a 
 false and arbitrary test of identity, they make the application of it more 
 unreasonable still, by rejecting every proof adduced in opposition to their 
 doctrine, as itself suspicious or unquestionably spurious. A parallel case 
 would be that of a critic who, on being reminded that the phrase ab ovo is 
 used in the same sense in the third satire, and ad unguem in the first, should 
 set the argument aside by referring both these compositions to the times 
 of Juvenal or Persius. With equal justice the tenth eclogue of Virgil 
 might be taken from him, by first rejecting the Georgics and the last ten books 
 of the iEneid as unquestionably spurious, and then enumerating all the 
 single words, grammatical constructions, and peculiar idioms, to which no 
 perfect counterparts are found in the remainder of his poems. 
 
 But besides this linguistical method of discrediting a large part of Isaiah 
 as unquestionably not his composition, there is another process used for the 
 same purpose, which may be entitled the rhetorical argument, consisting in 
 the arbitrary affirmation that the style of certain passages is too prosaic, the 
 
xxxn INTRODUCTION. 
 
 metaphors too much confused, the rhythm loo harsh, the allusions too obscure, 
 the illustrations too familiar, the expression too inelegant, to be imputed to 
 so great a writer. This mode of criticism is pregnant with absurdities pe- 
 culiar to itself. In the first place may be stated the unreasonable weight 
 which it attaches to rhetorical distinctions in general, not to mention the 
 peculiar stress laid on the technicalities of scholastic rhetoric in particular. 
 This error is connected with a false hypothesis, to be considered afterwards, 
 as to the light in which the prophets viewed themselves and were regarded 
 by their readers. If they aspired to be nothing more than orators and poets, 
 then rhetorical considerations would of course be paramount ; but if they 
 believed themselves, and were believed by others, to be inspired revealers of 
 the will of God, it is absurd to imagine that they would or could allow the 
 clear and strong expression of that will to be controlled by mere rhetorical 
 punctilios. 
 
 Another flaw in this critical process is its puerile assumption that the 
 prophets, even as mere orators and poets, must be always doing their 
 best ; that if ever striking, they must strike at all times; that if ever tender, 
 they must always melt ; that if they ever soar, they must be always in the 
 clouds ; whereas analogy demonstrates that the greatest writers, both in 
 prose and verse, go up by the mountains and down by the valleys, or in 
 other words, exert their highest faculties at intervals, with long and frequent 
 seasons of repose, while poetasters and declaimers prove the hollowness of 
 their claims by a painful uniformity of tension and a wearisome monotony 
 of failure. 
 
 A third defect is one which might with equal justice have been charged 
 against some arguments before recited, namely, the vague and indeterminate 
 character of this criterion, as evinced by the diversity of its results. Not 
 only does one critic censure what another critic of the same school leaves 
 unnoticed ; but the same thing is positively represented by the two as a 
 beauty and a deformity, nay more, as fatal to the genuineness of a passage, 
 and as a certain demonstration of it. It may seem invidious and perhaps 
 presumptuous to add, that this unsafe and two-edged instrument could scarcely 
 be intrusted to worse hands than those of some late German critics, who 
 with all their erudition, ingenuity, and show of philosophical aesthetics, are 
 peculiarly deficient in that delicate refinement and acute sensibility of taste, 
 which a less profound but far more classical and liberal training has im- 
 parted even to inferior scholars of some other nations, and especially of 
 England. To this unfavourable estimate of German taste and literary judg- 
 ment there are eminent exceptions, even in the ranks of theological and 
 biblical learning ; but among these it would be impossible to class the writers 
 who are most remarkable for an unhesitating reckless use of the rhetorical 
 criterion now in question. On the contrary, it may be stated as a curious 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxiu 
 
 and instructive fact, that the imputation of inelegance, awkwardness, obscu- 
 rity, and coarseness, has been lavished on Isaiah with peculiar prodigality 
 by those interpreters who seem to be most open to the charge themselves, 
 and who, in the very act of passing judgment on the Prophet or his writings 
 as devoid of taste and genius, often show most painfully and clearly that 
 their circumscribed professional pursuits, however thorough and successful, 
 have been insufficient to compensate for the want of a more enlarged and 
 humanizing culture. 
 
 The revulsion of feeling, necessarily occasioned in the great majority of 
 cultivated minds, by these rhetorical attacks upon some portions of Isaiah, 
 with a view to prove them spurious, must be greatly aggravated by another 
 argument employed for the same purpose, which may be distinguished from 
 the lexicographical, grammatical, and rhetorical tests already mentioned, as 
 the ethical or moral test. This consists simply in accusing certain passages 
 of being animated by a narrow, selfish, mean, and sometimes even by a fierce, 
 malignant, cruel, vindictive, blood-thirsty spirit, wholly foreign from Isaiah's 
 character, and from the temper of the age in which he lived. Without insist- 
 ing on the arbitrary difference assumed in this objection to exist between 
 certain periods of the sacred history, in point of moral elevation and enlarge- 
 ment, let it be observed how perfectly factitious and imaginary this peculiar 
 tone of the disputed passages must be, when it has failed to strike the most 
 enlightened readers of the Prophet for a course of ages. This is a question 
 wholly different from that of philological or even rhetorical distinctions, 
 which might easily escape the view of any but professional and critical 
 readers, and be first discovered by the searching processes of modern scru- 
 tiny. But when the critic passes from the field of orthography and etymol- 
 ogy to that of morals, he is stepping out of darkness into sunshine, from the 
 bench to the bar, from the position of a judge to that of an advocate, who, 
 far from being able to decide the controversy by a dictum, has to plead his 
 cause at the tribunal of a multitude of trained minds and enlightened con- 
 sciences. The want of familiar and devotional acquaintance with the Scrip- 
 tures, on the part of many learned German critics, must disable them from 
 estimating the advantage thus enjoyed by Christian readers, whose opinions 
 have been formed upon the Gospel, and who certainly would be the first to 
 mark any real inconsistency between it and the spirit of the ancient prophets. 
 To such spectators, and in such a light, there is something almost ludicrous 
 in the solemnity with which some unbelievers in the inspiration of the Bible 
 utter sanctimonious complaints of an immoral and unhallowed temper in those 
 parts of the Old Testament which they, for reasons afterwards to be consid- 
 ered, are unwilling to acknowledge as authentic, while they pass by, with 
 discreet indulgence, indications far more plausible in other places. If it be 
 said, that these immoral tendencies escape the ordinary reader on account of 
 
xxxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 his foregone conclusion that the whole proceeds from God and therefore 
 must be right ; the answer is, that a hypothesis, which thus brings all the 
 parts of an extensive varied whole into agreement, bears upon its face the 
 clearest marks of truth, and that the fact alleged affords an incidental proof 
 that the position of the adverse party, which compels him to see every thing 
 distorted and at variance with itself, must be a false one. 
 
 This last suggestion opens a new view of the whole subject. Thus far 
 the question has been stated and discussed as one of criticism merely, not of 
 hermeneutics 6v of doctrinal belief, with a view to show that even on his- 
 torical and literary grounds, the modern German mode of dealing with the 
 text of Isaiah, and of settling the antiquity and genuineness of its several 
 parts, is wholly untenable, because capricious, arbitrary, inconsistent with 
 itself, and at variance with analogy, good taste, and common sense. The 
 reader must, however, have observed that in exposing the caprices of these 
 critics, I have frequently described them as resorting to these methods only 
 where they had strong reasons for desiring to discredit a particular portion 
 of the book, at least so far as to dispute its antiquity. It will now be proper 
 to explain how such a motive can be supposed to exist, the rather as the 
 neological interpreters of Germany are often praised by their admirers, on the 
 ground that, although they are skeptical, their very skepticism renders them 
 impartial and gives their testimony greater weight, in every case except where 
 the question of inspiration is directly and formally at issue. The practical 
 effect of this superficial estimate has been the practice of adhering servilely 
 to these neologists until they openly deny some fundamental doctrine of reli- 
 gion, then protesting against that specific error, and again walking closely 
 in their footsteps, till another opportunity or palpable necessity for protesta- 
 tion or dissent occurs. Besides the want of harmony and unity in any 
 course of criticism or exegesis thus conducted, it is evident that such a mode 
 of dealing with a system, which is known and acknowledged to be unsound in 
 principle, must lead the writer and the reader into many other dangers than the 
 few which are upon the surface, lncedis per ignes swppositos cineri doloso. 
 To avoid these hidden and insidious dangers, it is neccessary to compare the 
 different theories of criticism and interpretation, not in their formal differ- 
 ences merely, but in their intimate connexion with diversities of fundamental 
 principles and doctrinal belief. In order to effect this, it will be expedient 
 to consider briefly the historical progress of opinion with respect to the prin- 
 ciples of exegesis, as we have already traced the change of theory and prac- 
 tice in the treatment of the text. These two important parts of the same 
 great subject will be found to illustrate and complete each other. 
 
 Isaiah himself, even leaving out of view the large part of his book which 
 a capricious criticism has called in question, may be said to express every 
 where his own belief that he was writing under an extraordinary influence, 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxv 
 
 not merely human but divine. This is at least the prima facie view which 
 any unsophisticated reader would derive from a simple perusal of his undis- 
 puted writings. However mistaken he might think the prophet, in asserting 
 or assuming his own inspiration, such a reader could scarcely hesitate to 
 grant that he believed it and expected it to be believed by others. In one 
 of the oldest and best of the Jewish Apocrypha (Sirach 24: 25), Isaiah is 
 called the great and faithful prophet who foresaw what was to happen till 
 the end of time. Josephus and Philo incidentally bear witness to his 
 universal recognition by their countrymen as one inspired of God. 
 
 We have seen already that our Lord and his Apostles cite the whole 
 book of Isaiah with more frequency than any other part of the Old Testa- 
 ment. It now becomes a question of historical interest at least, in what 
 capacity and character Isaiah is thus quoted, and with what authority he 
 seems to be invested in the New Testament. The simple fact that he is 
 there so often quoted, when connected with another undisputed fact, to 
 wit, that his writings, even at that early date, held a conspicuous place 
 among the Sacred Scriptures (tega yQctfi^tara, yQaqial aytai) of the Jews, 
 would of itself create a strong presumption that our Lord and his apostles 
 recognised his inspiration and divine authority. We are not left, however, 
 to infer this incidentally ; for it is proved directly by the frequent combina- 
 tion of the title Prophet with the name Isaiah (Matth. 3: 3. 4: 14. 8: 
 17. 12 : 17. Luke 3 : 4. 4 : 17. John 1 : 23. 13 : 28. Acts 8 : 28-30. 28 : 
 25) ; by the repeated statement that he prophesied or spoke by inspiration 
 (Mark 7 : 6. Rom. 9 : 29) ; by the express declaration that some of his pre- 
 dictions were fulfilled in the history of Christ and his contemporaries (Matth. 
 3 : 3. 4 : 14. 8 : 17. Acts 28 : 25) ; and by the still more remarkable state- 
 ment that Isaiah saw Christ and spoke of his glory (John 12 : 41). These 
 expressions place it beyond all possibility of doubt that the New Testament 
 describes Isaiah as a Prophet in the strictest and the highest sense inspired of 
 God. This is alleged here, not as a reason for our own belief, but simply 
 as a well-attested fact in the history of the interpretation. 
 
 Coming down a little lower, we find all the Christian Fathers taking for 
 granted the divine authority and inspiration of the Prophet, and regulating 
 their interpretation of his book accordingly. But not content with thus 
 acknowledging his right to a place among the sacred books of the Old Tes- 
 tament, they ascribe to him a certain pre-eminence as belonging rather to 
 the new dispensation. Eusebius describes him as the great and wonderful 
 prophet, and even as the greatest of prophets. According to Cyril, he is at once 
 a prophet and apostle ; according to Jerome, not so much a prophet as an evan- 
 gelist. The latter elsewhere represents him as non solum prophetam sed evan- 
 gelistametapostolum,andh\sbookasnonprophetiamsedevangelium. As the old 
 Jewish doctrine upon this point is maintained by the rabbinical expounders of 
 
* x *vi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the Middle Ages, it may be affirmed that both the Old and New Testaments, 
 according to the Jewish and the Christian tradition, represent Isaiah as inspired. 
 
 From the Fathers this doctrine passed without change into the Re- 
 formed Church, and from the Talmudists and. Rabbins to the modern 
 Jews, so far as they continue to adhere to their religion. Much as the 
 Protestant Church has been divided since the Reformation, as to doctrine in 
 general, as to the interpretation of Scripture in particular, and even with 
 respect to the right method of interpreting Isaiah, all schools and parties, 
 until after the middle of the eighteenth century, held fast to the inspiration 
 of the Prophet as a fundamental principle, to which all theories and all exe- 
 getical results must be accommodated. Even the lax Arminian school of 
 Grotius and Le Clerc, however much disposed to soften down the sharp 
 points and asperities of orthodox opinion, upon this as well as other subjects, 
 did not venture to disturb the old foundation. The very faults and errors, 
 w 7 ith which the stricter theologians charged their exegesis, were occasioned 
 in a great degree by their attempt to reconcile more liberal and superficial 
 views of the Prophet's meaning with the indisputable axiom of his inspira- 
 tion. That a secret skeptical misgiving often gave complexion to their 
 exegesis, is extremely probable ; but it is still true, that they did not venture 
 to depart from the traditional opinion of the whole church in all ages, as to 
 the canonical authority and inspiration of the book before us. They 
 sought by various means to belittle and explain away the natural results of 
 this great principle ; but with the principle itself they either did not wish or 
 did not dare to meddle. 
 
 After the middle of the eighteenth century, a memorable change took 
 place in Germany, as to the method of interpreting Isaiah. This change 
 was closely connected with the one already mentioned, in relation to the 
 criticism of the text. As the skeptical criticism of the classics was the 
 model upon which that of the Hebrew text was formed, so a like imitation 
 of the classical methods of interpretation became generally current. The 
 favourite idea now was, that the Hebrew books were to be treated simply 
 and solely as remains of ancient Jewish literature, and placed, if not upon a 
 level with the Greek and Roman books, below them, as the products of a 
 ruder period and a less gifted race. This affectation was soon carried out 
 in its details ad nauseam. Instead of prophecies, and psalms, and history, 
 the talk was now of poems, odes, orations, and mythology. The ecclesias- 
 tical and popular estimate of the books as sacred went for nothing, or was 
 laughed at, as a relic of an antiquated system. This change, although 
 apparently confined to technicalities, could never have been' wrought without 
 a deep defection from the ancient faith, as to the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. Under the pretext of exchanging barbarism for refinement, and of 
 putting biblical and classical pursuits upon a footing of equality, the essential 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxvn 
 
 distinction between literature and scripture was in fact abolished, without 
 any visible or overt violence, by simply teaching men to treat them and to 
 talk of them without discrimination. 
 
 This momentous change was undesignedly promoted by Lowth's 
 ingenious and successful effort to direct attention to Isaiah's character and 
 value as a poet. Believing justly that the exposition of the Prophet's 
 writings had been hindered and perplexed by a failure to appreciate the 
 figurative dress in which his thoughts were clothed, the learned and accom- 
 plished prelate undertook to remedy the evil by presenting, in the strongest 
 light and in extreme relief, this single aspect of Isaiah's writings. In 
 attempting this, he was unconsciously led to overcolour and exaggerate the 
 real points of difference between the ordinary prose of history or legislation 
 and the lively elevated prose of prophecy, applying to the latter all the dis- 
 tinctive terms which immemorial usage had appropriated to the strictly 
 metrical productions of the Greek and Roman poets. This error led to 
 several unfortunate results, some of which will be considered in another 
 place. The only one that need be mentioned here is the apparent counte- 
 nance afforded by Lowth's theories and phraseology to the contemporary 
 efforts of the earlier neologists in Germany to blot out the distinction 
 between poetry and prophecy, between the ideal inspiration of the Muses 
 and the real inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This was the more to be 
 regretted, as there does not seem to be the slightest reason for suspecting 
 that the Bishop had departed in the least from the established doctrine of 
 his own church and of every other, with respect to the divine authority 
 and origin of this or of the other sacred books. That Lowth, by his un- 
 warrantable changes of the text, and his exclusive disproportionate protrusion 
 of the mere poetical element in scripture, gave an impulse to a spirit of 
 more daring innovation in succeeding writers, is not more certain than the 
 fact, that this abuse of his hypotheses, or rather this legitimate deduction of 
 their more remote but unavoidable results, was altogether unforeseen. In 
 ably and honestly attempting to correct a real error, and to make good an 
 injurious defect, in the theory and practice of interpretation, he unwittingly 
 afforded a new instance of the maxim, that the remedy may possibly be 
 worse than the disease. 
 
 By the German writers, these new notions were soon pushed to an 
 extreme. Besides the total change of phraseology already mentioned, some 
 went so far as to set down the most express predictions as mere poetical 
 descriptions of events already past. From this extreme position, occupied 
 by Eichhorn and some others, DeWette and Gesenius receded, as they did 
 from the critical extravagance of multiplying authors and reducing the 
 ancient prophecies to fragments. They admitted, not only that many por- 
 tions of Isaiah had reference to events still future when he wrote, but also 
 
xxxvin INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that he was inspired, reserving to themselves the right of putting a conven- 
 ient sense on that equivocal expression. Among the later German writers 
 on Isaiah, there is a marked variety of tone, as to the light in which the 
 Prophet is to be regarded. While all, in general terms, acknowledge his 
 genius and the literary merit of his writings, some, in expounding them, 
 appear to vacillate between condescension and contempt. Of this class 
 Hitzig is perhaps the lowest ; Knobel and Hendewerk exhibit the same 
 peculiarities with less uniformity and in a less degree. Gesenius treats his 
 subject with the mingled interest and indifference of an antiquary handling 
 a curious and valuable relic of the olden time. Ewald rises higher in his 
 apparent estimation of his subject, and habitually speaks of Isaiah in terms 
 of admiration and respect. Umbreit goes still further in the same direction, 
 and employs expressions which would seem to identify him fully with the 
 orthodox believing school of criticism, but for his marked agreement with 
 neology in one particular, about to be stated. 
 
 The successive writers of this modern school, however they may differ 
 as to minor points among themselves, prove their identity of principle by 
 holding that there cannot be distinct prophetic foresight of the distant 
 future. This doctrine is avowed more explicitly by some (as by Hitzig 
 and Knobel) than by others (as Gesenius and Ewald) ; but it is really the 
 ttqmtov ipevdog of the whole school, and the only bond of unity between 
 them. There is also a difference in the application of the general rule to 
 specific cases. Where the obvious exposition of a passage would convert it 
 into a distinct prediction, Gesenius and Hitzig usually try to show that the 
 words really relate to something near at hand, and within the reach of a 
 sagacious human foresight, while Ewald and Umbreit in the same case choose 
 rather to convert it into a vague anticipation. But they all agree in this, 
 that where the prophecy can be explained away in neither of these 
 methods, it must be regarded as a certain proof of later date. This is the 
 real ground, on which ch. xl-lxvi are referred to the period of the exile, 
 when the conquests of Cyrus and the fall of Babylon might be foreseen 
 without a special revelation. This is the fundamental doctrine of the 
 modern neological interpreters, the foregone conclusion, to which all exeget- 
 ical results must yield or be accommodated, and in support of which the 
 arbitrary processes before described must be employed for the discovery of 
 arguments, philological, historical, rhetorical and moral, against the genu- 
 ineness of the passage, which might just as easily be used in other cases, 
 where they are dispensed with, simply because they are not needed for the 
 purpose of destroying an explicit proof of inspiration. 
 
 From this description of the neological interpretation there are two 
 important practical deductions. The first and clearest is, that all conclu- 
 sions founded, or necessarily depending, on this false assumption, must of 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxix 
 
 course go for nothing with those who do not hold it, and especially with 
 those who are convinced that it is false. Whoever is persuaded, independ- 
 ently of these disputed questions, that there may be such a thing as a pro- 
 phetic inspiration, including the gift of prescience and prediction, must of 
 course be unaffected by objections to its exercise in certain cases, resting on 
 the general negation of that which he knows to be true. The other infer- 
 ence, less obvious but for that very reason more important, is that the false 
 assumption now in question must exert and does exert an influence extend- 
 ing far beyond the conclusions directly and avowedly drawn from it. He 
 who rejects a given passage of Isaiah, because it contains definite predictions 
 of a future too remote from the times in which he lived to be the object of 
 ordinary human foresight, will of course be led to justify this condemnation 
 by specific proofs drawn from the diction, style, or idiom of the passage, its 
 historical or archaeological allusions, its rhetorical character, its moral tone, 
 or its religious spirit. On the discovery and presentation of such proofs, 
 the previous assumption, which they are intended to sustain, cannot fail to 
 have a warping influence. The writer cannot but be tempted to give 
 prominence to trifles, to extenuate difficulties, and to violate consistency by 
 making that a proof in one case, which he overlooks in others, or positively 
 sets aside as inadmissible or inconclusive. This course of things is not 
 only natural but real ; it may not only be expected a priori, but established 
 ex eventu, as will be apparent from a multitude of cases in the course of the 
 ensuing exposition. All that need here be added is the general conclusion, 
 that the indirect effects of such a principle are more to be suspected than its 
 immediate and avowed results, and that there cannot be a graver practical 
 error than the one already mentioned of obsequiously following these writers 
 as authoritative guides, except when they explicitly apply their kqwtov \\jev- 
 Sog as a test of truth. The only safe and wise course is to treat them, not 
 as judges, but as witnesses, or advocates, and even special pleaders; to 
 weigh their dicta carefully, and always with a due regard to what is known 
 to be the unsound basis of their criticism and exegesis. That this discretion 
 may be vigilantly exercised, without foregoing the advantages arising from 
 the modern philological improvements, is attested by the actual example of 
 such men as Hengstenberg and Havernick and others, trained in the modern 
 German school of philology, and fully able to avail themselves of its advan- 
 tages, while at the same time they repudiate its arbitrary principles in favour 
 of those held by older writers, which may now be considered as more sure 
 than ever, because founded on a broader scientific basis, and because their 
 strength has been attested by resistance to assaults as subtle and as violent 
 as they can ever be expected to encounter. Some of the critical and her- 
 meneutical principles thus established may be here exhibited, as furnishing 
 the basis upon which the following exposition of Isaiah is constructed. 
 
XL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In the first place, it may be propounded, as a settled principle of 
 critical investigation, that the bare suggestion of a way in which the text 
 may have been altered in a given case, and the ipsissima verba of the 
 author, either by fraud or accident, confounded with the language of a later 
 writer, only creates a feeble probability in favour of the emendation 
 recommended, so as at the utmost to entitle it to be compared with the 
 received opinion. Even the clearest case of critical conjecture, far from 
 determining the question in dispute, only affords us an additional alternative, 
 and multiplies the objects among which we are to choose. Our hypothesis 
 may possibly be right, but it may possibly be wrong, and between these 
 possibilities mere novelty is surely not sufficient to decide. The last con- 
 jecture is not on that account entitled to the preference. There are, no 
 doubt, degrees of probability, susceptible of measurement ; but in a vast 
 majority of cases, the conjectural results of the modern criticism are precisely 
 such as no one would think of entertaining unless previously determined to 
 abandon the traditional or prevalent belief. If the common text, or the 
 common opinion of its genuineness, be untenable, these critical conjectures 
 may afford the most satisfactory substitute ; but they do not of themselves 
 decide the previous question, upon which their own utility depends. If the 
 last chapters of Isaiah cannot be the work of their reputed author, then it is 
 highly probable that they were written towards the close of the Babylonish 
 exile ; but it cannot be inferred from this conditional admission, that they 
 are not genuine, any more than we can argue that a statement is untrue, 
 because if not true it is false. The characteristic error of the modern criti- 
 cism is its habitual rejection of a reading or interpretation, not because 
 another is intrinsically better, but simply because there is another to supply 
 its place. In other words, it is assumed that, in a doubtful case, whatever 
 is established and received is likely to be spurious, and whatever is suggested 
 for the first time likely to be genuine, and therefore entitled not only to be 
 put upon a footing of equality with that to which it is opposed, but to take 
 precedence of it, so that every doubt must be allowed to operate against 
 the old opinion and in favour of the new one. 
 
 But in the second place, so far is this from being the true principle, that 
 the direct reverse is true. Not only are the chances, or the general pre- 
 sumption, not in favour of a change or innovation, as such ; they are against 
 it, and in favour of that which has long been established and received. The 
 very fact of such reception is presumptive proof of genuineness, because it 
 shows how many minds have so received it without scruple or objection, or 
 in spite of both. Such a presumption may indeed be overcome by counter- 
 vailing evidence ; but still the presumption does exist, and is adverse to in- 
 novations, simply viewed as such. If it were merely on the ground, that the 
 mind, when perplexed by nearly balanced probabilities, seeks something to 
 
INTRODUCTION. XLI 
 
 destroy the equilibrium, and finds it in the previous existence of the one 
 belief and its reception by a multitude of minds, we might allege the higher 
 claims of that which is established and received, if not as being certainly 
 correct, as having been so thought by others. In this the human mind is 
 naturally prone to rest, until enabled by preponderating evidence to make 
 its own decision, so that even in the most doubtful cases, it is safer and 
 easier to abide by what has long been known and held as true, than to 
 adopt a new suggestion, simply because it cannot be proved false. Here again 
 the fashionable modern criticism differs from that which is beginning even 
 in Germany to supersede it, inasmuch as the former allows all the benefit of 
 doubt to innovation, while the latter gives it to received opinions. 
 
 The general principle just stated is peculiarly important and appropriate 
 in the criticism of the Hebrew text, because so far as we can trace its 
 history, it has been marked by a degree of uniformity, arising from a kind 
 of supervision, to which no other ancient writings, even the most sacred, 
 seem to have been subjected, not excepting the books of the New Tes- 
 tament. To call this Jewish scrupulosity and superstition does not in 
 the least impair the strong presumption which it raises in favour of the text 
 as it has been transmitted to us, and against the emendations of conjectural 
 criticism. The wonderful resemblance of the Hebrew manuscripts now 
 extant is admitted upon all hands, and explained as an effect of the maso- 
 retic labours in the sixth or seventh century, by means of which one Hebrew 
 text acquired universal circulation. But this explanation needs itself to be 
 explained. The possibility of thus reducing many texts to one has nothing 
 to support it in the analogy of other languages or other writings. The 
 variations of the text of the New Testament afford a memorable instance 
 of the contrary. It is in vain to say that no such means were used to har- 
 monize and reconcile the manuscripts ; in other words, that no Greek masora 
 existed. How can its absence be accounted for, except upon the ground, 
 that the Hebrew critics followed ancient usage, and recorded a tradition 
 which had been in existence for a course of ages ? These considerations do 
 not go to prove the absolute perfection of the masoretic text ; but they 
 unquestionably do create a very strong presumption — stronger by far than 
 in any other like case — against innovation and in favour of tradition. The 
 validity of this conclusion is in fact conceded by the signal unanimity with 
 which the recent German critics, of all classes, set aside the fantastic mode 
 .of criticism practised by Cappellus, Houbigant, and Lowth, and assume the 
 correctness of the masoretic text in every case except where they are driven 
 from it by the stress of exegetical necessity. That the principle thus univer- 
 sally adopted in relation to the criticism of letters, words, and phrases, is 
 not extended by these critics to the criticism of larger passages, argues no 
 defect or error in the principle itself, but only a want of consistent uniform- 
 
 c 
 
xlii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ity in its application. If it be true, as all now grant, that in relation to 
 the elements of speech, to letters, words, and single phrases, we may safely 
 presume that the existing text is right till it is shown to be wrong, how can 
 it be, that in relation to whole sentences or larger contexts, the presump- 
 tion is against the very same tradition until positively proved to be correct ? 
 That this is a real inconsistency, is not only plain upon the face of it, but ren- 
 dered more unquestionable by the very natural and easy explanation of 
 * which it is susceptible. The criticism of words and letters, though identical 
 in principle with that of entire passages, is not so closely connected with 
 the evidence of inspiration and prophetic foresight, and is therefore less sub- 
 ject to the operation of the fundamental error of the rationalistic system. 
 This is the more remarkable because in certain cases, where the main ques- 
 tion happens to turn upon a single word or letter, there we find the same 
 capricious license exercised, without regard to probability or evidence, as in 
 the ordinary processes of criticism on a larger scale. From these theoretical 
 concessions and these practical self-contradictions of the modern critics, we 
 may safely infer the indisputable truth of the critical principles which they 
 are forced to grant, and from which they depart in practice only when 
 adherence to them would involve the necessity of granting that, the abso- 
 lute negation of which is the fundamental doctrine of their system. 
 
 All this would be true and relevant, if the book in question were an 
 
 ancient classic handed down to us in the manner just described. But 
 
 Isaiah constitutes a part of a collection claiming to be a divine revelation. 
 
 It is itself expressly recognised as such in the sacred books of the Christian 
 
 religion. The authenticity and inspiration of the parts a*re complicated 
 
 together, and involved in the general question of the inspiration of the whole. 
 
 Whatever evidence goes to establish that of the New Testament adds so 
 
 much to the weight of Isaiah's authority. Whatever strength the claims of 
 
 the New Testament derive from miracles, from moral effects, from intrinsic 
 
 qualities, is shared in some measure by the book before us. The same 
 
 thing is true of the external and internal evidence that the Old Testament 
 
 proceeds from God. The internal character of this one book, its agreement 
 
 with the other parts of Scripture, and with our highest conceptions of 
 
 God, the place which it has held in the estimation of intelligent and good 
 
 men through a course of ages, its moral and spiritual influence on those 
 
 who have received it as the word of God, so far as this can be determined 
 
 separately from that of the whole Bible or of the entire Old Testament ; all 
 
 this invests the book with an authority and dignity which shield it from the 
 
 petty caprices of a trivial criticism. Those who believe, on these grounds, 
 
 that the book, as a whole, is inspired of God, not only may, but must be 
 
 unwilling to give ear to every skeptical or frivolous suggestion as to the 
 
 genuineness of its parts. Even if there were more ground for misgiving 
 
INTRODUCTION. xliii 
 
 than there is, and fewer positive proofs of authenticity, he whose faith is 
 founded, not on detached expressions or minute agreements, but on the 
 paramount claims of the whole as such to 'his belief and reverence, would 
 rather take for granted, in a dubious case, that God had providentially pre- 
 served the text intact, than lift the anchor of his faith and go adrift upon 
 the ocean of conjecture, merely because he could not answer every fool 
 according to his folly. 
 
 The result of these considerations is, that as the neological interpreters 
 assume the impossibility of inspiration and prophetic foresight, as a principle 
 immovable by any indications of the contrary, however clear and nume- 
 rous, so those who hold the inspiration of the Scriptures as a certain truth, 
 should suffer this their general belief to influence their judgment on particular 
 questions both of criticism and interpretation. The effect should not be 
 that of closing the mind against conviction, where the reasons are sufficient 
 to produce it, but simply that of hindering all concessions to an arbitrary 
 and capricious license of conjecture, and all gratuitous sacrifices of received 
 opinion to the mere possibility of some new notion. It is certainly not to 
 be expected that believers in the inspiration of the Bible as a whole, 
 should be content to give up any of its parts as readily as if it were an old 
 sons, or even a more valuable relic of some heathen writer. 
 
 In conformity with what has just been stated as the only valid principle 
 of criticism, in the technical or strict sense, the laws of interpretation may 
 be well defined to be those of common sense, controlled by a regard to the 
 divine authority and inspiration of the book, considered as a fact already 
 established or received as true. The design of biblical interpretation is not 
 to prove, although it may illustrate, the canonical authority of that which 
 is interpreted. This is a question to be previously settled, by a view of the 
 whole book or of the whole collection which includes it, in connexion with 
 the various grounds on which its claims to such authority are rested. Every 
 competent expounder of Isaiah, whether infidel or Christian, comes before 
 the public with his opinion upon this point formed, and with a fixed deter- 
 mination to regulate his treatment of particulars accordingly. The writer 
 who should feign to be neutral or indifferent in this respect, would find it hard 
 to gain the public ear, and harder still to control the public judgment. 
 While the rationalist therefore avowedly proceeds upon the supposition, that 
 the book before him is and can be nothing more than a human composition, 
 it is not only the right but the duty of the Christian interpreter to treat it as 
 the work both of God and man, a divine revelation and a human composi- 
 tion, the contents of which are never to be dealt with in a manner inconsis- 
 tent either with the supposition of its inspiration or with that of its real human 
 origin. The latter hypothesis is so essential, that there cannot be a sound 
 interpretation, where there is not a consistent and a constant application of 
 
xliv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the same rules which control the exposition of all other writings, qualified 
 only by a constant recollection of the well-attested claims of the book 
 expounded to the character of atdivine revelation. One important practical 
 result of this assumption is, that seeming contradictions and discrepancies are 
 neither to be passed by, as they might be in an ordinary composition, nor 
 regarded as so many refutations of the doctrine that the writing which 
 contains them is inspired of God, but rather interpreted with due regard to 
 the analogy of Scripture, and with a constant preference, where other 
 things are equal, of those explanations which are most in agreement with the 
 general fact of inspiration upon which the exposition rests. The attempt 
 to explain every passage or expression by itself, and to assume the prima 
 facie meaning as in every case the true one, without any reference to other 
 parts of the same book, or to other books of the same collection, is absurd 
 in theory and directly contradicted by the universal usage of mankind in 
 determining the sense of other writings, while it practically tends to put 
 the Christian interpreter in a situation of extreme disadvantage with respect 
 to the neologist, who does not hesitate to press into the service of his own 
 interpretation every argument afforded by analogy. The evil effect of this 
 mistaken notion on the part of Christian writers is not merely that they 
 often fail to vindicate the truth, but that they directly contribute to the 
 triumph of its enemies. 
 
 "With respect to the prophetic parts of Scripture, and to the writings of 
 Isaiah in particular, a few exegetical maxims may be added to the general 
 principles already stated. These, for the most part, will be negative in 
 form, as being intended to preclude certain fallacies and practical errors, 
 which have greatly hindered the correct interpretation of the book before us. 
 The generic formulas here used will be abundantly exemplified hereafter by 
 specific instances arising in the course of the interpretation. 
 
 All prophecies are not predictions, i. e. all the writings of the Prophets, 
 and of this one in particular, are not to be regarded as descriptive of future 
 events. The contrary error, which has arisen chiefly from the modern and 
 restricted usage of the word prophet and its cognate terms, has generated 
 some ot the most crude extravagancies of prophetic exegesis. It has been 
 shown already, by a historical and philological induction, that the scriptural 
 idea of prophecy is far more extensive, that the prophets were inspired to 
 reveal the truth and will of God, in reference to the past and present, no 
 less than the future. In Isaiah, for example, we find many statements of a 
 general nature, and particularly exhibitions of the general principles which 
 govern the divine administration, especially in reference to the chosen people 
 and their enemies or persecutors. 
 
 All predictions, or prophecies in the restricted sense, are not specific 
 and exclusive, i. e. limited to one occasion or emergency, but many are 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlt 
 
 descriptive of a sequence of events which has been often realized. The 
 vagueness and indefiniteness which might seem to attach to such predictions, 
 and by making their fulfilment more uncertain to detract from their impres- 
 siveness and value, are precluded by the fact that, while the whole predic- 
 tion frequently admits of this extensive application, it includes allusions to 
 particular events, which can hardly be mistaken. Thus in some parts of 
 Isaiah, there are prophetic pictures of the sieges of Jerusalem, which can- 
 not be exclusively applied to any one event of that kind, but the terms and 
 images of which are borrowed partly from one and partly from another 
 through a course of ages. This kind of prophecy, so far from being vague 
 and unimpressive, is the clearest proof of real inspiration, because more 
 than any other beyond the reach of ordinary human foresight. Thus the 
 threatening against Babylon, contained in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
 chapters of Isaiah, if explained as a specific and exclusive prophecy of the 
 Medo- Persian conquest, seems to represent the downfall of the city as more 
 sudden and complete than it appears in history, and on the other hand 
 affords a pretext, though a very insufficient one, for the assertion that it may 
 have been composed so near the time of the events foretold as to bring them 
 within the reach of uninspired but sagacious foresight. No such hypothesis, 
 however, will account for the extraordinary truth of the prediction when 
 regarded as a panorama of the fall of Babylon, not in its first inception 
 merely, but through all its stages till its consummation. 
 
 All the predictions of Isaiah, whether general or specific, are not to be 
 literally understood. The ground of this position is the fact, universally 
 admitted, that the prophecies abound in metaphorical expressions. To 
 assert that this figurative character is limited to words and clauses, or at 
 most to single sentences, is wholly arbitrary, and at variance with the 
 acknowledged use of parables, both in the Old and New Testament, in 
 which important doctrines and events are presented under a tropical cos- 
 tume, throughout a passage sometimes of considerable length. These facts 
 are sufficient to sustain the negative position, that the prophecies are not 
 invariably clothed in literal expressions, or in other words are not to be 
 always literally understood. 
 
 The prophecies of this book are not to be always understood in a figura- 
 tive or spiritual sense. The contrary assumption has engendered a vast 
 motley multitude of mystical and anagogical interpretations, sometimes 
 superadded to the obvious sense, and sometimes substituted for it, but in 
 either case obscuring the true import and defeating the design of the predic- 
 tion. The same application of the laws of common sense and of general 
 analogy, which shows that some predictions must be metaphorical, shows 
 that others must be literal. To assert, without express authority, that 
 propbecy must always and exclusively be one or the other, is as foolish as 
 
xlvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 it would be to assert the same thing of the whole conversation of an indi- 
 vidual throughout his lifetime, or of human speech in general. No valid 
 reason can be given for applying this exclusive canon of interpretation to the 
 prophecies, which would not justify its application to the Iliad, the iEneid, 
 the Divina Commedia, or the Paradise Lost, an application fruitful only in 
 absurdities. Isaiah's prophecies are therefore not to be expounded on the 
 general principle, that either a literal or figurative sense must be assumed 
 wherever it is possible. We have already seen the fallacies resulting from 
 the assumption, that whatever is possible is probable or certain. To set 
 aside the obvious and strict sense, wherever it can be done without absur- 
 dity, is forbidden by the very nature of the difference between literal and 
 figurative language. That which is regular and normal must at times assert 
 its rights or it becomes anomalous. On the other hand, to claim prece- 
 dence for the strict and proper sense in every case, is inconsistent with the 
 fact that symbols, emblems, images, and tropes, are characteristic of pro- 
 phetic language. In a word, the question between literal and tropical inter- 
 pretation is not to be determined by the application of invariable formulas. 
 The same remark may be applied to the vexed question with respect to 
 types and double senses. The old extreme of constantly assuming these 
 wherever it is possible, and the later extreme of denying their existence, 
 may Ue both considered as exploded errors. That words may be naturally 
 used with a primary and secondary reference, is clear from all analogy. 
 That some things in the old dispensation were intended to be types of cor- 
 responding objects in the new, is clear from the New Testament. A fantas- 
 tic philotypia is not more likely to engender error than a morbid typophobia, 
 except that the first is not merely negative in its effects, and may be 
 exercised ad libitum, whereas the other prides itself on never adding to the 
 revelation, but is satisfied with taking from it. Both may exist, and both 
 must be avoided, not by the use of nostrums and universal rules, but by the 
 exercise of sound discretion in specific cases, guided by the obvious canon, 
 founded on experience and analogy, that types and double senses do not 
 constitute the staple even of prophetic language, and are therefore not to be 
 wantonly assumed, in cases where a simpler and more obvious exposition is 
 abundantly sufficient to meet all the requisitions of the text and context. 
 
 The question, under which of these descriptions any prophecy must be 
 arranged, i. e. the question whether it is strictly a prediction, and if so, 
 whether it is general or particular, literal or figurative, can only be 
 determined by a thorough independent scrutiny of each case by itself, in 
 reference to form and substance, text and context, without regard to arbi- 
 trary and exclusive theories, but with a due regard to the analogy of scrip- 
 ture in general, and of other prophecies in particular, especially of such as 
 belong to the same writer, or at least to the same period, and apparently 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlvii 
 
 relate to the same subject. This is far from being so attractive or so easy 
 as the sweeping application of a comprehensive canon to all cases, like and 
 unlike ; but it seems to be the only process likely to afford a satisfactory 
 result, and one main purpose of the following exposition is to prove its effi- 
 cacy by a laborious and fair experiment. 
 
 In executing this design, it is essential that regard should be paid to the 
 exterior form as well as to the substance of a passage, that rhetorical embel- 
 lishments should be distinguished from didactic propositions, that prosaic and 
 poetical peculiarities should be distinctly and correctly estimated at their real 
 value. Experience has clearly shown, that such discrimination does not 
 always accompany the habit of perpetually praising the sublimity and beauty 
 of the author's style, a practice perfectly compatible with very indistinct and 
 even false conceptions of rhetorical propriety. The characteristics of Isaiah, 
 as a writer, appear by some to be regarded as consisting merely in the fre- 
 quent occurrence of peculiar forms of speech, for which they are continually 
 on the watch, and ever ready to imagine if they cannot find them. The 
 favourite phenomenon of this kind with the latest writers is paronomasia, an 
 intentional resemblance in the form or sound of words which are nearly related 
 to each other in a sentence. The frequent occurrence of this figure in 
 Isaiah is beyond a doubt ; but the number of the instances has been extra- 
 vagantly multiplied ; in some cases, it would almost seem, for the purpose 
 of detracting from the author's merit ; sometimes with an honest but mistaken 
 disposition to enhance it. It is an important observation of Ewald's, that a 
 mere assonance of words is probably fortuitous, except where a similar rela- 
 tion can be traced between the thoughts which they express. The truth in 
 reference to this and many other kindred topics, can be ascertained only in 
 the way proposed above, i. e. by a due regard to the matter and the manner 
 of each passage in itself considered. This discriminating process necessa- 
 rily involves a scrupulous avoidance of two opposite extremes, which have, 
 at different periods, and in some cases simultaneously, done much to pervert 
 and hinder the interpretation of the book before us. The first extreme* 
 particularly prevalent in earlier times, is that of understanding the most highly 
 wrought descriptions, the most vivid imagery, the boldest personifications, as 
 mere prose. This is especially exemplified in the irrational and tasteless man- 
 ner of expounding apologues and parables by many of the older writers, 
 who insist on giving a specific sense to circumstances which are significant 
 only as parts of one harmonious whole. The other extreme, of which 
 we have already traced the origin, is that of turning elevated prose diver- 
 sified by bursts of poetry, into a regular poem or series of poems, technically 
 so considered, and subjecting them as such to all the tests and rules of 
 classical poetry, and even to the canons of its versification. To expound 
 Isaiah without any reference to the perpetual recurrence of antitheses and 
 
xlviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 other parallel constructions, would be now a proof of utter incapacity. Far 
 more indulgence would be probably extended to the no less extravagant but 
 much less antiquated error of seeking perfect parallels in every sentence, 
 torturing the plain sense into forced conformity with this imaginary standard, 
 altering the text to suit it, and in short converting a natural and unstudied 
 form, in which the Hebrew mind expressed itself without regard to rules or 
 systems, into a rigorous scholastic scheme of prosody. The recurrence of 
 a certain theme, refrain, or burden at nearly equal intervals — a structure 
 natural and common in the elevated prose of various nations, for example in 
 the sermons of the great French preachers — may be very properly compared 
 to the strophical arrangements of the Greek dramatic style. But when, 
 instead of an illustrative comparison, the passages thus marked are gravely 
 classed as real strophes and antistrophes, and formally distributed among 
 imaginary choruses of Prophets, Jews, and so forth, this pedantic affectation 
 of confounding Hebrew prophecies with Greek plays, becomes chargeable 
 with wasteful and ridiculous excess. It can only be regarded as a natural 
 and necessary consequence of this overstrained analogy between things 
 which occasionally coincide in form, that some of the most recent German 
 critics do not hesitate to strike whole verses from the text of Isaiah, on the 
 ground that they cannot be genuine because they make the strophes 
 unequal, and that one of them winds up a comparison between prophetic 
 and dramatic poetry with several pages of imaginary, far-fetched, or for- 
 tuitous coincidences, both of thoughts and words, between the writings of 
 Isaiah and the Eumenides of iEschylus. The golden mean between these 
 hurtful and irrational extremes appears to lie in the assiduous observance of 
 the true poetical ingredients of Isaiah's style, both in themselves and in their 
 various combinations, with a rigid abstinence from all scholastic and pedantic 
 theories of Hebrew poetry, and all peculiar forms and methods which have 
 sprung from them or tend to their promotion. 
 
 Under this last description may be properly included the fantastic and 
 injurious mode of printing most translations of Isaiah since the days ofLowth, 
 in lines analogous to those of classical and modern verse. This arrange-' 
 ment, into which the good taste of the Bishop was betrayed by a natural 
 but overweening zeal for his supposed discovery of rhythm or measure in 
 the Hebrew prophets, and which the bad taste of succeeding writers bids 
 fair to perpetuate, is open to a number of objections. In the first place, it 
 proceeds upon a false or at least exaggerated supposition, that Isaiah wrote 
 in what we are accustomed to call verse. If the predominance of parallel 
 constructions is a sufficient reason for this mode of priming, then it might be 
 adopted with propriety in many works which all the world regards as prose, in 
 various parts at least of Seneca, Augustin, Larochefoucauld, Pascal, Johnson, 
 and even Macaulay. The extent to which it might be carried is exemplified 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlix 
 
 by Bishop Jebb's ingenious effort to extend Lowth's system to the Greek of 
 the New Testament, in doing which lie actually prints long extracts from 
 the Gospels in the form of Lowth's Jsaiafh. Another proof of the unsound- 
 ness of the theory, when carried thus far, is the want of unity among the 
 various practitioners, in Germany and England, with respect to the division 
 and arrangement of the clauses, the regard due to the masoretic accents, and 
 the rhythmical principle on which the whole must after all depend. Be- 
 tween some specimens of this mode of typography there seems to be scarcely 
 any thing in common but the uneven termination of the lines. A third ob- 
 jection to this mode of printing is the fact, which any correct eye and ear may 
 bring to an experimental test, that so far from enhancing the effect of the 
 peculiar construction of Isaiah's sentences, it greatly mars it, and converts 
 a numerous prose into the blankest of all blank verse, by exciting expecta- 
 tions which of course cannot be realized, suggesting the idea of a poetical 
 metre in the strict sense, and then thwarting it by consecutions wholly 
 inconsistent with the fundamental principles of prosody, however sonorous 
 or euphonic in themselves. In England and America, this modern fashion 
 seems to be already an established usage, and is even pushed so far as to 
 require quotations from certain parts of Scripture to be printed like poetical 
 extracts in a small type and in lines by themselves, a usage which we may 
 expect to see extended to the rest of the Bible on the principles of Jebb. 
 In Germany, the younger and inferior writers appear still enamoured of this 
 wonderful discovery ; but some of their more eminent interpreters, above 
 the common average in taste, exhibit symptoms of reaction. Ewald con- 
 tents himself with marking the divisions of the sentences and clauses after 
 the manner of bars in music, while DeWette, in his excellent translation of 
 the Bible, prints the whole like prose. This is the more significant because 
 DeWette, in his Introduction to the Psalms, had carried out Lowth's system 
 of parallelisms in detail, with greater minuteness and precision than any pre- 
 ceding writer. In the preface to his Bible, he speaks of the arrangement of 
 the Hebrew distichs in distinct lines, as of value only to the Hebrew scholar, 
 while Ewald says expressly that the modern custom violates the ancient 
 usage, and mistakes for poetry the mixed or intermediate prophetic style. 
 Partly for these and other reasons of a kindred nature, founded on what I 
 believe to be the true characteristics of Isaiah's style, partly in order to save 
 room for more important matters than the marking of divisions, which the sim- 
 plest reader even of a version can distinguish for himself so far as they have 
 any real value, the translation of Isaiah will be found in this work printed as 
 prose, and in the closest union with the exposition. This is the method 
 which has been successfully pursued by several judicious German writers of 
 the present day, especially by Hengstenberg, as well in his Christology as 
 in Lis Commentary on the Psalms, perhaps as a matter of convenience 
 
l INTRODUCTION. 
 
 merely, but it may be also with regard to some of the considerations which 
 have just been stated. With respect to the translation in the present vol- 
 ume, this arrangement is moreover rendered necessary by the relation which 
 it is intended to sustain to the exegetical matter which accompanies it. No 
 attempt has here been made to give a new translation of the book, complete 
 in itself, and suited for continuous perusal. The translation is part and 
 parcel of the commentary, closely incorporated with it, and in some degree 
 inseparable from it. After the study of a passage with the aid here fur- 
 nished, it may no doubt be again read with advantage in this version, for the 
 sake of which it has been not only printed in a different type, but generally 
 placed at the beginning of the paragraph. This explanation seems to be 
 required, as the whole form and manner of the version have been modified by 
 this design. If meant for separate continuous perusal, it must of course 
 have been so constructed as to be easily intelligible by itself; whereas a 
 version introduced as a text or basis of immediate exposition, admit- 
 ted of a closer approximation to the idiomatic form of the original, with all 
 its occasional obscurity and harshness, than would probably have been en- 
 dured by readers of refined taste in an independent version. 
 
 To this account of the precise relation which the version of Isaiah in this 
 volume bears to the accompanying exposition, may be added a brief state- 
 ment of the twofold object which the whole work is intended to accomplish, 
 namely, a correct interpretation and a condensed historical synopsis of opi- 
 nions with respect to it. The arduous task here undertaken is to aid the 
 reader in determining the sense, not only by my own suggestions, but by 
 those of others. This historical element has been introduced both 
 as a means of exegetical improvement, and for its own sake, as an inte- 
 resting chapter of the history of opinion on a highly important subject. 
 In to appreciate the particular results of this historical analysis, it will 
 
 be proper to give some account of the materials employed. A brief and 
 general sketch of the progress of opinion and of gradual changes in the 
 method of interpretation having been previously given in a different con- 
 nexion, it will only be necessary here to add a chronological enumeration of 
 the works which have exerted the most lasting and extensive influence on 
 the interpretation of Isaiah. 
 
 The first place in this enumeration is of course due to the Ancient 
 Versions, and among these to the Greek translation commonly called 
 the Sepiuagint, from the old tradition of its having been produced by 
 seventy-two Jews at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 
 The additional circumstances, such as the translation of the whole law 
 by each man separately, and their entire agreement afterwards, are not 
 found in the oldest authorities, a*id are now rejected as mere fables. It 
 is even a matter of dispute among the learned, whether the whole of this 
 
INTRODUCTION. M 
 
 translation was executed at once or by degrees, by few or many writ- 
 ers, for the use of the synagogues in Egypt or as a mere literary enter- 
 prise. Against the unity of the translation is the different character of 
 the version in different parts. The Pentateuch is commonly regarded as 
 the best, and Daniel as the worst. The version of Isaiah is intermediate 
 between these. It is important as the record of an ancient exegetical tradi- 
 tion, and on account of the use made of it in the New Testament. The 
 writer shows a special acquaintance with the usages and products of Egypt, 
 but is grammatically very inexact, and governed in translation by no set- 
 tled principle. Hence he abounds in needless paraphrases and additions, 
 euphemistic variations, and allusions to opinions and events of later times, 
 although the number of these has been exaggerated by some critics. The 
 Hebrew text used by this translator seems to have been the one now extant, 
 but without the masoretic points. The seeming variations, used by Houbi- 
 gant and Lowth as means of textual correction, are most probably the mere 
 result of ignorance or inadvertence. The extreme opinions formerly main- 
 tained in reference to this version have been gradually exchanged for a more 
 moderate and discriminating estimate, acknowledging its use in many cases 
 of difficult interpretation, but denying its paramount authority in any. Be- 
 sides the frequent citation of the Septuagint, occasional reference will be 
 made to the other old Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodo- 
 tion, fragments of which have been preserved by early writers. Of these 
 interpreters, Aquila is commonly supposed to have been distinguished by his 
 slavish adherence to the letter of the Hebrew, Symmachus by freedom and 
 a greater regard to the Greek idiom, while Theodotion stood in these 
 respects between them. 
 
 Next to these versions stands the Chaldee Paraphrase or Targum of 
 Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the date of which is much disputed, but assigned by 
 a majority of modern critics to the time of Christ, or that immediately pre 
 ceding. It derives its value partly from its high repute and influence among 
 the Jews, partly from its intrinsic character as being on the whole a skilful 
 and correct translation into a cognate dialect, although disfigured like the 
 Septuagint by many arbitrary explanations, by additions to the text, and by 
 allusions to the usages and doctrines of the later Jews. Its critical as well 
 as exegetical adherence to the masoretic text is much more close than that 
 of the oldest Greek translator. 
 
 The ancient Syriac version, commonly called the PesbitO; on account of 
 its simplicity and fidelity, is one of the most valuable extant. Its precise 
 date is unknown, but it appears to have been looked upon as ancient and 
 occasionally needing explanation, even in the days of Ephrem Syrus. It has 
 been ascribed by different critics to a Jewish and a Christian writer, but the 
 latter supposition is the best sustained, both by external and internal evidence. 
 
^" INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The opinion of some writers, as to the use made by this translator of the Targum 
 and Septuagint, appears to be regarded now as groundless, or at least exag- 
 gerated. This version, as a whole, is characterized by great exactness and 
 a close adherence to the original expression, rendered easy by the near affinity 
 of Syriac and Hebrew. 
 
 The Vulgate or common Latin version of Isaiah, regarded as authentic 
 in the Church of Rome, was executed by Jerome, about the end of the 
 fourth century, and afterwards substituted for the older Latin version, 
 commonly called Itala, in use before, of which only fragments are now 
 extant. This version, notwithstanding many errors and absurd inter- 
 pretations, is on the whole a valuable record of ancient exegetical tradition, 
 and of the fruit of Jerome's oriental studies. Its influence on modern 
 exegesis, more especially within the Church of Rome, has of course been 
 very extensive. 
 
 In these four versions we possess what may be called the exegetical tra- 
 dition of the Jewish Synagogue, the Latin Church, the Greek Church, and 
 the Syrian Church in all its branches. This, in addition to their mere anti- 
 quity, entitles them to a consideration which cannot be claimed by other 
 versions, even though intrinsically more correct. At the same time, let it 
 be observed, that in addition to the original defects of these translations, their 
 text is no doubt greatly corrupted, having never been subjected to any such 
 conservative process as the Masora or critical tradition of the Jews. This 
 fact alone shows the folly of attempting to ascribe to either of these versions 
 a traditional authority superior to that of the Hebrew text. From these 
 direct and primary versions, many mediate or secondary ones were formed 
 in early times, the exegetical authority of which is naturally far inferior, 
 although they are occasionally useful in determining the text of their 
 originals, and even in explaining them, while still more rarely they exhibit 
 independent and remarkable interpretations of the Hebrew text. To some 
 of these mediate versions, there will be found occasional references in the 
 present work, especially to the Arabic version of the Septuagint, made at 
 Alexandria, and printed in the third volume of the London Polyglot. A 
 still more frequent mention will be made of an immediate Arabic version by 
 the celebrated Jewish teacher and grammarian of the tenth century, Saadias 
 Gaon, whose translation of the Pentateuch is found in the same Polyglot, 
 although his version of Isaiah was not brought to light till near the end of the 
 last century. Both in its merits and defects, it resembles the more ancient ver- 
 sions, but approaches still more closely to the exegesis of the rabbins. The 
 occasional citations of this version are derived from other writers, and partic- 
 ularly from Geseni s. 
 
 Next to the Ancient Versions may be named the Greek and Latin 
 Fathers who have written on Isaiah. Besides Origen and others, whose 
 
INTRODUCTION. liii 
 
 interpretations have been wholly or in a great measure lost, there are still 
 extant those of Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 Procopius, on the whole or part of the Septuagint version of Isaiah. These 
 are valuable, not so much for any direct aid which they afford in the inter- 
 pretation of the Hebrew text, as for the light which they throw upon the 
 prevalent theories of interpretation at a remote period, and especially upon 
 the allegorical and mystical method of expounding the Old Testament, of 
 which Origen, if not the inventor, was the most successful champion and 
 practitioner. Jerome, the only Latin Father who has written on Isaiah, 
 while he has some defects and faults in common with the Greek expounders, 
 has the great advantage of direct acquaintance with the Hebrew text, and 
 with the Jewish method of explaining it. The good effects of this superior 
 knowledge, and of his untiring diligence, are greatly neutralized by haste 
 and inadvertence, by a want of consistency and settled principles, and by a 
 general defect of judgment. The only Fathers, of whose expositions a 
 direct use will be made in the present work, are Chrysostom and Jerome, 
 and of these only in the earlier chapters. All further references of the same 
 kind are derived from other commentaries. 
 
 Of the Rabbins, several are carefully compared and often quoted. 
 These are Solomon Jarchi, noted for his close adherence to the Targum 
 and the Jewish tradition ; Aben Ezra, for his independent rationalistic views 
 and philological acuteness ; David Kimchi, for his learning and good sense, 
 and for his frequent reference to older writers. He often cites, among others, 
 his brother Moses, and his father, Joseph Kimchi. The Michlal Jophi of Solo- 
 mon Ben Melech, with the additional notes of Jacob Abendana, is chiefly a 
 selection of the best rabbinical interpretations, particularly those of David 
 Kimchi. The opinions of Abarbenel and other rabbins are occasionally 
 cited on the authority of other writers. 
 
 Of the Reformers, the two greatest are kept constantly in view, through- 
 out the exposition. Luther's translation will he always valued, not only for 
 its author's sake, but for its own. Though often inexact and paraphrastical, 
 it almost always gives the true sense, and often gives it with a vigour and 
 felicity of phrase, never attained in like degree by the more accurate and 
 learned versions of the present day. Calvin still towers above all inter- 
 preters, in large commanding views of revelation in its whole connexion, 
 with extraordinary insight into the logical relations of a passage, even where 
 its individual expressions were not fully understood. These qualities, to- 
 gether with his fixed belief of fundamental doctrines, his eminent soundness 
 of judgment, and his freedom from all tendency to paradox, pedantic affecta- 
 tion, or fanciful conceit, place him more completely on a level with the very 
 best interpreters of our day, than almost any intervening writer. Of the 
 other Reformers, only occasional citations will be met with, such as Zwingli, 
 Oecolampadius, and Fagius. 
 
liv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 As a representative of the old school of orthodox interpreters, we may 
 take the annotated version of Junius and Tremellius, distinguished by learn- 
 ing, ingenuity, and exegetical acumen, but disfigured by unnatural and forced 
 constructions, in which the Hebrew idiom is often sacrificed to some para- 
 doxical novelty. Less frequent reference will be made to other writers of 
 the same school and period, who were not accessible directly, or whose influ- 
 ence on later writers has been less considerable. 
 
 The honours due to the original and independent founder of a school 
 may be justly claimed by John Cocceius, whose opinions gave occasion to 
 protracted controversies in the Church of Holland. The description usually 
 given of him, that he finds Christ every where in the Old Testament, is 
 hardly expressive of his peculiar character, as set forth in his work upon 
 Isaiah. A more exact description would be, that he finds the Church and 
 the events of Church history throughout the prophecies, not as a mystical or 
 secondary meaning, but as the proper and direct one. Of this system many 
 striking specimens will be presented in the exposition. 
 
 The description of Cocceius, which has been already quoted, is commonly 
 accompanied by one of Grotius, as his * xegetical opposite, who finds Christ 
 nowhere. Here again the portrait is by no means an exact one, at least 
 as he appears in his brief notes on Isaiah. He probably professes to find 
 Christ predicted there as often as Cocceius does, but with this difference, that 
 Grotius finds him always hidden under types, the lower or immediate sense 
 of which is to be sought as near as may be to the date of the prediction. A 
 comparison between these two eminent writers is enough to show the incor- 
 rectness of the common notion, that the hypothesis of types and double 
 senses is peculiar to tu.* stricter theologians of the old school, and the 
 rejection of them characteristic of the more liberal interpreters. Cocceius 
 seldom resorts to the assumption of a double sense, while Grotius seldom 
 recognises Christ as a subject of prophecy, except where he can institute a 
 typical relation. The grand objection to the exegesis of the latter, as exem- 
 plified in this book, is its superficial character and the skeptical tendencies 
 which it betrays. Its shining merits are ingenious combination, happy con- 
 jecture, and abundant illustration from the Greek and Roman classics. The 
 nearest approach to him, in all these qualities, without the least appearance 
 of dependence, imitation, or collusion, is found in John Le Clerc, more com- 
 monly called Clericus. The likeness is the more exact because neither he 
 nor Grotius has done justice to his own capacity and reputation in inter- 
 preting Isaiah. 
 
 The first complete exposition of Isaiah is the great work of Campegius 
 Vitringa, Professor at Franeker, originally published in 1714. Of the 
 preceding commentaries, every one perhaps may be described as holding 
 up some one side of the subject while the others are neglected. But in 
 
INTRODUCTION. lv 
 
 this work are collected all the materials which at that time were accessible, 
 not in an undigested state, but thoroughly incorporated and arranged with a 
 degree of judgment, skill, and taste, not easily surpassed. It is besides 
 distinguished by a candour, dignity, and zeal for truth without the least ad- 
 mixture of acrimonious bigotry, which have secured for it and for its author 
 the esteem of all succeeding writers who have read it, of whatever school 
 or party. So complete is Vitringa's exposition even now, that nothing more 
 would be required to supply the public wants but the additional results of 
 more profound and extensive philological investigation during the last cen- 
 tury, were it not for two defects which the work, with all its varied and trans- 
 cendent merit, does exhibit. The first is a want of condensation, a prolixity, 
 which, although not without advantages to readers who have leisure to secure 
 them, is entirely unsuited to the tastes and habits of the present age. The 
 other is too strong a leaning to the mystical and allegorical interpretation of 
 the plainest piophecies, arising from a mistaken deference for the old exe- 
 getical canon, that the prophecies must be made to mean as much as possi- 
 ble. To this must be added the erroneous hypothesis, not yet exploded, 
 that every prophecy must be specific, and must have its fulfilment in a cer- 
 tain period of history, to determine which recourse must frequently be had 
 to fanciful or forced interpretation. 
 
 Nearly contemporary with Vitringa was the learned German Pietist, John 
 Henry Michaelis, Professor at Halle, who, in conjunction with his brother, 
 published there in 1720 a Hebrew Bible with marginal annotations. 
 Those on the first part of Isaiah are by no means equal to the notes of C. B. 
 Michaelis on the Minor Prophets in the same volume. The former are 
 more meager and contain less independent exposition, leaning chiefly upon 
 some preceding writers and especially Sebastian Schmid. These notes, 
 however, have considerable value on account of their references to parallel 
 passages, less numerous than those of many other writers, but selected 
 with great care, and with a constant view to the elucidation of the text. 
 Occasionally also an original interpretation here presents itself. The 
 whole work is characterized by orthodox belief and a devout spirit. 
 
 Independently of both these works, though some years later, appeared 
 the Exposition of Isaiah by John Gill, a Baptist minister in London. 
 Though designed for the doctrinal and practical improvement of the English 
 reader, it is still distinguished from other books of that class by its erudition 
 in a single province, that of talmudic and rabbinic literature. In this depart- 
 ment Gill draws directly from his own resources, which are here extensive, 
 while in other matters he contents himself with gathering and combining, 
 often whimsically, the opinions of preceding writers, and especially of those 
 contained in the Critici Sacri and in Pool's Synopsis. His original sugges- 
 tions are but few and generally founded on his own peculiar views of the 
 
lvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Apocalypse, not as an independent prophecy, but as a key to those of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 Before either of the works last mentioned, and nearly contempo- 
 rary with Vitringa, appeared a Commentary on Jsaiuh by Dr. William 
 Lowth, prebendary of Winchester, which is usually printed, with his other 
 expositions of the Prophets, as a part of Bishop Patrick's Commentary on 
 the Bible. The work on Isaiah has exerted little influence on later writers, 
 the less perhaps because eclipsed by the brilliant success of the Translation, 
 published, more than half a century afterwards, by the author's son, Robert 
 Lowth, successively Bishop of Limerick, St. David's, Oxford, and London, 
 universally acknowledged to be one of the most accomplished scholars and 
 elegant writers of his age or nation. The influence of Lowth's Isaiah has 
 already been described, so far as it can be regarded as injurious to the cause 
 of sound interpretation or enlightened criticism. Its good effect has been 
 to raise the estimation of Isaiah as a writer of extraordinary genius, and to 
 introduce a method of expounding him, more in accordance with the princi- 
 ples of taste, than some adopted by preceding writers. Besides his work 
 upon Isaiah, he contributed to this end by his lectures, as Professor of Poetry 
 at Oxford, de Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum, which have been frequently repub- 
 lished on the continent, and still exert a salutary influence on the Ger- 
 man critics. In his criticism of the Hebrew text, he follows the exploded 
 system of Cappellus, Houbigant, and others, who assumed the masoretic 
 text to be as faulty as it could be without losing its identity, and seem to make 
 it the great object of their criticism to change it as extensively as possible. 
 Many of Lowth's favourite interpretations, being founded upon critical con- 
 jecture, are now worthless. The style of his English version, which ex- 
 cited universal admiration when it first appeared, has, in the course of nearly 
 seventy years, become less pleasing to the cultivated ear, partly because a 
 taste has been revived for that antique simplicity which Lowth's contempo- 
 raries looked upon as barbarous, and of which a far superior specimen is 
 furnished in the common version. Among Lowth's greatest merits, in the 
 exposition and illustration of Isaiah, must be mentioned his familiarity with 
 classical models, often suggesting admirable parallels, and his just views, 
 arising from a highly cultivated taste, in reference to the structure of the 
 prophecies, and the true import of prophetic imagery. 
 
 Almost simultaneous with the first appearance of Lowth's Isaiah was the 
 publication of a German version, with Notes for the Unlearned, by John 
 David Michaelis (a nephew of John Henry before mentioned), Professor at 
 Gottingen, and for many years the acknowledged leader of the German 
 Orientalists. His interpretations in this work are often novel and ingenious, 
 but as often paradoxical and fanciful. His version, although frequently 
 felicitous, is marred by a perpetual affectation of colloquial and modern 
 
INTRODUCTION. LVU 
 
 phraseology, for which he sometimes apologizes on the grourjd that the 
 original expression would not have sounded well in German. He agrees 
 with Lowth in his contempt for the masoretic text, which he is constantly- 
 attempting to correct ; but is far below him in refinement of taste and in a 
 just appreciation of the literary merits of his author. With respect to more 
 important matters, he may be said to occupy the turning point between the 
 old and new school of interpreters. While on the one hand, he retains the 
 customary forms of speech and, at least negatively, recognises the divine 
 authority and inspiration of the Prophet, he carries his affectation of inde- 
 pendence and free-thinking, in the details of his interpretation, so far that 
 the transition appears natural and easy to the avowed unbelief of his pupils 
 and successors. Besides the one already mentioned, occasional reference 
 is made to other works of the same author. 
 
 The German edition of Lowth's Isaiah, with additional notes, by Koppe, 
 a colleague of Michaelis at Gottingen, deserves attention, as the work in 
 which the extravagant doctrines of the modern criticism with respect to the 
 unity, integrity, and genuineness of the prophecies, were first propounded and 
 applied to the writings of Isaiah. The opposite doctrines were maintained, 
 in all their strictness, by a contemporary Swiss Professor, Kocher, a disciple 
 and adherent of the orthodox Dutch school, in a book expressly written 
 against Lowth. 
 
 Passing over the comparatively unimportant works of Vogel, Cube, 
 Hensler, and the annotated Latin versions of Dathe and Doederlein, occa- 
 sionally cited in the present volume, we may mention as the next important 
 link in the catena of interpretation, the famous Scholia of the younger 
 Rosenmuller, for many years Oriental Professor at Leipzig. The part 
 relating to Isaiah appeared first in 1791 ; but the publication and republi- 
 cation of the several parts extend through a period of more than forty years. 
 As a whole, the work is distinguished by a critical acquaintance both with 
 Hebrew and the cognate dialects, and an industrious use of the ancient 
 versions, the rabbinical interpreters, and the later writers, particularly 
 Grotius and Vitringa, whole paragraphs from whom are often copied almost 
 verbatim and without express acknowledgment. From its comprehensive 
 plan and the resources of the writer, this work may be considered as an adap- 
 tation of Vitringa to the circumstances of a later period, including however 
 an entire change of exegetical and doctrinal opinions. Without any of the 
 eager zeal and party-spirit, which occasioned the excesses of Koppe and 
 Eichhorn, Rosenmuller equally repudiates the doctrine of prophetic inspira- 
 tion in the strict sense, and rejects whatever would imply or involve it. 
 The unsoundness of his principles in this respect has given less offence and 
 alarm to readers of a different school, because accompanied by so much 
 calmness and apparent candour, sometimes amounting to a neutral apathy, 
 
 D 
 
lviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 no more conducive to correct results than the opposite extreme of partiality 
 and prejudice. This very spirit of indifference, together with the plan of 
 compilation upon which the Scholia are constructed, added perhaps to an 
 original infirmity of judgment, make the author's own opinions and conclu- 
 sions the least valuable part of this extensive and laborious work. In the 
 abridged edition, which appeared not long before his death (1835), many 
 opinions of Gesenius are adopted, some of which Gesenius in the mean time 
 had himself abandoned. The acknowledgment of Messianic prophecies, 
 which Rosenmuller, in his later writings, seems to make, does not extend to 
 prophecies of Christ, but merely to vague and for the most part groundless 
 expectations of a Messiah by the ancient prophets. 
 
 An epoch in the history of the interpretation is commonly supposed to 
 be marked by the appearance of the Philological, Critical, and Historical 
 Commentary of Gesenius (Leipzig, 1821). This distinction is not founded 
 upon any new principle or even method of interpretation which the author 
 introduced, but on his great celebrity, authority, and influence, as a gram- 
 marian and lexicographer. Nothing is more characteristic of the work than 
 the extreme predilection of the writer for the purely philological and archae- 
 ological portions of his task, and the disproportionate amount of space and 
 labour lavished on them. The evidence of learning and acuteness thus 
 afforded cannot be questioned, but it is often furnished at the cost of other 
 more important qualities. The ablest portions of the work have sometimes 
 the appearance of excursus or detached disquisitions upon certain questions of 
 antiquities or lexicography. Even in this chosen field, successful as Gesenius 
 has been, later writers have detected some infirmities and failures. Of 
 these the most important is the needless multiplication of distinct senses 
 and the gratuitous attenuation of the meaning in some words of common 
 occurrence. The merit of Gesenius consists much more in diligent investi- 
 gation and perspicuous arrangement than in a masterly application of the 
 principles established and exemplified in the best Greek lexicons. His 
 proneness to mistake distinct applications of a word, and accessory ideas 
 suggested by the context, for different meanings of the word itself, is recog- 
 nised in the occasional correction of the fault by his American translator (see 
 for example Heb. Lex. p. 148), to whom the public would have been 
 indebted for a much more frequent use of the same method. If any apology 
 is needed for the frequent deviations, in the following exposition, from 
 Gesenius's decisions, it- is afforded by the rule which he professes to have 
 followed in his own use of the cognate dialects : ultra lexica sapere. 
 (Preface to Isaiah, p. vi.) With respect to candour and impartiality, 
 Gesenius occupies the same ground with Rosenmuller, that is to say, he is 
 above suspicion as to any question not connected, more or less directly, with 
 his fundamental error, that there can be no prophetic foresight. Another 
 
INTRODUCTION. lix 
 
 point of similarity between them is their seeming hesitancy and instability of 
 judgment, as exhibited in frequent changes of opinion upon minor points, 
 without a statement of sufficient reasons. The many variations which may 
 be traced in the writings of Gesenius, from his early Lexicons and Commen- 
 tary on Isaiah to his great Thesaurus, are no doubt proofs of intellectual 
 progress and untiring diligence ; but it is still true, that in many cases oppo- 
 site conclusions seem to have been drawn from precisely the same premises. 
 The Commentary on Isaiah never reappeared, but the accompanying version 
 was reprinted, with a few notes, in 1829. This translation is a spirited 
 and faithful reproduction of the sense of the original, and for the most part 
 of its characteristic form, but not without unnecessary paraphrases and gra- 
 tuitous departures from the Hebrew idiom. In these respects, and in sim- 
 plicity of diction, it has been much improved by DeWette, whose translation 
 of Isaiah (contained in his version of the Bible, Heidelberg, 1839) is 
 avowedly founded upon that of Gesenius. The same relation to the Com- 
 mentary is sustained by Maurer's notes for students (in the first volume of 
 his Commentarius Criticus in Vet. Test. Leipzig, 1835), which exhibit in 
 a clear and compact form the substance of Gesenius, with occasional speci- 
 mens of independent and ingenious exposition. 
 
 A very different position is assumed by Hitzig, whose work upon Isaiah 
 (Heidelberg, 1833) seems intended to refute that of Gesenius wherever a 
 dissent was possible, always excepting the sacred fundamental principle of 
 unbelief in which they are united. This polemical design of Hitzig's work 
 has led to many strained and paradoxical interpretations, but at the same time 
 to a remarkable display of exegetical invention and philological acuteness, 
 both in the application of the principles of Ewald's Grammar where it 
 varies from Gesenius, and in original solutions of grammatical and other 
 problems. In some points Hitzig may be said to have receded to the 
 ground of Eichhorn, as for instance in the wildness of his critical conjec- 
 tures, not so much in reference to words or letters as to larger passages, and 
 also in his leaning to the old idea of predictions ex eventu, or historical allu- 
 sions clothed in a prophetical costume. The metaphysical obscurity of 
 Hitzig's style, in certain cases, may be either the result of individual pecu- 
 liarity, or symptomatic of the general progress in the German mind from 
 common-sense rationalism or deism to the more transcendental forms of 
 unbelief. Another characteristic of this writer is his undisguised contempt, 
 if not for Isaiah in particular, for Judaism and its faith in general. In point 
 of taste, he is remarkable at once for high pretensions and for gross defects. 
 
 Hendewerk's commentary on Isaiah, (Konigsberg, vol. 1, 1838, vol. 2, 
 1843) though indicative of scholarship and talent, has a less marked and in- 
 dependent character than that of Hitzig, and exhibits in a great degree the 
 faults and merits of a juvenile performance. The author's reading sesaas to 
 
lx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 have been limited to modern writers, and the controversial attitude which 
 he is constantly assuming with respect to Hengstenberg or Hitzig, while 
 it makes his exposition less intelligible, unless compared with that of 
 his opponents, also impairs the reader's confidence in his impartiality 
 and candour. His original suggestions are in many cases striking and in 
 some truly valuable, as will appear from the examples cited in the 
 exposition. 
 
 A place is due, in this part of the chronological succession, to two works 
 on Isaiah in the English language. The first is by the Rev. Albert Barnes 
 of Philadelphia, (3 vols. 8vo., Boston, 1840,) well known by previous pub- 
 lications on the Gospels and Epistles, and by a later work on Job. His 
 exposition of Isaiah comprehends a large part of the valuable substance of 
 Vitringa, Rosenmuller, and Gesenius, with occasional reference to the older 
 writers, as contained in Pool's Synopsis and the Critici Sacri. The great 
 fault of the work is not its want of matter, but of matter well digested and 
 condensed. Particular and even disproportionate attention has been paid 
 to archaeological illustration, especially as furnished by the modern travellers. 
 Practical observations are admitted, but without sufficient uniformity or any 
 settled method. The author's views of inspiration in general, and of the 
 inspiration of Isaiah in particular, are sound, but not entirely consistent with 
 the deference occasionally paid to neological interpreters, in cases where 
 heir judgments are, in fact though not in form, determined by a false assump- 
 tion, which no one more decidedly rejects than Mr. Barnes. The New 
 Translation, which accompanies the Commentary, seems to be wholly inde- 
 pendent of it, and can hardly be considered an improvement, either on the 
 common version, or on that of Lowth. 
 
 Some of the same remarks are applicable to the work of Dr. Henderson, 
 (London, 1840,) in which there are appearances of greater haste and less 
 laborious effort, but at the same time of a more extended reading, and a more 
 independent exegetical judgment. The English author, though familiar 
 with the latest German writers who preceded him, is not deterred by their 
 example or authority from the avowal of his doctrinal belief, or from a proper 
 use of analogy in the interpretation of the Prophet. Further description of 
 these two works is rendered unnecessary by the frequency with which they 
 are quoted or referred to in the Commentary. 
 
 Ewald's exposition of Isaiah, contained in his collective work upon the 
 Hebrew Prophets, (Stuttgart, 1841,) derives great authority from his 
 acknowledged eminence in Germany, as a profound philosophical gramma- 
 rian. His attention has been given almost exclusively to the chronological 
 arrangement of the parts and the translation of the text. The latter has 
 great value, not only as containing the results of Ewald's philological re- 
 searches, but also on account of its intrinsic qualities, and more especially 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxi 
 
 its faithful exhibition of the form of the original in its simplicity. In this 
 respect it is a great advance on all preceding versions. The Commentary is 
 extremely meager, and remarkable, like most of Ewald's writings, for the ab- 
 sence of all reference to other modern writers or opinions. The liberties 
 taken with the text, though # not very numerous, are sometimes very violent 
 and arbitrary. The sweeping criticism, on which his chronological arrange- 
 ment rests, will be considered in another place. From the rationalistic 
 school of Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, Ewald differs in regarding Isaiah as 
 inspired, which admission really extends, however, only to a kind of vague, 
 poetical, anticipation, wholly exclusive of distinct prophetic foresight of the 
 distant future, in rejecting which, as a thing impossible or not susceptible of 
 proof, he coincides with the preceding writers. 
 
 Umbreit's practical Commentary on Isaiah (Hamburg, 1842) is little 
 more than a declamatory paraphrase, composed in what an English reader 
 would regard as very questionable taste. The real value of the work con- 
 sists in a translation of Isaiah, and occasional notes on different questions of 
 philology and criticism. On such points the author coincides for the most 
 part with Gesenius, while in his general views of prophecy he seems to ap- 
 proach nearer to Ewald, with whom he frequently concurs in making that a 
 vague anticipation which the other writers take as a specific prophecy. At 
 the same time, he differs from this whole class of interpreters, in frequently 
 alluding to the Saviour and the new dispensation as the subjects of predic- 
 tion, but in what sense it is hard to ascertain, the rather as he practically 
 holds the modern doctrine, that distinct prediction of the distant future is suf- 
 ficient to disprove the genuineness of a passage. 
 
 Knobel's Isaiah (Leipzig, 1843) is exceedingly convenient as a condensed 
 synopsis of the principal interpretations. In the expression of his own views, 
 the author shows his strict adherence to the modern school of criticism and 
 exegesis. His critical decisions, with respect to some portions of the book, 
 are very arbitrary, and the detailed proofs, by which he sustains them, in a 
 high degree extravagant. In rejecting the hypothesis of inspiration, and in 
 asserting the mere human character and origin of the prophecies, he is un- 
 commonly explicit and decided, both in this work and in one which he had 
 previously published upon prophecy in general. On the whole, with the ex- 
 ception of a few good exegetical suggestions, he may be looked upon as 
 having retrograded to the ground of the old neologists from that assumed by 
 Ewald and Umbreit. 
 
 It is gratifying to be able to conclude this list of German writers with a 
 few names, belonging to a very different school, and connected with a pow- 
 erful reaction in favour of old principles, as being perfectly consistent with the 
 valuable fruits of late improvements and discoveries. The way of this im- 
 portant movement, so far as Isaiah is concerned, was opened, not by regular 
 
lxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 interpreters of this book, but by Hengstenberg in his Christology (1829), 
 followedby Kleinert in his volume on the genuineness of Isaiah's prophecies 
 (1829), and still more recently by Havernick in his Introduction to the Old 
 Testament (1844). An application of the same essential principles to the 
 direct interpretation of Isaiah has been made by Drechsler, Professor at 
 Erlangen, the first volume of whose Commentary (Erlangen, 1845) reached 
 me too late to allow the present use of any part of it except the Introduc- 
 tion, to which reference is made below. Besides the exegetical works already 
 mentioned, occasional references will be found to others illustrative of certain 
 passages or certain topics. As most of these are too well known to need 
 description, it will be sufficient here to name, as authorities in natural history 
 and geography the Hierozoicon of Bochart and the Biblical Researches of 
 Robinson and Smith. 
 
 It only remains to speak of the arrangement a«d division of the book 
 before proceeding to expound it. The detailed examination of particular 
 questions under this head will be found in the exposition itself, and for the 
 most part in the special introductions to the several chapters. All that 
 is here intended is a general statement of the case, preparatory to these 
 more minute discussions. The progress of opinion upon this part of the 
 subject has been closely connected with the succession of exegetical and 
 critical hypotheses already mentioned. The same extremes, reactions, 
 compromises, may be traced substantially in both. The older writers com- 
 monly assumed that the book was arranged in chronological order by the 
 author himself. Thus Jerome says expressly, that the prophecies belonging 
 to the four reigns follow one another regularly, without mixture or confusion. 
 J. H. Michaelis regards the first verse of the first, sixth, and seventh chap- 
 ters, and the twenty-eighth verse of the fourteenth chapter, as the dividing 
 marks of the four reigns. This supposition of a strict chronological ar- 
 rangement, although rather taken for granted than determined by investiga- 
 tion, is by no means so absurd as some have represented it. It rests on im- 
 memorial tradition, and the analogy of the other books, the few exceptions 
 tending rather to confirm the rule. The principal objections to it are, that 
 the first chapter is evidently later than the second ; that the sixth, containing 
 the account of Isaiah's ordination to his office, must be the first in point of 
 date ; and that the seventeenth chapter relates to the first years of the 
 reign of Ahaz, whereas ch. 14 : 28 is assigned to the year in which 
 he died. 
 
 These objections, though by no means insurmountable, as will be seen 
 hereafter, led Vitringa to relinquish the hypothesis of strict chronological 
 arrangement by the author himself, for that of arrangement by another 
 hand (perhaps by the men of Hezelciah mentioned Prov. 25 : 1), in the 
 order of subjects, those discourses being placed together whose contents are 
 
INTRODUCTION. Lxiit 
 
 most alike. He accordingly divides Isaiah into five books, after the manner 
 of the Pentateuch and Psalter, the first (ch. i — xn) containing prophecies 
 directed against Judah and Israel, the second (ch. xiii-xxm) against 
 certain foreign powers, the third (ch. xxiv-xxxv) against the enemies 
 and unworthy members of the church, the fourth (ch. xl-xdviii) relat- 
 ing chiefly to the Babylonish exile and deliverance from it, the fifth (ch. 
 xlix-lxvi) to the person and reign of the Messiah, while ch. xxxvi-xxxix 
 are distinguished from the rest as being purely historical. The titles 
 in ch. 1:1. 2: 1. 7: 1. 13: 1. 14: 28 etc. he regards as genuine, ex- 
 cept that the names of the four kings were added to the first by the com- 
 piler, in order to convert what was at first the title of the first chapter only 
 into a general description of the whole book. 
 
 This ingenious hypothesis still leaves it unexplained why certain series 
 were separated from each other, for example why ch. xiii-xxm are inter- 
 posed between ch. i-xii and ch. xxiv-xxxv. This led Koppe, whom Ge- 
 senius describes as the pioneer of the modern criticism, to reject that part of 
 Vitringa's theory which supposes the book to have received its present form 
 in the reign of Hezekiah, while he carries out to an absurd extreme the 
 general hypothesis of compilation and re-arrangement by a later hand. 
 According to Koppe and Augusti, the book, as we now have it, is in per- 
 fect confusion, and its actual arrangement wholly without authority. To 
 confirm and explain this, Eichhorn and Bertholdt assume the existence of 
 several distinct collections of Isaiah's writings, to each of which additions 
 were gradually made, until the whole assumed its present form. 
 
 The same general view is taken of the matter by Hitzig and Ewald, 
 but with this distinction, that the former thinks the frame-work or sub- 
 stratum of the original collections still remains, and needs only to be 
 freed from subsequent interpolations, while the latter sticks more closely 
 to the earlier idea, that the whole is in confusion, partly as he supposes 
 from the loss of many prophecies no longer extant, and can be even 
 partially restored to its original condition, only by critically reconstruct- 
 ing it under the guidance of internal evidence. Ewald accordingly aban- 
 dons the traditional arrangement altogether, and exhibits the disjecta 
 membra in an order of his own. The critical value of the diagnosis, which 
 controls this process, may be estimated from a single principle, assumed 
 if not avowed throughout it, namely, that passages which treat of the 
 same subject, or resemble one another strongly in expression, must be 
 placed together as component parts of one continuous composition. The 
 absurdity of this assumption might be rendered palpable by simply applying 
 it to any classical or modern author, who has practised a variety of styles 
 but with a frequent recurrence of the same ideas, for example, Horace, 
 Goethe, Moore, or Byron. The practical value of the method may be best 
 
UUV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 shown by a comparative statement of its actual results in the hands of two 
 contemporary writers, Ewald and Hendewerk, both of whom have followed 
 this eccentric method in the printing of their commentaries, to the great 
 annoyance of the reader, even when assisted by an index. Without attend- 
 ing to the larger divisions or cycles introduced by either, a simple exhibition 
 of the order in which the first chapters are arranged by these two writers, 
 will be amply sufficient for our present purpose. 
 
 Hendewerk's arrangement is as follows. Ch. 6. — Chs. 1-5. — Ch. 7 
 (vs. 1-9.)— Ch. 17 (vs. 1-14.)— Ch. 7 (vs. 10-25.)— Chs. 8, 9.— 
 Ch. 10 (vs. 1-27.)— Ch. 14 (vs. 24-27.)— Ch. 10 (vs. 28-34.)— Chs. 
 11, 12.— Ch. 14 (vs. 28-32.)— Chs. 15, 16.— Chs. 18, 19.— Ch. 21 (vs. 
 11-17.) — Ch. 23.— Chs. 28, 29.— Ch. 20.— Chs. 31, 32.— Ch. 22.— 
 Ch. 33.— Chs. 36-39.— Chs. 24-27.— Chs. 34, 55.— Ch. 13.— Ch. 14 
 (vs. 1-23.)— Ch. 21 (vs. 1-10.)— Chs. 40-66. 
 
 Ewald's arrangement is as follows. Ch. 6. — Chs. 2-4. — Ch. 5 (vs. 1- 
 25.)— Ch. 9. (vs. 7-20.)— Ch. 10 (vs. 1-4.)— Ch. 5 (vs. 26-30.)— Ch. 
 17 (vs. 1-11.)— Chs. 7, 8.— Ch. 9 (vs. 1-6.)— Ch. 14 (vs. 25-32.)— 
 Chs. 15, 16.— Ch. 21 (vs. 11-17.)— Ch. 23.— Ch. 1.— Ch. 22.— Chs. 
 28-32.— Ch. 20.— Ch. 10 (vs. 5-34.)— Ch. 11.— Ch. 17 (vs. 12-18.)— 
 Ch. 18.— Ch. 14 (vs. 24-27,)— Ch. 33.— Ch. 37 (vs. 22-35.)— Ch. 19. 
 — Ch. 21 (vs. 1-10.)— Ch. 13.— Ch. 14 (vs. 1-23.)— Chs. 40-66.— 
 Chs. 34, 35.— Ch. 24.— Ch. 25 (vs. 6-11.)— Ch. 25 (vs. 1-5.)— Ch. 25 
 (v. 12.) — Chs. 26, 27. — Ch. 12 is rejected as of later origin, but without 
 determining its date. These arrangements, and particularly that of Ewald, 
 may be reckoned not only the latest but the last achievement of the 
 higher criticism. " The force of nature can no further go." We need 
 look for no invention beyond this, unless it be that of reading the book 
 backwards, or shuffling the chapters like a pack of cards. 
 
 Long before this, Gesenius had recoiled from the extremes to which 
 the higher criticism tended, and attempted to occupy a middle ground, 
 by blending the hypotheses of J. H. Michaelis and Vitringa, or in other 
 words assuming a regard both to chronological order and to the affinity 
 of subjects, at the same time holding fast to the favourite idea of suc- 
 cessive additions and distinct compilations. He accordingly assumes four 
 parts or books. The first (ch. i-xn) consists of prophecies belonging 
 to the earliest period of Isaiah's ministry, with the exception of a few 
 interpolations. The sixth chapter should stand first, according to the 
 Jewish tradition as recorded by Jarchi and Aben Ezra. The first chap- 
 ter is somewhat later than the second, third, and fourth. The seventh, 
 though authentic, was probably not written by Isaiah. The eleventh 
 and twelfth may also be spurious, but were early added to the tenth. 
 This book he regards as the original collection, and the first verse as its 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxv 
 
 original title or inscription. The second book (ch. xiii-xxiii) consists 
 of prophecies against foreign nations, excepting ch. xxn, which he sup- 
 poses to have found its way here from having been early joined with ch. 
 xxi. A characteristic feature of this book is the use of burden, as a title 
 or inscription, which he thinks may be certainly ascribed to the compiler. 
 The third book (ch. xxiv-xxxv) contains a series of genuine prophe- 
 cies belonging to the reign of Hezekiah (ch. xxviii-xxxin), with two 
 other series of later date, placed by the hand of a compiler at the beginning 
 (ch. xxiv-xxvii) and the end (ch. xxxiv, xxxv) of this collection, 
 while it was further augmented by a historical appendix (ch. xxxvi-xxxix), 
 in which Isaiah makes a prominent figure. The fourth and last book (ch. 
 xl-xlvi), as Gesenius thinks, was added to the others long after the 
 captivity. 
 
 Here, as in other cases previously mentioned, Gesenius differs from 
 his predecessors in the higher criticism, only in degree, refusing to go with 
 them in the application of their principles, but holding fast the principles 
 themselves. If, on the one hand, he is right in assuming, upon mere conjec- 
 ture, several different collections of the writings of Isaiah formed succes- 
 sively, and in rejecting, upon mere internal evidence, the parts which do not 
 suit his purpose or his theory, then is it utterly impossible to give any definite 
 reason for refusing our assent to the more thorough application of the same 
 process by the bolder hand of Ewald. If, on the other hand, Gesenius is 
 correct in drawing back from the legitimate results of such a theory, then is it 
 utterly impossible to find a safe or definite position, without receding further 
 and relinquishing the theory itself. This additional reaction has not failed 
 to take place in the progress of the controversy. It is most distinctly 
 marked and ably justified in Havemick's Introduction to Isaiah, where 
 the author lays it down, not as a makeshift or a desperate return to old 
 opinions without ground or reason, but as the natural result of philological 
 and critical induction, that the writings of Isaiah, as now extant, form a 
 compact, homogeneous, and well-ordered whole, proceeding, in the main, if 
 not in all its parts, from the hand of the original author. Whoever has 
 been called to work his way through the extravagant and endless theories of 
 the ' higher criticism,' without those early prepossessions in its favour which 
 grow with the growth of almost every German scholar, far from finding this 
 new doctrine strange or arbitrary, must experience a feeling of relief at thus 
 landing from the ocean of conjecture on the terra firma of historical tradi- 
 tion, analogical reasoning, and common sense. The advantages of such a 
 ground can be appreciated far more justly after such experience than before 
 it, because then there might be a misgiving lest some one of the many pos- 
 sibilities proposed as substitutes for immemorial tradition might prove true ; 
 but now the reader, having found by actual experiment, not only that these 
 
lxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ways do not lead him right, but that they lead him nowhere, falls back 
 with strong assurance, not by any means upon all the minor articles of the 
 ancient creed, which he is still bound and determined to subject to criti- 
 cal investigation, but on the general presumption, which exists in all such 
 cases, that the truth of what is obvious to common sense and has been held 
 from the beginning, instead of being the exception is the rule, to which 
 the flaws, that may be really discovered by a microscopic criticism, are mere 
 exceptions. 
 
 That Havernick especially has not been governed by a love of novelty 
 or opposition is apparent from the fact of his retaining in its substance Ge- 
 senius's division and arrangement of the book, while he rejects the gratuitous 
 assumptions, held by that eminent interpreter in common with his predeces- 
 sors. According to Havernick, the whole book consists of five connected 
 but distinguishable groups, or series of prophecies. The first group (ch. 
 i-xii) contains Isaiah's earliest prophecies, arranged in two series, easily 
 distinguished by internal marks. The first six chapters have a general 
 character, without certain reference to any particular historical occasion, 
 which accounts for the endless difference of opinion, as to the precise date 
 of their composition. The remaining six have reference to particular occa- 
 sions, which are not left to conjecture but distinctly stated, They embrace 
 the principal events under Ahaz, and illustrate the relation of the Prophet 
 to them. The sixth chapter, though descriptive of the Prophet's ordination, 
 holds its proper place, as an addendum to the foregoing prophecies, designed 
 to justify their dominant tone of threatening and reproof. The second group 
 (ch. xiii-xxiii) contains a series of prophecies against certain foreign powers, 
 showing the relation of the heathen world to the theocracy, and followed by 
 a sort of appendix (ch. xxiv-xxvii), summing up the foregoing prophecies 
 and showing the results of their fulfilment to the end of time. He maintains 
 the genuineness of all the prophecies in this division and the correctness of 
 their actual position. The apparent exception in ch. xxn he accounts for, 
 by supposing that Judah is there represented as reduced by gross iniquity to 
 the condition of a heathen state. Another explanation, no less natural, and 
 more complete, because it accounts for the remarkable prophecy against an 
 individual in the last part of the chapter, is afforded by the supposition, that 
 Judah is there considered as subject to a foreign and probably a heathen 
 influence, viz. that of Shebna. (See the details below, p. 386.) Haver- 
 nick's third group (ch. xxviii-xxxm) contains prophecies relating to a par- 
 ticular period of Hezekiah's reign, with a more general prospective sequel 
 (ch. xxxiv, xxxv), as in the second. Here again he examines and rejects 
 the various arguments adduced by modern critics to disprove the genuineness 
 of certain parts. The fourth group (ch. xxxvi-xxxix) describes in histo- 
 rical form the influence exerted by the Prophet at a later period of the reign 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxvii 
 
 of Hezekiah. Regarding this and the parallel part of Second Kings as 
 collateral derivatives from a historical writing of Isaiah, Havernick is led by 
 the mention, in ch. 37: 38, of an event which happened after the supposed 
 death of Isaiah, to ascribe that verse and the insertion of these chapters to 
 a somewhat later hand. He maintains, however, that so far from being 
 inappropriate, they constitute a necessary link between the third group and 
 the fifth (ch. xl-lxvi), in which the whole result of his prophetic ministra- 
 tions to the end of time is vividly depicted. 
 
 The critical and philological arguments of Havernick, in this part 
 of his work, are eminently learned and ingenious, highly original and yet 
 conservative of ancient and invaluable truth. A reference to them is 
 the more important here because they came into my hands too late to 
 influence the expositions of the present volume, the coincidence between 
 them, as to principle if not in all particular conclusions, being only the 
 more satisfactory and striking upon that account. The same remark ap- 
 plies, in some degree, to Drechsler's Introduction, which may be consi- 
 dered as a further movement in the same direction, not occasioned by the 
 other, but the fruit of independent labour in the same field and under the 
 same influence. It is certainly an interesting and instructive fact, that in 
 two such cases, the conviction of the unity, integrity, and uncorrupted genu- 
 ineness of the book before us, even as to its arrangement and the nexus of 
 the parts, should have been reached without collusion, by a thorough sifting 
 of the very arguments alleged against it by the ablest critics of the past and 
 present generation. Drechsler's idea of Isaiah as a whole differs from 
 Havernick's, in going further from the modern theory, retaining less of its 
 substratum, the hypothesis of different collections, and ascribing to the book, 
 as we possess it, a more absolute and perfect unity. Drechsler dismisses the 
 whole question with respect to the precise date of particular passages, as 
 equally insoluble and unimportant ; directs attention to the fact that through- 
 out the book the only editor, compiler, or arranger, of whom any trace can 
 be discerned, is one who exercised the rights of an author; draws from this 
 and other marks of an internal kind, a confirmation of the old opinion, that 
 the form and the contents of the collection are, so far as we can hope to 
 ascertain, from one and the same hand; and thenceforth assumes it as a 
 principle or maxim, that whatever may have been the date of any passage 
 as originally uttered, we have no need or authority to trace it further back 
 than its reduction to its present shape by the original author. 
 
 With respect to the divisions of the book, his theory may seem at first sight 
 artificial, but is really distinguished by simplicity as well as ingenuity. He sets 
 out by assuming two great crises or conjunctures in Isaiah's ministry, about 
 which all his prophecies may be arranged. The first is the invasion in the 
 reign of Ahaz, the second the invasion in the reign of Hezekiah. These he 
 
lxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 regards as the centres of two great prophetic schemes or systems, forming one 
 harmonious whole, but between themselves distinguished by the prevalence 
 of threatening and reproof in one, of promise and consolation in the other. 
 To each of these great critical events in the history corresponds a central 
 point or focus in the prophecy, from which in both directions we may trace a 
 regular connexion in the book, stretching back into the past and forward into 
 the future, in the way of preparation on the one hand and completion on the 
 other. The focus of the first great prophetic scheme he fixes in the seventh 
 chapter, that of the other in the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh. The sixth 
 is a direct preparation for the seventh ; the fifth for the sixth ; the second, 
 third, and fourth, for the fifth ; the first is a general introduction to the 
 whole. Then on the other side, the promises and threatenings of the seventh 
 chapter are repeated, amplified, and varied, first with respect to Judah and 
 Israel in ch. vni-xn, then with respect to foreign powers in ch. xin-xxin, 
 and lastly in a general summing up and application to all times and places 
 in ch. xxiv-xxvii, which closes the first system. The other central pro- 
 phecy, in ch. xxxvi and xxxvn, is likewise introduced by a preparatory 
 series (ch. xxvm-xxxv), all relating to Sennacherib's invasion, and on the 
 other hand carried out, first historically (ch. xxxvm, xxxix), then prophet- 
 ically (ch. xl-xlvi) to the end of time. 
 
 However fanciful or German this hypothesis may seem, it cannot be 
 attentively considered without giving rise to this reflection, that a book 
 affording the materials and conditions even for a fanciful device, of which 
 unity and symmetry are essential elements, cannot well be a. farrago of dis- 
 cordant parts, produced at random and combined by chance. The opposite 
 hypothesis, if once assumed, can be applied with ease to any case, however 
 clear the signs of unity may be, for the details of proof are all involved in 
 the primary assumption ; but it is not quite so easy to maintain the hypo- 
 thesis of harmony where harmony does not exist. It requires little' inge- 
 nuity or learning to discover and exaggerate appearances of discord even 
 where is agreement ; but to create the appearance of agreement in the 
 midst of discord is beyond the reach of any sophistry or eloquence except 
 the most consummate. The truth, however, seems to be, that Drechsler's 
 theory, however fanciful it may appear, especially as stated by himself, is 
 but another exhibition of the truth maintained by Havernick, to wit, that 
 the book before us is, in form as well as substance, the original and genuine 
 production of Isaiah. 
 
 The view which has now been taken of the progress of opinion, with 
 respect to the arrangement and division of the book before us, first its down- 
 ward progress from a firm traditional belief to the extreme of a lawless and 
 irrational skepticism, and then its upward course by dint of argument to an 
 enlightened and confirmed historical assurance, makes it almost impossible 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxix 
 
 to close without a glance at the ulterior stages which may yet remain of 
 this restorative process. Considering the principle on which it has been 
 thus far carried on, the proved unsoundness of the contrary hypothesis, 
 and the analogy of all like cases, it might plausibly be stated, as the pro- 
 bable result of this return to experience and common sense, that men 
 whose eyes have thus been opened will eventually throw to the moles and 
 to the bats the cherished figment, upon which a large part of their errors 
 have been built, to wit, the groundless assumption, that the sacred writings 
 of the Jews were passed from hand to hand by private circulation and 
 transcription like the Greek and Roman classics, accidentally collected into 
 volumes, mixed together, mutilated, magnified by forgery or ignorant inter- 
 polation, and at last sent down to us, to be the subject of empirical decisions 
 without number or agreement. Or if this be gone already, it may be the 
 next step to discard the notion, not monopolized by any class or school of 
 critics, that the several parts of such a book as that before us were, and 
 must have been, delivered as set speeches or occasional discourses, then 
 reduced to writing one by one, and put together by degrees, or even by a 
 later hand and in a distant age. On this gratuitous assumption rests a large 
 part of the most perplexing difficulties which attend the critical interpreta- 
 tion of Isaiah, and which all would disappear if we could see sufficient 
 reason to conclude, that the book is a continuous production of a single 
 mind, at one great effort, long protracted, it may be, but not entirely sus- 
 pended, or renewed from time to time upon occasion. The mention of dis- 
 tinct events and dates no more establishes the fact here questioned, than the 
 sweep of Paul's chronology, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, proves 
 that it was written piecemeal from the time of his conversion. All analogy, 
 both scriptural and general, without some countervailing reason for believing 
 otherwise, would favour the conclusion that a book like that before us was 
 produced by a continuous effort. But besides this negative presumption, 
 we have one distinct example of the very thing proposed, or rather two, for 
 it is matter of record that the Prophet Jeremiah twice reduced to writing, by 
 divine command, the prophecies of many years, (see Jer. 36 : 2, 4, 28, 32,) 
 or rather of his whole preceding ministry. If this be possible in one case, it 
 is possible in others. If we have no difficulty in supposing that Jeremiah's 
 constant inspiration was sufficient to ensure the truth of such a record, or 
 that he was specially inspired for the very purpose, we need have none in 
 supposing that Isaiah, in the last years of his ministry, recorded the whole 
 series of his prophecies, and left them upon everlasting record, as we have 
 them now. To us it matters little whether he recalled exactly the precise 
 words uttered upon each occasion, or received by a new revelation such a 
 summary as God was pleased to substitute instead of it. Our concern is 
 
lxx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 not with prophecies now lost, whether written or oral, but with those now 
 extant and recorded for our learning. It is these, and only these, that we 
 interpret, it is only these that can command our faith. The supposition 
 now suggested, while it would preclude a thousand petty questions gendered 
 by the neological hypothesis, would also, when combined with the tradi- 
 tional devotion of the Jews to the preservation of their scriptures, furnish 
 a solid ground for the belief, that what Isaiah wrote three thousand years ago 
 we read to-day, without resorting to the needless supposition of a miracle, or 
 shutting out the possibility of minor deviations from the autograph in every 
 extant manuscript. All that we needed we should have, to wit, a rational 
 assurance that the book, as a book, without descending to enumerate its let- 
 ters, is precisely what it was, in form and substance, when originally 
 written. 
 
 If this supposition were assumed as the basis of our exposition, it would 
 materially modify its form, in some respects, by putting an end to the accus- 
 tomed method of division into prophecies with separate dates, and introduc- 
 ing the same method which is practised with respect to Paul's epistles, or 
 the undivided prophecies, like that of Hosea. The conventional division into 
 verses and chapters (the latter wholly modern and in several instances 
 absurd) might be retained as a convenient mode of reference ; but the exe- 
 getical division of the first part of Isaiah would no longer be historical or 
 critical, but merely analytical and logical, as in the present universal mode of 
 dealing with the last twenty-seven chapters of the book. In the exposition 
 of the prophecies which occupy the present volume, the usual distinctive 
 plan has been adopted, partly in deference to established custom and the 
 authority of other writers, partly because the ideas just expressed were not 
 assumed a priori, as an arbitrary basis of interpretation, but deduced from 
 it a posteriori, as its actual result. In the mean time, it will be observed 
 that various opportunities have been embraced, to check and counteract the 
 tendency to needless or excessive subdivision. 
 
 The arrangement of the Commentary is as follows. The usual divi- 
 sion into chapters is retained, as being universally familiar and in general 
 convenient. The analysis of these divisions, and other preliminary state- 
 ments and discussions, are prefixed as special introductions to the chapters. 
 The literal translation, sometimes combined with an explanatory paraphrase, 
 is followed by the necessary comments and the statement of the different 
 opinions. In the order of the topics, some regard has been had to their 
 comparative importance, but without attempting to secure a perfect uni- 
 formity in this respect, which, if it were attainable, would probably add 
 nothing to the force or clearness of the exposition. 
 
 The prophecies expounded in the present volume may be considered 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxxi 
 
 introductory, in various respects, to the remainder of the book, not only 
 because earlier in date, and relating for the most part to a nearer futurity, 
 but also as affording the only satisfactory data, upon which the exposition of 
 the rest can be founded. The Later Prophecies, extending from the fortieth 
 chapter to the end, are abundantly sufficient, both in quantity and quality, 
 to constitute the subject of another volume. 
 
COMMENTARY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The design of this chapter is to show the connexion between the sins 
 and sufferings of God's people, and the necessity of further judgments, as 
 means of purification and deliverance. 
 
 The popular corruption is first exhibited as the effect of alienation from 
 
 God, and as the cause of national calamities, vs. 2-9. It is then exhibited 
 
 as coexisting with punctilious exactness in religious duties, and as rendering 
 
 them worthless, vs. 10-20. It is finally exhibited in twofold contrast, first 
 
 with a former state of things, and then with one still future, to be brought about 
 
 by the destruction of the wicked, and especially of wicked rulers, vs. 21-31. 
 
 The first part of the chapter describes the sin and then the suffering of 
 
 the people. The former is characterized as filial ingratitude, stupid incon- 
 
 sideration, habitual transgression, contempt of God, and alienation from him, 
 
 vs. 2-4. The suffering is first represented by the figure of disease and 
 
 wounds, and then in literal terms as the effect of an invasion, by which the 
 
 nation was left desolate, and only saved by God's regard for his elect from 
 
 the total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, vs. 5-9. 
 
 The second part is connected with the first by the double allusion to 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, with which one closes and the other opens. In this 
 part the Prophet shows the utter inefficacy of religious rites to counteract 
 the natural effect of their iniquities, and then exhorts them to the use of the 
 true remedy. Under the former head, addressing them as similar in charac- 
 ter to Sodom and Gomorrah, he describes their sacrifices as abundant and 
 exact, but not acceptable ; their attendance at the temple as punctual, 
 and yet insulting ; their bloodless offerings as abhorrent, and their holy 
 days as wearisome and hateful on account of their iniquities ; their very 
 prayers as useless, because their hands were stained with blood, vs. 10-15. 
 As a necessary means of restoration to God's favour, he exhorts them to for- 
 sake their evil courses and to exercise benevolence and justice, assuring them 
 that God was willing to forgive them and restore the advantages which they 
 had forfeited by sin, but at the same time resolved to punish the impenitent 
 transgressor, vs. 16-20. 
 
 1 
 
2 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 The transition from the second to the third part is abrupt, and introduced 
 by a pathetic exclamation. In this part the Prophet compares Israel as it is 
 with what it has been and with what it shall be. In the former comparison, 
 he employs two metaphors, each followed by a literal explanation of its mean- 
 ing ; that of a faithful wife become a harlot, and that of adulterated wine 
 and silver, both expressive of a moral deterioration, with special reference to 
 magistrates and rulers, vs. 21-23. In the other comparison, the coming 
 judgments are presented in the twofold aspect of purification and deliverance 
 to the church, and of destruction to its wicked members. The Prophet sees 
 the leading men of Israel destroyed, first as oppressors, to make room for 
 righteous rulers and thus save the state, then as idolaters consumed by that 
 in which they trusted for protection, vs. 24-31. 
 
 This chapter is referred by Grotius and Cocceius to the reign of Uzziah, 
 by Lowth and De Wette to the reign of Jotham, by Gesenius and Ewald to 
 the reign of Ahaz, by Jarchi and Vitringa to the reign of Hezekiah. This 
 disagreement has arisen from assuming that it must be a prediction in the 
 strict sense, and have reference to one event or series of events exclusively, 
 while in the prophecy itself there are no certain indications of the period 
 referred to. The only points which seem to furnish any data for determin- 
 ing the question, are the invasion mentioned in v. 7, and the idolatry referred 
 to in vs. 28-31.* But the former is almost equally applicable to the Syrian 
 invasion under Ahaz and the Assyrian under Hezekiah. And the idolatry is 
 mentioned in connexion with a punctilious regard to the forms of the Mosaic 
 ritual. At the same time, it is evident that the chapter contains one continu- 
 ous coherent composition. It is probable, therefore, that this prophecy 
 belongs to the class already mentioned (in the Introduction) as exhibiting a 
 sequence of events, or providential scheme, which might be realized in more 
 than one emergency ; not so much a prediction as a prophetic lesson with 
 respect to the effects which certain causes must infallibly produce. Such a 
 discourse would be peculiarly appropriate as an introduction to the prophecies 
 which follow ; and its seeming inconsistences are all accounted for, by simply 
 supposing that it was written for this purpose about the time of Sennache- 
 rib's invasion in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, and that in it the 
 Prophet takes a general survey of the changes which the church had under- 
 gone since the beginning of his public ministry. 
 
 V. 1. This is a general title of the whole book or one of its larger divi- 
 sions (ch. 1-39 or 1-12), defining its character, author, subject, and date. 
 The Vision (supernatural perception, inspiration, revelation, prophecy, here 
 put collectively for Prophecies) of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw 
 (perceived, received by inspiration) concerning Judah (the kingdom of 
 the two tribes, which adhered to the theocracy after the revolt of Jero- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 3 
 
 boam) and Jerusalem (its capital, the chosen seat of the true religion), 
 
 in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of J ml ah. — The 
 Septuagint renders b? against} but as all the propheries are not of an unfa- 
 vourable character, it is better to retain the wider sense concerning. — Alien 
 Ezra and Almrbeiiel regard this as the title of the first chapter only, and to 
 meet the objection that a single prophecy would not have been referred to 
 four successive reigns, instead of which he saw read who satv (i. e. was a 
 seer) in the days of Uzziah, etc. But the tenses of ntn are not thus abso- 
 lutely used, and the same words occur in ch. 2:1, where the proposed con- 
 struction is impossible. — Vitringa's supposition that the sentence originally 
 consisted of the first clause only, and that the yWfrwas added at a later date 
 to make it applicable as a general title, is entirely gratuitous, and opens the 
 door to endless license of conjecture. Hendewerk goes further, and calls in 
 question the antiquity and genuineness of the whole verse, but without the 
 least authority. According to ancient and oriental usage it was probably 
 prefixed by Isaiah himself to a partial or complete collection of his prophe- 
 cies. To the objection that "p'Tri is singular, the answer is, that it is used 
 collectively because it has no plural, and appears as the title of this same 
 book or another in 2 Chr. 32 : 32. To the objection that the prophecies are 
 not all concerning Judah and Jerusalem, the answer is, a potiori fit denomi- 
 nate, to which may be added that the prophecies relating to the ten tribes 
 and to foreign powers owe their place in this collection to their bearing, 
 more or less direct, upon the interests of Judah. To the objection that the 
 first chapter has no other title, we may answer that it needs no other, partly 
 because it. is sufficiently distinguished from what follows by the title of the 
 second, partly because it is not so much the first in a series of prophecies 
 as a general preface. With respect to the names Isaiah and Amoz, and the 
 chronology of this verse, see the Introduction. 
 
 V. 2. The Prophet first describes the moral state of Judah, vs. 2-4, 
 and then the miseries arising from it, vs. 5-9. To the former he invites 
 attention by summoning the universe to hear the Lord's complaint against 
 his people, who are first charged with filial ingratitude. Hear, O heavens, 
 and give ear, O earth, as witnesses and judges, and as being less insensible 
 yourselves than men, for Jehovah speaks, not man. Sons I have reared 
 and brought up, literally made great and made high, and they, with emphasis 
 on the pronoun which is otherwise superfluous, even they have revolted from 
 me, or rebelled against me, not merely in a general sense by sinning, but in 
 a special sense by violating that peculiar covenant which bound God to his 
 people. It is in reference to this bond and to the conjugal relation which 
 the Scriptures represent God as sustaining to his church or people, that its 
 constituent members are here called his children. — Vitringa and others un 
 
4 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 derstand heaven and earth as meaning angels and men ; but although these 
 may be included, it is plain that the direct address is to the frame of nature, 
 as in Deut. 32 : 1, from which the form of expression is borrowed. — Knobel 
 and other recent writers exclude the idea of bearing witness altogether, and 
 suppose heaven and earth to be called upon to listen, simply because Jeho- 
 vah is the speaker. But the two ideas are entirely compatible, and the 
 first is recommended by the analogy of Deut. 30: 19, and by its poetical 
 effect. — Cocceius takes TOW* in the sense of bringing up, but iwattti in that 
 of exalting to peculiar privileges, which disturbs the metaphor, and violates 
 the usage of the two verbs, which are elsewhere joined as simple synonymes. 
 (See ch. 23 : 7. Ezek. 31 :*4.) Both terms are so chosen as to be applica- 
 ble, in a lower sense, to children, and in a higher sense, to nations. — The 
 English Bible and many other versions read Jehovah has spoken, which 
 seems to refer to a previous revelation, or to indicate a mere repetition of his 
 words, whereas he is himself introduced as speaking. The preterite may be 
 here used to express the present, for the purpose of suggesting that he did 
 not thus speak for the first time. Compare Heb. 1:1. 
 
 V. 3. Having tacitly compared the insensible Jews with the inanimate 
 creation, he now explicitly compares them with the brutes, selecting for that 
 purpose two which were especially familiar as domesticated animals, sub- 
 jected to man's power and dependent on him for subsistence, and at the 
 same time as proverbially stupid, inferiority to which must therefore be pe- 
 culiarly disgraceful. The ox Tcnoweth his owner and the ass his master's 
 crib or feeding place. Israel, the chosen people, as a whole, without regard 
 to those who had seceded from it, doth not know, my people doth not con- 
 sider, pay attention or take notice. Like the ox and the ass, Israel had a 
 master, upon whom he was dependent, and to whom he owed obedience ; 
 but, unlike them, he did not recognize and would not serve his rightful 
 sovereign and the author of his mercies. — The Septuagint supplies me after 
 know and consider (^s ovx eyrco . . . . fiE ov gvptjxev). The Vulgate, followed 
 by Michaelis, Lowth, and others, supplies me after the first verb, but leaves 
 the other indefinite. Gesenius, De Wette, and Hendewerk supply him, 
 referring to owner and master. Clericus, Ewald, and Umbreit take the verbs 
 in the absolute and general sense of having knowledge and being considerate, 
 which is justified by usage, but gives less point and precision to the sentence. 
 
 V. 4. As the foregoing verses render prominent the false position of 
 Israel with respect to God, considered first as a father and then as a master 
 (comp. Mai. 1 : 6), so this brings into view their moral state in general, re- 
 sulting from that alienation, and still represented as inseparable from it. The 
 Prophet speaks again in his own person, and expresses wonder, pity, and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 5 
 
 indignation at the state to which his people had reduced themselves. Ah, 
 sinful nation, literally nation sinning, i. e. habitually, which is the force here 
 of the active participle, people heavy with iniquity, weighed down by guilt 
 as an oppressive burden, a seed of evil-doers, i. e. the offspring of wicked pa- 
 rents, sons corrupting themselves, i. e. doing worse than their fathers, in which 
 sense the same verb is used Judges 2:19. (Calvin : filii degeneres.) The 
 evil-doers are of course not the Patriarchs or Fathers of the nation, but the 
 intervening wicked generations. As the first clause tells us what they were, 
 so the second tells us what they did, by what acts^hey had merited the 
 character just given. They have forsaken Jehovah, a phrase descriptive of 
 iniquity in general, but peculiarly expressive of the breach of covenant obli- 
 gations. They have treated ivith contempt the Holy One of Israel, a title 
 almost peculiar to Isaiah, and expressing a twofold aggravation of their sin ; 
 first, that he was infinitely excellent ; and then, that he was theirs, their own 
 peculiar God. They are alienated back again. The verb denotes estrange- 
 ment from God, the adverb retrocession or backsliding into a former state. — 
 By a seed of evil-doers most writers understand a race or generation of evil- 
 doers, and by children corrupting (their ways or themselves, as Aben Ezra 
 explains it) nothing more than wicked men. Gesenius and Henderson ren- 
 der bTOWithj corrupt, Barnes corrupting others. The sense of mischievous, 
 destructive, is given by Luther, and the vague one of wicked by the Vulgate. 
 The other explanation, which supposes an allusion to the parents, takes •*} 
 and D^sa in their proper meaning, makes the parallelism of the clauses more 
 complete, and converts a tautology into a climax. — The sense of blasphem- 
 ing given to ffiU by the Vulgate and Luther, and that of provoking to anger 
 by the Septuagint, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and others, are rejected by the mod- 
 ern lexicographers for that of despising or treating with contempt. The 
 last two are combined by Junius (contemtim irritaverunt) and the old French 
 Version (ils ont irrite parmepris). — The Niphal form Vty is by most writers 
 treated as simply equivalent in meaning to the Kal — < they have departed ;' 
 but the usage of the participles active and passive (Ps. 69 : 9) in the sense 
 of strange and estranged is in favour of the interpretation given by Aquila 
 and Theodotion, a7if]XXoTQic6&r]aav elg ret bniaca. 
 
 V. 5. To the description of their moral state, beginning and ending with 
 apostasy from God, the Prophet now adds a description of the consequences, 
 vs. 5-9. This he introduces by an expostulation on their mad perseverance 
 in transgression, notwithstanding the extremities to which it had reduced 
 them. Whereupon, i. e. on what part of the body, can ye be stricken, smit- 
 ten, punished, any more, that ye add revolt, departure or apostasy from God, 
 i. e. revolt more and more ? Already the whole head is sick and the whole 
 heart faint. — The same sense is attained, but in a less striking form, by 
 
6 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 reading, with Hitzig, why, to what purpose, will ye be smitten any morel 
 why continue to revolt 1 If their object was to make themselves miserable, 
 it was already accomplished. — Calvin, followed by the English version and 
 others, gives a different turn to the interrogation : Why should ye be smitten 
 any more 1 of what use is it ? ye will revolt more and more. But the 
 reason thus assigned for their ceasing to be smitten is wholly different from 
 that given in the last clause and amplified in the following verse, viz. that 
 they were already faint and covered with wounds. The Vulgate version 
 (super quo percutiemini ?) is retained by Luther, Lowth, Gesenius, and 
 others. The very same metaphor occurs more than once in classical poetry. 
 Lowth quotes examples from Euripides and Ovid (vix habet in nobis jam 
 nova plaga locum). — Hendewerk supposes the people to be asked where 
 they can be smitten with effect, i. e. what kind of punishment will do them 
 good ; but this is forced, and does not suit the context. Ewald repeats 
 whereupon before the second verb : ' upon what untried transgression build- 
 ing will ye still revolt ?' which is needless and unnatural. — Instead of the 
 whole head, the whole heart, Winer and Hitzig render every head and every 
 heart, because the nouns have not the article. But see ch. 9: 11. Ps. 
 Ill: 1 . The omission of the article is one of the most familiar licenses of 
 poetry. The context too requires that the words should be applied to the 
 head and heart of the body mentioned in v. 6, viz. the body politic. — The 
 head and heart do not denote different ranks (Hendewerk), or the inward and 
 outward state of the community (Umbreit), but are mentioned as well-known 
 and important parts of the body, to which the church or nation had been 
 likened. — Gesenius explains ^nb to mean in sicJcness, Ewald (inclined) to 
 sickness, Knobel (belonging) to sickness, Clericus' (given up) to sickness, 
 Rosenmiiller (abiit) in morbum. The general sense is plain from the parallel 
 term TO faint or languid from disease. 
 
 V. 6. The idea suggested at the beginning of v. 5, that there was no 
 more room for further strokes, is now carried out with great particularity. 
 From the sole of the foot and (i. e. even) to the head (a common scriptural 
 expression for the body in its whole extent) there is not in it (the people, or 
 in him i. e. Judah, considered as a body) a sound place ; (it is) wound 
 and bruise (fiwXmp, vibex, the tumour produced by stripes) and fresh stroke. 
 The wounds are then described as not only grievous but neglected. They 
 have not been pressed, and they have not been bound or bandaged, and it has 
 not been mollified with ointment, all familiar processes of ancient surgery. — 
 Calvin argues that the figures in this verse and the one preceding cannot re- 
 fer to moral corruption, since the Prophet himself afterwards explains them 
 as descriptive of external sufferings. But he seems to have intended to keep 
 up before his readers the connexion between suffering and sin, and therefore 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 to have chosen terms suited to excite associations both of pain and corrup- 
 tion. — The last v« 'H>, which is singular and feminine, is supposed by Justus 
 and J. H. Michaeli- to agree with the nouns distributively, as the others do 
 collectively : < none of them is mollified with ointment.' Ewald and Umbreit 
 connect it with the last noun exclusively. All the verbs are rendered in the 
 singular by Cocceius and Lowth, all in the plural by Vitringa and J. D. 
 Michaelis. The most probable solution is that proposed by Knobel, who 
 takes ::- indefinitely, ' it has not been softened/ i. e. no one has softened, 
 like the Latin vcntum est for < some one came.' This construction, although 
 foreign from our idiom, is not uncommon in Hebrew. — hwiq riss is not a 
 running or putrefying sore (Eng. Vers. Barnes), but a recently inflicted 
 stroke. — The singular nouns may be regarded as collectives, or, with better 
 effect, as denoting that the body was one wound, &c. — The suffix in ia can- 
 not refer to H^ a understood (Henderson), which would require na . — cr~ 
 may be an abstract meaning soundness (LXX. oXoxlr^ia) , but is more proba- 
 bly a noun of place from Min . 
 
 V. 7. Thus far the sufferings of the people have been represented by 
 strong figures, giving no intimation of their actual form, or of the outward 
 causes which produced them. But now the Prophet brings distinctly into 
 view foreign invasion as the instrument of vengeance, and describes the coun- 
 try as already desolated by it. The absence of verbs in the first clause gives 
 great rapidity and life to the description. Your land (including town and 
 country, which are afterwards distinctly mentioned) a waste ! Your towns 
 (including cities and villages of every size) burnt with fire ! Your ground 
 (including its produce), i. e. as to your ground, before you (in your presence, 
 but beyond your reach) strangers (are) devouring it, and a waste (it is a 
 waste) like the overthrow of strangers, i. e. as foreign foes are wont to waste 
 a country, in which they have no interest, and for which they have no pity. 
 (Vulg. sicut in vastitate hostili.) — As n'nt often includes the idea of stran- 
 gers to God and the true religion, and as H2en^ in every other instance 
 means the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Hitzig and Ewald adopt 
 Kimchi's explanation of this clause, as containing an allusion to that event, 
 which is the great historical type of total destruction on account of sin, often 
 referred to elsewhere, and in this very context, two verses below. This ex- 
 position, though ingenious, is unnecessary, and against it lies almost the 
 whole weight of exegetical authority. — Saadias explains e*^t not as a plural 
 but a singular noun derived from cnt to flow or overflow, in which he is 
 followed by Doderlein and Lowth ('as if destroyed by an inundation.') 
 But no such noun occurs elsewhere, and it is most improbable that two 
 nouns, wholly different in meaning yet coincident in fonm, would be used in 
 this one sentence. 
 
8 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 V. 8. The extent of the desolation is expressed by comparing the 
 church or nation to a watch-shed in a field or vineyard, far from other habi- 
 tations, and forsaken after the ingathering. And the daughter of Zion, i. e. 
 the people of Zion or Jerusalem, considered as the capital of Judah, and 
 therefore representing the whole nation, is left, not forsaken, but left over or 
 behind as a survivor, like a booth, a temporary covert of leaves and branches, 
 in a vineyard, like a lodge in a melon-field, like a watched city, i. e. watched 
 by friends and foes, besieged and garrisoned, and therefore insulated, cut off 
 from all communication with the country. — Interpreters, almost without 
 exception, explain daughter of Zion to mean the city of Jerusalem, and 
 suppose the extent of desolation to be indicated by the metropolis alone 
 remaining unsubdued. But on this supposition they are forced to explain 
 how a besieged city could be like a besieged city, either by saying that 
 Jerusalem only suffered as if she were besieged (Ewald) ; or by taking the 
 2 as a caph veritatis expressing not resemblance but identity, ' like a be- 
 sieged city as she is ' (Gesen. ad loc. Henderson) ; or by reading ' so is the 
 besieged city ' (Gesen. Lex. Man.) ; or by gratuitously taking iryoB w in 
 the sense of ' turris custodiae ' or watch-tower (Tingstad. Hitzig. Gesen. 
 Thes.). If, as is commonly supposed, daughter of Zion primarily signifies 
 the people of Zion or Jerusalem, and the city only by a transfer of the 
 figure, it is better to retain the former meaning in a case where departure 
 from it is not only needless but creates a difficulty in the exposition. Ac- 
 cording to Hengstenberg (Comm. on Psalm 9: 15), daughter of Zion 
 means the daughter Zion, as city of Rome means the city Rome, But 
 even granting this, the church or nation may at least as naturally be called 
 a daughter, i. e. virgin or young woman, as a city. That Jerusalem is not 
 called the daughter of Zion from its local situation on that mountain, is clear 
 from the analogous phrases daughter of Tyre, daughter of Babyon, where 
 no such explanation is admissible. — The meaning saved, preserved, which 
 is put upon rnsixs by Koppe, Rosenmuller, Maurer, and Gesenius in his 
 Commentary, seems inappropriate in a description of extreme desolation, but 
 does not materially affect the interpretation of the passage. 
 
 V. 9. The idea'of a desolation almost total is expressed in other words, 
 and with an intimation that the narrow escape was owing to God's favour 
 for the remnant according to the election of grace, who still existed in the 
 Jewish church* Except Jehovah of Hosts had left unto us (or caused to 
 remain over, to survive, for us) a very small remnant, we should have been 
 like Sodom, we should have resembled Gomorrah, i. e. we should have been 
 totally and justly destroyed. — By the very small remnant Knobel understands 
 the city of Jerusalem, compared with the whole land and all its cities ; Cle- 
 ricus the small number of surviving Jews. But that the verse has reference 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 9 
 
 to quality as well as quantity, is evident from Rom. 9 : 29, where Paul makes 
 use of it, not as an illustration, but as an argument to show that mere con- 
 nexion with the church could not save men from the wrath of God. The 
 citation would have been irrelevant if this phrase denoted merely a small 
 number of survivors, and not a minority of true believers in the midst of the 
 prevailing unbelief. — Clericus explains Jehovah of Hosts to mean the God 
 of Battles ; but it rather means the Sovereign Ruler of " heaven and earth 
 and all the host of them," i.e. all their inhabitants (Gen. 2: 1). — Lowth 
 and Barnes translate arns soon, as in Ps. 81 : 15 ; but the usual translation 
 agrees better with the context and with Paul's quotation. 
 
 V. 10. Having assigned the corruption of the people as the cause of 
 their calamities, the Prophet now guards against the error of supposing that 
 the sin thus visited was that of neglecting the external duties of religion, 
 which were in fact punctiliously performed, but unavailing because joined 
 with the practice of iniquity, vs. 10—15. This part of the chapter is con- 
 nected with what goes before by repeating the allusion to Sodom and Go- 
 morrah. Having just said that God's sparing mercy had alone prevented 
 their resembling Sodom and Gomorrah in condition, he now reminds them 
 that they do resemble Sodom and Gomorrah in iniquity. The reference 
 is not to particular vices, but to general character, as Jerusalem, when 
 reproached for her iniquities, 'is spiritually called Sodom' (Rev. 11: 8). 
 The comparison is here made by the form of address. Hear the word of 
 Jehovah, ye judges (or rulers) of Sodom, give ear to the lata of our God, ye 
 people of Gomorrah. Word and law both denote the revelation of God's 
 will as a rule of faith and duty. The particular exhibition of it meant, is 
 that which follows, and to which this verse invites attention like that frequent 
 exhortation of our Saviour, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. — Junius, 
 J. D. Michaelis, and the later Germans, take rnin in the general sense of 
 doctrine or instruction, which, though favoured by its etymology, is not sus- 
 tained by usage. Knobel, with more probability, supposes an allusion to the 
 ritual or sacrificial law ; but there is no need either of enlarging or restricting 
 the meaning of the term. — The collocation of the words is not intended to 
 suggest that the rulers and the people were as much alike as Sodom and 
 Gomorrah (Calvin), but to produce a rhythmical effect. The sense is that 
 the rulers and people of Judah were as guilty as those of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah. 
 
 V. 11. Resuming the form of interrogation and expostulation, he teaches 
 them that God had no need of sacrifices on his own account, and that even 
 those sacrifices which he had required might become offensive to him. For 
 what (for what purpose, to what end, of what use) is the multitude of your 
 
10 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 sacrifices to me (i. e. offered to me, or of what use to me) 1 saith Jehovah. I 
 am full (i. e. sated, I have had enough, I desire no more) of burnt-offerings 
 of rams and the fat of fed beasts (fattened for the altar), and the blood of 
 bullocks and lambs and he-goats I desire not (or delight not in). Male 
 animals are mentioned, as the only ones admitted in the nbsJ or burnt-offer- 
 ing ; the fat and blood, as the parts in which the sacrifice essentially con- 
 sisted, the one being always burnt upon the altar, and the other sprinkled 
 or poured out around it. — Hendewerk and Henderson suppose an allusion 
 to the excessive multiplication of sacrifices ; but this, if alluded to at all, is 
 not the prominent idea, as the context relates wholly to the spirit and con- 
 duct of the offerers themselves. — Some German interpreters affect to see an 
 inconsistency between such passages as this and the law requiring sacrifices. 
 But these expressions must of course be interpreted by what follows, and 
 especially by the last clause of v. 13. — Bochart explains fc^-nD as denot- 
 ing a species of wild ox ; but wild beasts were not received in sacrifice, and 
 this word simply suggests the idea of careful preparation and assiduous com- 
 pliance with the ritual. Aben Ezra restricts it to the larger cattle, Jarchi 
 to the smaller ; but it means fed or fattened beasts of either kind. 
 
 V. 12. What had just been said of the offerings themselves, is now said 
 of attendance at the temple to present them. When you come to appear 
 before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my courts, not 
 merely to frequent them, but to trample on them, as a gesture of contempt ? 
 The courts here meant are the enclosures around Solomon's temple, for the 
 priests, worshippers, and victims. The interrogative form implies negation. 
 Such appearance, such attendance, God had not required, although it was 
 their duty to frequent his courts. — Cocceius takes ^3 in its ordinary sense, 
 without a material change of meaning : ' that ye come, &c, who hath 
 required this at your hands V Junius makes the first clause a distinct inter- 
 rogation (quod advenitis, an ut appareatis in conspectu meo ?), Ewald sees 
 in the expression at your hand, an allusion to the sense of power, in which 
 ■fj is sometimes used ; but the expression, in its proper sense, is natural and 
 common after verbs of giving or demanding. — Hitzig supposes the trampling 
 mentioned to be that of the victims, as if he had said, Who hath required you 
 to profane my courts by the feet of cattle ? But the word appears to be 
 applied to the worshippers themselves in a twofold sense, which cannot be 
 expressed by any single word in English. They were bound to tread his 
 courts, but not to trample them. Vitringa lays the emphasis on your : Who 
 hath required it at your hands, at the hands of such as you ? Umbreit 
 strangely thinks the passive verb emphatic : when you come to be seen and 
 not to see. The emphasis is really on this. Who hath required this, this 
 sort of attendance, at your hands ? One manuscript agrees with the Peshito 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 11 
 
 in reading rvixib to see; but the common reading is no doubt the true one, 
 ^o bring used adverbially for the full form bx or ^3B hH, which is else- 
 where construed with the same passive verb (Exod. 23 : 17. 34 : 23, 24). 
 
 V. 13. What he said before of animal sacrifices and of attendance at 
 the temple to present them, is now extended to bloodless offerings, such as 
 incense and the nriSE or meal-offering, as well as to the observance of 
 sacred times, and followed by a brief intimation of the sense in which they 
 were all unacceptable to God, viz. when combined with the practice of 
 iniquity. The interrogative form is here exchanged for that of direct prohi- 
 bition. Ye shall not add (i. e. continue) to bring a vain offering (that is, 
 a useless one, because hypocritical and impious). Incense is an abomination 
 to me : (so are) new moon and sabbath, the calling of the convocation (at 
 those times, or at the annual feasts, which are then distinctly mentioned 
 with the weekly and monthly ones) : J cannot bear iniquity and holy day 
 (abstinence from labour, religious observance), meaning of course, I cannot 
 bear them together. This last clause is a key to the preceding verses. It 
 was not religious observance in itself, but its combination with iniquity, that 
 God abhorred. Aben Ezra : nir cr pf> iwpJ Jstf f>i« J. H. Michaelis : 
 ferre non possum pravitatem et ferias, quae vos conjungitis. So Cocceius, 
 J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Ewald, Henderson, &tc. Other constructions, 
 inconsistent with the Masoretic accents, but substantially affording the same 
 sense, are those of Rosenmuller (' as for new moon, sabbath &c, I cannot 
 bear iniquity' &c.) and Umbreit (' new moon and sabbath, iniquity and 
 holy day, I cannot bear'). Another, varying the sense as well as the con- 
 struction, is that of Calvin (solennes indictiones non potero — vana res est — 
 nee conventum) copied by Vitringa, and, with some modification, by the 
 English Version, Clericus, and Barnes (' it is iniquity — even the solemn 
 closing meeting'), which violates both syntax and accentuation. Clericus 
 and Gesenius give to vain oblation the specific sense of false or hypocritical ; 
 J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Ewald, that of sinful; Cocceius that of pre- 
 sumptuous (temerarium) ; but all these seem to be included or implied in the 
 old and common version vain or worthless. (LXX. fidruiov. Vulg. frustra. 
 Luther, vergeblich.) Cocceius and Ewald construe the second member of 
 the sentence thus : £ it (the meal-offering) is abominable incense to me f 
 which is very harsh. The modern lexicographers (Gesenius, Winer, Furst) 
 make convocation or assembly the primary idea of rvixs ; but all agree that 
 it is used in application to times of religious observance. 
 
 V. 14. The very rites ordained by God himself, and once acceptable to 
 him, had, through the sin of those who used them, become irksome and dis- 
 gusting. Your new moons (an emphatic repetition, as if he had said, Yes, 
 
12 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 your new moons) and your convocations (sabbaths and yearly feasts) my 
 soul hateth (not a mere periphrasis for I hate, but an emphatic phrase denot- 
 ing cordial hatred, q. d. odi ex animo), they have become a burden on me 
 (implying that they were not so at first), I am weary of bearing (or have 
 wearied myself bearing them). — Lowth's version months is too indefinite to 
 represent D^'tinn, which denotes the beginnings of the lunar months, observed 
 as sacred times under the law of Moses (Num. 28: 11. 10: 10). Kocher 
 supposes they are mentioned here again because they had been peculiarly 
 abused ; but Henderson explains the repetition better as a rhetorical epana- 
 lepsis, resuming and continuing the enumeration in another form. Heng- 
 stenberg has shown (Christol. vol. 3. p. 87) that n^sio is applied in Scripture 
 only to the sabbath, passover, pentecost, day of atonement, and feast of 
 tabernacles. The common version of the second clause (they are a trouble 
 unto me) is too vague. The noun should have its specific sense of burden, 
 load, the preposition its proper local sense of on, and the verb with \ its usual 
 force, as signifying not mere existence but a change of state, in which sense 
 it is thrice used in this very chapter (vs. 21, 22, 31). The last particular 
 is well expressed by the Septuagint (fyeprtfoipi poi) and Vulgate (facta 
 sunt mihi), and the other two by Calvin (superfuerunt mihi loco oneris), 
 Vitringa (incumbunt mihi instar oneris), Lowth (they are a burthen upon 
 me), and Gesenius (sie sind mir zur Last) ; but neither of these versions 
 gives the full force of the clause in all its parts. The Septuagint, the Chal- 
 dee Paraphrase, and Symmachus take wsa in the sense of forgiving, which 
 it has in some connexions ; but the common meaning agrees better with the 
 parallel expression, load or burden, 
 
 V. 15. Not only ceremonial observances but even prayer was rendered 
 useless by the sins of those who offered it. And in your spreading (when 
 you spread)' your hands (or stretch them out towards heaven as a gesture of 
 entreaty) I will hide mine eyes from you (avert my face, refuse to see or 
 hear, not only in ordinary but) also when ye multiply prayer (by fervent 
 importunity in time of danger) I am not hearing (or about to hear, the par- 
 ticiple bringing the act nearer to the present than the future would do). 
 Your hands are full of blood (literally bloods, the form commonly used 
 when the reference is to bloodshed or the guilt of murder). Thus the Pro- 
 phet comes back to the point from which he set out, the iniquity of Israel 
 as the cause of his calamities, but with this difference, that at first he viewed 
 sin in its higher aspect, as committed against God, whereas in this place its 
 injurious effects on men are rendered prominent. — By multiplying prayer 
 Henderson understands the pazroXoyia or vain repetition^, condemned by 
 Christ as a customary error of his times ; but this would make the threat- 
 ening less impressive. The force of &5 as here used (not only this but, or 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 18 
 
 nay more) may be consult -p-d as included in the old English yea of the com- 
 mon version, for which Lowth and Henderson have substituted even. The 
 latter also takes ^3 in the sense of (hough, without effect upon the meaning 
 of the sentence, and suggests that the preterite at the end of the verse denotes 
 habitual action ; but it simply denotes previous action, or that their hands 
 were already full of blood. Under blood or murder Calvin supposes all sins 
 of violence and gf088 injustice to be comprehended ; but although the men- 
 tion of the highest crime against the person may suggest the others, they 
 can hardly be included in the meaning of the word. — Junius and Clericus 
 translate cw murders (caedibus plenae) ; but the literal translation is at 
 once more exact and more expressive. It is a strange opinion mentioned by 
 Fabricius (Diss. Phil. Theol. p. 329) that the blood here meant is the blood 
 of the victims hypocritically offered. — For the form csd"iq see Nordheimer, 
 $$ 101. 2. a. 476. 
 
 V. 16. Having shown the insufficiency of ceremonial rites and even of 
 more spiritual duties to avert or cure the evils which the people had brought 
 upon themselves by their iniquities, he exhorts them to abandon these and 
 urges reformation, not as the causa qua but as a causa sine qua non of 
 deliverance and restoration to God's favour. Wash you (isrn a word ap- 
 propriated to ablution of the body, as distinguished from all other washings), 
 purify yourselves (in a moral or figurative sense, as appears from what fol- 
 lows). Remove the evil of your doings from before mine eyes (out of my 
 sight, which could only be done by putting an end to them, an idea literally 
 expressed in the last clause), cease to do evil. — Luther, Gesenius, and most 
 of the late writers render s""i as an adjective, your evil doings ; but it is 
 better to retain the abstract form of the original, with Ewald, Lowth, Vi- 
 tringa, and the ancient versions. — In some of the older versions G^bbsa is 
 loosely and variously rendered. Thus the LXX. have souls, the Vulgate 
 thoughts, Calvin desires, Luther your evil nature. The meaning of the 
 term may now be looked upon as settled. — Some have understood from 
 before mine eyes as an exhortation to reform not only in the sight of man 
 but in the sight of God ; and others as implying that their sins had been 
 committed to God's face, that is to say, with presumptuous boldness. But 
 the true meaning seems to be the obvious and simple one expressed above. 
 Knobel imagines that the idea of sin as a pollution had its origin in the 
 ablutions of the law ; but it is perfectly familiar and intelligible wherever 
 conscience is at all enlightened. — Aben Ezra explains toiri as the Hithpael 
 of ri3t ? to which Hitzig and Henderson object that this species is wanting 
 in all other verbs beginning with that letter, and that according to analogy 
 it would be ©:!*!. They explain it therefore as the Niphal of Tfi] ; but 
 
14 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 Gesenius (in his Lexicon) objects that this would have the accent on the 
 penult. Compare Nordheimer <§> 77. 1. c. 
 
 V. 17. The negative exhortation is now followed by a positive one. 
 Ceasing to do evil was not enough, or rather was not possible, without 
 beginning to do good. Learn to do good, implying that they never yet 
 had known what it was. This general expression is explained by several 
 specifications, showing how they were to do good. Seek judgment, 
 i. e. justice ; not in the abstract, but in act ; not for yourselves, but for 
 others ; be not content with abstinence from wrong, but seek opportunities 
 of doing justice, especially to those who cannot right themselves. Redress 
 wrong, judge the fatherless, i. e. act as a judge for his benefit, or more spe- 
 cifically, do him justice ; befriend the widow, take her part, espouse her cause. 
 Orphans and widows are continually spoken of in Scripture as special objects 
 of divine compassion, and as representing the whole class of helpless inno- 
 cents. — By learning to do good, Musculus and Hitzig understand forming 
 the habit or accustoming one's self ; but the phrase appears to have a more 
 emphatic meaning. — Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Knobel, 
 take "p^n in the active sense of an oppressor, or a proud and wicked man, 
 and understand the Prophet as exhorting his readers to conduct or guide 
 such, i. e. to reclaim them from their evil courses. The Septuagint, 
 the Vulgate, and the Rabbins, make pipn a passive participle, and the 
 exhortation one to rescue the oppressed (jfrvoaa&E adixovfievov, subvenite op- 
 presso), in which they are followed by Luther, Calvin, Cocceius, Rosen- 
 muller, Henderson, and Umbreit. Vitringa adopts Bochart's derivation of 
 the word from y^n to ferment (emendate quod corruptum est) ; but Maurer 
 comes the nearest to the truth in his translation (aequum facite iniquum). 
 The form of the word seems to identify it as the infinitive of ynn i. q. oan 
 to be violent, to do violence, to injure. Thus understood the phrase forms 
 a link between the general expression seek justice and the more specific one 
 do justice to the orphan. The common version of the last clause (plead for 
 the widow) seems to apply too exclusively to advocates, as distinguished 
 from judges. 
 
 V. 18. Having shown that the cause of their ill success in seeking God 
 was in themselves, and pointed out the only means by which the evil could 
 be remedied, he now invites them to determine by experiment on which 
 side the fault of their destruction lay, promising pardon and deliverance to 
 the penitent and threatening total ruin to the disobedient, vs. 18-20. — This 
 verse contains an invitation to discuss the question whether God was willing 
 or unwilling to show mercy, implying that reason as well as justice was on 
 his side, and asserting his power and his willingness to pardon the most 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 15 
 
 aggravated sins. Come now (a common formula of exhortation) and let us 
 
 reason (argue, or discuss the case) together (the fonu of the verb denoting 
 a reciprocal action), saith Jehovah, Though your sins be as scarlet they 
 shall be white as snow, though they be red as crimson they shall be as wool, 
 i. e. clean white wool. Guilt being regarded as a stain, its removal denotes 
 restoration to purity. The implied conclusion of the reasoning is that God's 
 willingness to pardon threw the blame of their destruction on themselves. — 
 Gesenius understands this verse as a threatening that God would contend 
 with them in the way of vengeance, and blot out their sins by condign pun- 
 ishment ; but this is inconsistent with the reciprocal meaning of the verb. 
 Umbreit regards the last clause as a threatening that their sins, however 
 deeply coloured or disguised, should be discoloured, i. e. brought to light ; 
 an explanation inconsistent with the natural and scriptural usage of white 
 and red to signify innocence and guilt, especially that of murder. J. D. 
 Michaelis and Augusti make the verbs in the last clause interrogative : ' Shall 
 they be white as snow ?' i. e. can I so regard them ? implying that God 
 would estimate them rightly and reward them justly. This, in the absence 
 of t the interrogative particle, is gratuitous and arbitrary. Clericus under- 
 stands the first clause as a proposition to submit to punishment (turn agite, 
 nos castigari patiamur, ait enim Jehova) ; but although the verb might be a 
 simple passive, this construction arbitrarily supposes two speakers in the 
 verse, and supplies for after the first verb, besides making the two clauses 
 inconsistent ; for if they were pardoned, why submit to punishment ? — Ac- 
 cording to Kimchi, the word translated crimson is a stronger one than that 
 translated scarlet ; but the two are commonly combined to denote one colour, 
 and are here separated only as poetical equivalents. 
 
 V. 19. The unconditional promise is now qualified and yet enlarged. 
 If obedient, they should not only escape punishment but be highly favoured. 
 If ye consent to my terms, and hear my commands, implying obedience, 
 the good of the land, its choicest products, ye shall eat, instead of seeing 
 them devoured by strangers. — Luther and others understand consent and 
 hear as a hendiadys for consent to hear (wollt ihr mir gehorchen) ; but this 
 is forbidden by the parallel expression in the next verse, where refuse and 
 rebel cannot mean refuse to rebel, but each verb has its independent mean- 
 ing. LXX. iaf A&yri xui efaaxovoriri pov. Vulg. si volueritis et audieri- 
 tis. So Gesenius, Ewald, etc. 
 
 V. 20. This is the converse of the nineteenth verse, a threat correspond- 
 ing to the promise. And if ye refuse to comply with my conditions, and 
 rebel, continue to resist my authority, by the sword of the enemy shall ye be 
 eaten. This is no human menace but a sure prediction, for the mouth of 
 
16 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 Jehovah speaks, not man's. Or the sense may be, the mouth of Jehovah has 
 spoken or ordained it. (Targ. Jon. fa ita **N k-ibie, the word of Jehovah 
 has so decreed.) — According to Gesenius, tf&fcto literally means ye shall be 
 caused to he devoured by the sword, i. e. I cause the sword to devour you. 
 But, as Hitzig observes, the passive causative, according to analogy, would 
 mean ye shall be caused to devour, and so he renders it (so miisset ihr das 
 Schwerdt verzehren). But in every other case, where such a metaphor 
 occurs, the sword is not said to be eaten but to eat. (See Deut. 32 : 42. 
 Isai. 34 : 6. 2 Sam. 2 : 26.) The truth is that ^3K is nowhere else a 
 causative at all, but a simple passive, or at most an intensive passive of baa. 
 (See Exodus 3 : 2. Neh. 2 : 3. 13.) 
 
 V. 21. Here the Prophet seems to pause for a reply, and on receiving 
 no response to the promises and invitations of the foregoing context, bursts 
 forth into a sudden exclamation at the change which Israel has undergone, 
 which he then describes both in figurative and literal expressions, vs. 21—23. 
 In the verse before us he contrasts her former state, as the chaste bride of 
 Jehovah, with her present pollution, the ancient home of justice with the 
 present haunt of cruelty and violence. How has she become an harlot 
 (faithless to her covenant with Jehovah), the faithful city (•"i^p, noXig, 
 including the ideas of a city and a state, urbs et civitas, the body politic, 
 the church, of which Jerusalem was the centre and metropolis), full of jus- 
 tice (i. e. once full), righteousness lodged (i. e. habitually, had its home, 
 resided) in it, and now murderers, as the worst class of violent wrong-doers, 
 whose name suggests though it does not properly include all others. — Kim- 
 chi and Knobel suppose a particular allusion to the introduction of idolatry, 
 a forsaking of Jehovah the true husband for paramours or idols. But although 
 this specific application of the figure occurs elsewhere, and is extended by 
 Hosea into allegory, there seems to be no reason for restricting the expres- 
 sions here used to idolatry, although it may be included. — The particle at 
 the beginning of the verse is properly interrogative, but like the English how 
 is also used to express surprise. ' How has she become ?' i. e. how could 
 she possibly become ? how strange that she should become ! — For the form 
 ■fcfS&a see Ges. Heb. Gr. § 93. 2. Ewald, § 406. For the tense of y^, 
 Nordh. <$> 967. 1. 6. 
 
 V. 22. The change, which had just been represented under the figure 
 of adultery, is now expressed by that of adulteration, first of silver, then of 
 wine. Thy silver (addressing the unfaithful church or city) is become dross 
 (alloy, base metal), thy wine weakened (literally cut, mutilated) with water. 
 Compare the words of Martial, scelus est jugular e Falernum. The essential 
 idea seems to be that of impairing strength. — The Septuagint applies this 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. H 
 
 text in a literal sense to dishonest arts m the sale of wines and the exchange 
 of money. 01 xuntjloi gov ^layovai rbv olvov vdari. But this interpretation, 
 besides its unworthiness and incongruity, is set aside by the Prophet's own 
 explanation of his figures, in the next verse. 
 
 V. 23. The same idea is now expressed in literal terms, and with special 
 application to magistrates and rulers. They who were bound officially to 
 suppress disorder and protect the helpless, were themselves greedy of gain, 
 rebellious against God, and tyrannical towards man. Thy rulers are rebels 
 and fellows of thieves (not merely like them or belonging to the same class, 
 but accomplices, partakers of their sin), every one of them loving a bribe 
 (the participle denoting present and habitual action) and pursuing re- 
 wards (-":^r compensations. LXX. uvTUTzodofiu. Symm. afioi^ug). The 
 fatherless (as being unable to reward them, or as an object of cupidity to 
 others) they judge not, and the cause of the widow cometh not unto them, 
 or before them ; they will not hear it ; they will not act as judges for their 
 benefit. They are not simply unjust judges, they are no judges at all, they 
 will not act as such, except when they can profit by it. (J. D. Michaelis : 
 dem Waisen halten sie kein Gericht.) Rulers and rebels is a sufficient 
 approximation to the alleged paronomasia in E^ia 7 ff$ fi a gratuitous and 
 vain attempt to copy which is made by Gesenius (deine Vorgesetzten sind 
 widersetzlich) and Ewald (deine Herren sind Narren !). — Knobel supposes 
 the rebellion here meant to be that of which Judah was guilty in becoming 
 dependent upon Assyria (comp. ch. 30 : 1). But there is nothing to restrict 
 the application of the terms, which simply mean that instead of suppressing 
 rebellion they were rebels themselves. 
 
 V. 24. To this description of the general corruption the Prophet now 
 adds a promise of purgation, which is at the same time a threatening of sorer 
 judgments, as the appointed means by which the church was to be restored 
 to her original condition, vs. 24-31. — In this verse, the destruction of God's 
 enemies is represented as a necessary satisfaction to his justice. Therefore, 
 because the very fountains of justice have thus become corrupt, saith the 
 Lord, the word properly so rendered, Jehovah of Hosts, the eternal Sove- 
 reign, the mighty one of Israel, the almighty God who is the God of Israel, 
 Ah, an interjection expressing both displeasure and concern, I will comfort 
 myself, ease or relieve myself, of my adversaries, literally, from them, i. e. by 
 ridding myself of them, and 1 will avenge myself of mine enemies, not foreign 
 foes, of whom there is no mention in the context, but the enemies of God 
 among the Jews themselves. — Cocceius understands by b»*W *pzx the 
 champion or hero of Israel, and Knobel the mightiest in Israel ; but the 
 first word seems clearly to denote an attribute of God, and the second his 
 
 2 
 
18 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 relation to his people. Henderson translates the phrase, Protector of Israel ; 
 but this idea, though implied, is not expressed. The latest versions follow 
 Junius and Tremellius in giving to oxa its proper form as a passive partici- 
 ple used as a noun, like the Latin dictum, and applied exclusively to divine 
 communications. Henderson: Hence the announcement of the Lord. So 
 Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit. 
 
 V. 25. The mingled promise and threatening is repeated under one of 
 the figures used in v. 22. The adulterated silver must be purified by the 
 separation of its impure particles. And I will turn my hand upon thee, i. e. 
 take thee in hand, address myself to thy case, and will purge out thy dross 
 like purity itself, i. e. most purely, thoroughly, and will take away all thine 
 alloy, tin, lead, or other base metal found in combination with the precious 
 ores. — Luther, Junius and Tremellius render bs> against, and make the first 
 clause wholly minatory in its import. But although to turn the hand has 
 elsewhere an unfavourable sense (Ps. 81 : 15. Amos 1 : 8), it does not of 
 itself express it, but simply means to take in hand, address one's self to any 
 thing, make it the object of attention. (J. D. Michaelis : in Arbeit nehmen.) 
 It appears to have been used in this place to convey both a promise and a 
 threatening, which run together through this whole context. Augusti and 
 the later Germans use the ambiguous term gegen which has both a hostile 
 and a local meaning. — The Targum of Jonathan, followed by Kimchi, 
 Schmidius, J. D. Michaelis, and the latest Germans, makes ^in a noun mean- 
 ing potash or the vegetable alkali used in the smelting of metals. Hender- 
 son : as with potash. The usual sense of purity is retained by Luther 
 (auf s lauterste), the English Version (purely), Gesenius (rein), and Barnes 
 (wholly). The particle is taken in a local sense by the Septuagint (tig 
 xa&aQov), Vulgate &d purum), Cocceius (ad puritatem), Calvin and Vitringa 
 (ad|liquidum), and the clause is paraphrased, as expressing restoration to a 
 state of purity, by Junius (ut justae puritati restituam te), and Augusti (bis 
 es rein wird). But this is at variance with the usage of the particle. — The 
 conjectural emendations of Clericus (ns^ like a furnace), Seeker and Lowth 
 (•nan in the furnace) are perfectly gratuitous. 
 
 V. 26. Here again the figurative promise is succeeded by a literal one 
 of restoration to a former state of purity, to be effected not by the conversion 
 of the wicked rulers but by filling their places with better men. And I will 
 restore, bring back, cause to return, thy judges, rulers, as at first, in the 
 earliest and best days of the commonwealth, and thy counsellors, ministers 
 of state, as in the beginning, after which it shall be called to thee, a Hebrew 
 idiom for thou shalt be called, i. e. deservedly, with truth, City of Right- 
 eousness, a Faithful State. There is here a twofold allusion to v. 21. She 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 19 
 
 who from being a faithful wife had become an adulteress or harlot, should 
 again be what she was ; and justice which once dwelt in her should return 
 to its old home. — It is an ingenious but superfluous conjecture of Vitringa, 
 that Jerusalem was anciently called p*}X as well as obiy (Gen. 14: 18), 
 since the same king bote the name of p ^ - ^ j fo q (king of righteousness) and 
 nbu ^bo (king of peace), and a later king (Jos. 10: 1) was called p^pf^T^ 
 (lord of righteousness). The meaning of the last clause would then be that 
 the city should again deserve its ancient name, which is substantially its 
 meaning now, even without supposing an allusion so refined and far-fetched. 
 
 V. 27. Thus far the promise to God's faithful people and the threaten- 
 ing to his enemies among them had been intermingled, or so expressed as to 
 involve each other. Thus the promise of purification to the silver involved 
 a threatening of destruction to the dross. But now the two elements of the 
 prediction are exhibited distinctly, and first the promise to the church. Zion, 
 the chosen people, as a whole, here considered as consisting of believers 
 only, shall be redeemed, delivered from destruction, in judgment, i. e. in the 
 exercise of justice upon God's part, and her converts, those of her who 
 return to God by true repentance, in righteousness, here used as an equiva- 
 lent to justice. — Gesenius and the other modern Germans adopt the expla- 
 nation given in the Targum, which assumes in judgment and in righteous- 
 ness to mean by the practice of righteousness on the part of the people. 
 Calvin regards the same words as expressive of God's rectitude, which would 
 not suffer the innocent to perish with the guilty. But neither of these inter- 
 pretations is so natural in this connexion as that which understands the 
 verse to mean that the very same events, by which the divine justice was 
 to manifest itself in the destruction of the wicked, should be the occasion 
 and the means of deliverance to Zion or the true people of God. — The 
 Septuagint, Peshito, and Luther, understand by FpJP her captivity or cap- 
 tives (as if from tta©) 3 Calvin and others her returning captives (qui redu- 
 centur ad earn) ; but the great majority of writers, old and new, take the 
 word in a spiritual sense, which it frequently has elsewhere. See for ex- 
 ample ch. 6 : 10. 
 
 V. 28. The other element is now brought out, viz. the destruction of 
 the wicked, which was to be simultaneous and coincident with the deliver- 
 ance promised to God's people in the verse preceding. And the breaking, 
 crushing, utter ruin, of apostates, revolters, deserters from Jehovah, and sin- 
 ners, is or shall be together, i. e. at the same time with Zion's redemption, 
 and the forsakers of Jehovah, an equivalent expression to apostates in the 
 first clause, shall cease, come to an end, be totally destroyed. The terms of 
 this verse are appropriate to all kinds of sin, but seem to be peculiarly de- 
 
20 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 scriptive of idolatry, as defection or desertion from the true God to idols, and 
 thus prepare the way for the remainder of the chapter, in which that class 
 of transgressors are made prominent. — Umbreit supplies no verb in the first 
 clause, but reads it as an exclamation : ' Ruin to apostates and sinners all 
 together !' which is extremely harsh without a preposition before the nouns. 
 Ewald, more grammatically, < Ruin of the evil-doers and sinners altogether !' 
 But the only natural construction is the common one. — Some writers under- 
 stand together as expressing the simultaneous destruction of the two classes 
 mentioned here, apostates and sinners, or of these considered as one class 
 and the forsakers of Jehovah as another. But the expression is far more 
 emphatic, and agrees far better with the context, if we understand it as con- 
 necting this destruction with the deliverance in v. 27, and as being a final 
 repetition of the truth stated in so many forms, that the same judgments 
 which destroyed the wicked should redeem the righteous, or in other words, 
 that the purification of the church could be effected only by the excision of 
 her wicked members. — Junius differs from all others in supposing the meta- 
 phor of v. 25 to be here resumed. c And the fragments (">^) of apostates, 
 and of sinners likewise, and of those who forsake Jehovah, shall fail or be 
 utterly destroyed.' 
 
 V. 29. From the final destruction of idolaters the Prophet now reverts 
 to their present security and confidence in idols, which he tells them shall 
 be put to shame and disappointed. For they shall be ashamed of the oaks 
 or terebinths which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the 
 gardens which ye have chosen as places of idolatrous worship. — Paulus and 
 Hitzig think that nothing more is here predicted than the loss of the fine 
 pleasure-grounds in which the wealthy Jews delighted. But why should 
 this part of their property be specified in threatening them with total destruc- 
 tion ? And why should they be ashamed of these favourite possessions and 
 confounded on account of them ? As these are terms constantly employed 
 to express the frustration of religious trust, and as groves and gardens are 
 continually spoken of as chosen scenes of idol-worship (see, for example, 
 ch. 65: 3. 66: 17. Ezek. 6: 13. Hos. 4: 13), there can be little doubt 
 that the common opinion is the true one, namely, that both this verse and 
 the one preceding have particular allusion to idolatry. — Vitringa understands 
 the first clause thus : they (the Jews of a future generation) shall be ashamed 
 of the oaks which ye (the contemporaries of the Prophet) have desired. It 
 is much more natural however to regard it as an instance of enallage perso- 
 nae (Gesen. $ 134. 3), or to construe the first verb indefinitely, they, i. e. 
 men in general, people, or the like, shall be ashamed, etc., which construc- 
 tion is adopted by all the recent German writers (Gesenius : zu Schanden 
 wird man, u. s. w.) — Knobel renders h 3 at the beginning so that, which is 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 21 
 
 wholly unnecessary, as the verse gives a reason for the way in which the 
 Prophet had spoken of persons now secure and flourishing, and the proper 
 
 meaning of the particle is therefore perfectly appropriate. — Lowth renders 
 e^x ilexes, Gesenius and the other Germans Terebinthen, which is no 
 douht hotanically accurate ; hut in English oak may he retained as more 
 poetical, and is the tree which, together with the terebinth, composes almost 
 all the groves of Palestine. — The preposition before oaks and gardens may 
 imply removal from them, but is more probably a mere connective of tin 
 verb with the object or occasion of the action, like the of and for in English. 
 
 V. 30. The mention of trees and gardens, as places of idolatrous wor- 
 ship, suggests a beautiful comparison, under which the destruction of the 
 idolaters is again set forth. They who choose trees and gardens, in prefer- 
 ence to God's appointed place of worship, shall themselves be like trees and 
 gardens, but in the most alarming sense. For, in answer to the tacit ques- 
 tion why they should be ashamed and confounded for their oaks and gar- 
 dens, ye yourselves shall be like an oak or terebinth, fading, decaying, in 
 its leaf or as to its leaf, and like a garden which has no water, a lively 
 emblem, to an oriental reader, of entire desolation. — Some writers understand 
 the Prophet to allude to the terebinth when dead, on the ground that it never 
 sheds its leaves when living ; but according to Robinson and Smith (Bib. 
 Res. vol. hi. p. 15), the terebinth or " butm is not an evergreen, as is often 
 represented ; its small feathered lancet-shaped leaves fall in the autumn and 
 are renewed in the spring." — Both here and in the foregoing verse, Knobel 
 supposes there is special allusion to the gardens in the valley of Hinnom, 
 where Ahaz sacrificed to Moloch (2 Chr. 28 : 3. Isai. 30 : 33, compared 
 with ch. 22 : 7), and a prediction of their being wasted by the enemy ; but 
 this, to say the least, is not a necessary exposition of the Prophet's general 
 expressions. — For the construction of r^r H=r.b, see Gesenius $ 116. 3. 
 
 V. 31. This verse contains a closing threat of sudden, total, instantane- 
 ous destruction to the Jewish idolaters, to be occasioned by the very things 
 which they preferred to God, and in which they confided. And the strong, 
 the mighty man, alluding no doubt to the unjust rulers of the previous con- 
 text, shall become toiv, an exceedingly inflammable substance, and his work, 
 his idols, often spoken of in Scripture as the work of men's hands, shall 
 become a spark, the means and occasion of destruction to their worshippers, 
 and they shall bum both of them together, and there shall shall be no one 
 quenching or to quench them. — All the ancient versions treat "jbn as an 
 abstract, meaning strength, which agrees well with its form, resembling that 
 of an infinitive or verbal noun. But even in that case, the abstract must be 
 used for a concrete, i. e. strength for strong, which last is the sense given to 
 
22 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. II, III, IV. 
 
 the word itself by all the modern writers. Calvin and others understand by 
 the strong one the idol viewed as a protector or a tutelary god, and by fts'fi his 
 maker and worshipper, an interpretation which agrees in sense with the one 
 given above, but inverts the terms, making the idol to be burnt by the idola- 
 ter and not vice versa. But why should the worshipper burn himself with 
 his idol ? A far more coherent and impressive sense is yielded by the other 
 exposition. — Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hendewerk suppose the work (h?k as in 
 Jer. 22; 13), by which the strong man is consumed, to be his conduct in 
 general, Junius his efforts to resist God, Vitringa his contrivances and means 
 of safety. But the frequent mention of idols as the work of men's hands, 
 and the prominence given to idolatry in the immediately preceding context, 
 seem to justify Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, in attributing to fcjftt that spe- 
 cific meaning here, and in understanding the whole verse as a prediction that 
 the very gods, in whom the strong men of Jerusalem now trusted, should 
 involve their worshippers and makers with themselves in total, instantaneous, 
 irrecoverable ruin. 
 
 CHAPTERS II, III, IV. 
 
 These chapters constitute the second prophecy, the two grand themes 
 of which are the reign of the Messiah and intervening judgments on the 
 Jews for their iniquities. The first and greatest of these subjects occupies 
 the smallest space, but stands both at the opening and the close of the whole 
 prophecy. Considered in relation to its subject, it may therefore be conve- 
 niently divided into three unequal parts. In the first, the Prophet foretells 
 the future exaltation of the church and the accession of the gentiles, ch. 
 2 : 1-4. In the second, he sets forth the actual condition of the church and 
 ks inevitable consequences, ch. 2 : 5 — 4 : 1. In the third, he reverts to its 
 pure, safe, and glorious condition under the Messiah, ch. 4 : 2-6. The 
 division of the chapters is peculiarly unfortunate, the last verse of the second 
 and the first of the fourth being both dissevered from their proper context. 
 The notion that these chapters contain a series of detached predictions 
 (Koppe, Eichhorn, Bertholdt) is now universally rejected even by the Ger- 
 mans, who consider the three chapters, if not the fifth (Hitzig), as forming 
 one unbroken prophecy. As the state of things which it describes could 
 scarcely have existed in the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham or in 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 the pious reign of Ilezekiah, it ia referred with much probability to the reign 
 of Ahaz (ties. Ew, Efa« etc.), when Judafa was dependent on a foreign 
 
 power and corrupted t)y its intercourse with heathenism. The particular 
 grounds of this conclusion will appear in the course of the interpretation. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 This chapter contains an introductory prediction of the reign of the Mes- 
 siah, and the first part of a threatening against Judah. 
 
 After a title similar to that in ch. 1:1, the Prophet sees the church, at 
 some distant period, exalted and conspicuous, and the nations resorting to it 
 for instruction in the true religion, as a consequence of which he sees war 
 cease and universal peace prevail, vs. 2—4. 
 
 These verses are found, with very little variation, in the fourth chapter 
 of Micah (vs. 1-3), to explain which some suppose, that a motto or quota- 
 tion has been accidentally transferred from the margin to the text of Isaiah 
 (Justi, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Credner) ; others, that both Prophets quote from 
 Joel (Vogel, Hitzig, Ewald) ; others, that both quote from an older writer 
 now unknown (Koppe, Rosenmuller, Maurer, De Wette, Knobel) ; others, 
 that Micah quotes from Isaiah (Vitringa, Lowth, Beckhaus, Umbreit) ; 
 others, that Isaiah quotes from Micah (J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Hende- 
 werk, Henderson). This diversity of judgment may at least suffice to show 
 how vain conjecture is in such a case. The close connexion of the passage 
 with the context, as it stands in Micah, somewhat favours the conclusion that 
 Isaiah took the text or theme of his prediction from the younger though con- 
 temporary prophet. The verbal variations may be best explained, however, 
 by supposing that they both adopted a traditional prediction current among 
 the people in their day, or that both received the words directly from the 
 Holy Spirit. So long as we have reason to regard both places as authentic 
 and inspired, it matters little what is the literary history of either. 
 
 At the close of this prediction, w liether borrowed or original, the Prophet 
 suddenly reverts to the condition of the church in his own times, so different 
 from that which had been just foretold, and begins a description of the pres- 
 ent guilt and future punishment of Judah, which extends not only through 
 this chapter but the next, including the first verse of the fourth. The part 
 contained in the remainder of this chapter may be subdivided into two une- 
 qual portions, one containing a description of the sin, the other a prediction 
 of the punishment. 
 
 The first begins with an exhortation to the Jews themselves to walk in 
 that light which- the gentiles were so eagerly to seek hereafter, v. 5. The 
 
24 ISAIAH, CHAP. I. 
 
 Prophet then explains this exhortation by describing three great evils which 
 the foreign alliances of Judah had engendered, namely, superstitious practices 
 and occult arts ; unbelieving dependence upon foreign wealth and power ; 
 and idolatry itself, vs. 6-8. 
 
 The rest of the chapter has respect to the punishment of these great 
 sins. This is first described generally as humiliation, such as they deserved 
 who humbled themselves to idols, and such as tended to the exclusive exalta- 
 tion of Jehovah, both by contrast and by the display of his natural and moral 
 attributes, vs. 9-11. This general threatening is then amplified in a detailed 
 enumeration of exalted objects which should be brought low, ending again 
 with a prediction of Jehovah's exaltation in the same words as before, so as 
 to form a kind of choral or strophical arrangement, vs. 12-17. The destruc- 
 tion or rather the rejection of idols, as contemptible and useless, is then ex- 
 plicitly foretold, as an accompanying circumstance of men's flight from the 
 avenging presence of Jehovah, vs. 18-21. Here again the strophical ar- 
 rangement reappears in the precisely similar conclusions of the nineteenth 
 and twenty-first verses, so that the twenty-second is as clearly unconnected 
 with this chapter in form, as it is closely connected with the next in sense. 
 
 V. 1. This is the title of the second prophecy, ch. 2-4. The word, 
 revelation or divine communication, which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw, 
 perceived, received by inspiration, concerning Judah and Jerusalem. As 
 word is here a synonyme of vision in ch. 1:1, there is no need of rendering 
 "i^'n what, thing, or things (Lu. Cler. Henders.), or Win prophesied or was 
 revealed (Targ. Low. Ges.), in order to avoid the supposed incongruity of 
 seeing a word. For the technical use of word and vision in the sense of 
 prophecy, see 1 Sam. 3:1. Jer. 18: 18. — The Septuagint, which renders 
 fcs against in ch. 1:1, renders it here concerning, and on this distinction, 
 which is wholly arbitrary, Cyril gravely comments. — Hendewerk's assertion 
 that the titles, in which ntn and •p m occur, are by a later hand, is perfectly 
 gratuitous. 
 
 V. 2. The prophecy begins with an abrupt prediction of the exaltation 
 of the church, the confluence of nations to it, and a general pacification as 
 the consequence, vs. 2-4. In this verse the Prophet sees the church per- 
 manently placed in a conspicuous position, so as to be a source of attraction 
 to surrounding nations. To express this idea, he makes use of terms which 
 are strictly applicable only to the local habitation of the church under the 
 old economy. Instead of saying, in modern phraseology, that the church, 
 as a society, shall become conspicuous and attract all nations, he represents 
 the mountain upon which the temple stood as being raised and fixed above 
 the other mountains, so as to be visible in all directions. And it shall he 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 25 
 
 (happen, conic to pass, a prefatory formula of constant use in prophecy 
 
 the end (or latter part) of the days (i. e. hereafter) the mountain of Jeho- 
 vah's house (i. 0, mount Zion, in the widest sense, including mount Moriah 
 ^here the temple stood) shall be established (permanently fixed)* in the head 
 of the mountains (i.e. above them), and exalted from (away from and by 
 implication more than or higher than) the hills (a poetical equivalent to 
 mountains), and the nations shall flow unto it. — The use of the present tense 
 in rendering this verse (Ges. Hitz. Hdwk.) is inconsistent with the phrase 
 ="~-n n*$jiti , which requires the future proper (Ew. Hn.). That phrase, 
 according to the Rabbins, always means the days of the Messiah ; according 
 to Lightfoot, the end of the old dispensation. In itself it is indefinite. — The 
 sense of ybj here is not prepared (Vulg.) but fixed, established, rendered 
 permanently visible (LXX. iarai ipcparf'g). — It was not to be established on 
 the top of the mountains (Vulg. Vitr. DeW. Umbr.), but either a t the head 
 (Hitz. Ew.) or simply high among the mountains, which idea is expressed by 
 other words in the parallel clause, and by the same words in 1 Kings 21 : 10, 
 12. That mount Zion should be taken up and carried by the other hills (J. D. 
 Mich.) is neither the literal nor figurative meaning of the Prophet's words. — 
 The verb in the last clause is always used to signify a confluence of nations. 
 
 V. 3. This confluence of nations is described more fully, and its motive 
 stated in their own words, namely, a desire to be instructed in the true reli- 
 gion, of which Jerusalem or Zion, under the old dispensation, was the sole 
 depository. And many nations shall go (set out, put themselves in motion) 
 and shall say (to one another), Go ye (as a formula of exhortation, where 
 the English idiom requires come), and we will ascend (or let us ascend, for 
 which the Hebrew has no other form) to the mountain of Jehovah (where 
 his house is, where he dwells), to the house of the God of Jacob, and he 
 will teach us of his ways (the ways in which he requires us to walk), and we 
 w ill go in his paths (a synonymous expression). For out of Zion shall go 
 forth law (the true religion, as a rule of duty), and the word of Jehovah 
 (the true religion, as a revelation) from Jerusalem. These last words may 
 be either the words of the gentiles, telling why they looked to Zion as a 
 source of saving knowledge, or the words of the Prophet, telling why the 
 truth must be thus diffused, namely, because it had been given to the church 
 for this very purpose. Cyril's idea that the clause relates to the taking 
 away of God's word from the Jewish church (xaraliXomi ji]v Zwv) is wholly 
 inconsistent with the context. — Compare John 4 : 22. Luke 24 : 47. — The 
 common version many people conveys to a modern ear the wrong sense many 
 persons, and was only used for want of such a plural form as peoples, which, 
 though employed by Lowth and others, has never become current, and was 
 certainly not so when the Bible was translated, as appears from the circum- 
 
26 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 locution used instead of it in Gen. 25 : 23. The plural form is here essen- 
 tial to the meaning. — Go is not here used as the opposite of come, but as 
 denoting active motion (Vitr. movebunt se. J. D. Mich, werden sich aufma- 
 chen). — The word ascend is not used in reference to an alleged Jewj|h 
 notion that the Holy Land was physically higher than all other countries, 
 nor simply to the natural site of Jerusalem, nor even to its moral elevation 
 as the seat of the true religion, but to the new elevation and conspicuous 
 position just ascribed to it. — The subjunctive construction that he may teach 
 (Lu. Vitr. Ges. Ew. etc.) is rather paraphrastical and exegetical than simply 
 expressive of the sense of the original, which implies hope as well as pur- 
 pose. — The preposition before ways is not to be omitted as a mere connec- 
 tive, ' teach us his ways ' (Ges. Hn. Um.) ; nor taken in a local sense, ' out 
 of his ways' (Knobel) ; but either partitively, 'some of his ways' (Vitr.), 
 or as denoting the subject of instruction, ' concerning his ways,' which is the 
 usual explanation. — The substitution of doctrine or instruction for law (J. D. 
 Mich. Hitz. Hendew. De W. Ew.) is contrary to usage, and weakens the 
 expression. 
 
 V. 4. He who appeared in the preceding verses as the lawgiver and 
 teacher of the nations, is now represented as an arbiter or umpire, ending 
 their disputes by a pacific intervention, as a necessary consequence of which 
 war ceases, the very knowledge of the art is lost, and its implements applied 
 to other uses. This prediction was not fulfilled in the general peace under 
 Augustus, which was only temporary ; nor is it now fulfilled. The event 
 is suspended on a previous condition, viz. the confluence of the nations to 
 the church, which has not yet taken place ; a strong inducement to diffuse 
 the gospel, which, in the meantime, is peaceful in its spirit, tendency, and 
 actual effect, wherever and so far as it exerts its influence without obstruc- 
 tion. And he shall judge (or arbitrate) between the nations, and decide for 
 (or respecting) many peoples. And they shall beat their swords into plough- 
 shares and their spears into pruning-hooJcs. Nation shall not lift up sword 
 against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. To the figure in the 
 last clause Lowth quotes a beautiful parallel in Martial's epigram entitled 
 Falx ex ense : 
 
 Pax me certa ducis placidos curvavit in usus : 
 Agricolae nunc sum, militis ante fui. 
 
 The image here presented is reversed by Joel (3: 10), and by Virgil 
 and Ovid (Ma. 7 : 635. Georg. 1 : 506. Ov. Fast. 1 : 697).— The question 
 whether tPfia means ploughshares (Vulg. Lu. Low.), coulters (Rosen. Hn. 
 Kn.) spades (Dutch Vs.), hoes or mattocks (Ges. Hitz. Ew. Um.),is of no 
 exegetical importance, as the whole idea meant to be expressed is the con- 
 
ISAIAH, CIIA I*. II. 27 
 
 version of martial weapons into implements of husbandry. Hook, in old 
 English, is a crooked knife such as a sir/;/, . w liicli is not however here 
 meant (LXX. Vulg. Lu.), but a knife for pruning vines. — .\ot framing war 
 is something more than not continuing to practise it (Calv.), and signifies 
 
 their ceasing to know how to practise it. To judge is here not to rule 
 (Calv. Vitr.) which is too vague, nor to punish (Cocc.) which is too specific, 
 but to arbitrate or act as umpire (Cler. Ges. etc.), as appears from the 
 effect described, and also from the use of the preposition "pa, meaning not 
 merely among, with reference to the sphere of jurisdiction, but between, with 
 reference to contending parties. The parallel verb does not here mean to 
 rebuke (Jun. Eng. Vs.) nor to convince of the truth in general (Calv. Cocc. 
 Vitr.) or of the evil of war in particular (Hendew.), but is used as a poetical 
 equivalent to -r:\ which is used in this sense with the same preposition 
 Ezek. 34 : 17. — On the use of the present tense in rendering this verse 
 (Ges. De W. Ew.) vide supra ad v. 2. 
 
 V. 5. From this distant prospect of the calling of the gentiles, the Pro- 
 phet now reverts to his own times and countrymen, and calls upon them not 
 to be behind the nations in the use of their distinguishing advantages. If 
 even the heathen were one day to be enlightened, surely they who were 
 already in possession of the light ought to make use of it. O house of Jacob 
 (family of Israel, the church or chosen people) come ye (literally, go ye, as 
 in v. 3) and we will go (or let us walk, including himself in the exhortation) 
 in the light of Jehovah (in the path of truth and duty upon which the light 
 of revelation shines). To regard these as the words of the Jews themselves 
 (Targ. ' they of the house of Jacob shall say, etc.), or of the gentiles to the 
 Jews (Jarchi), or to one another (Sanctius), is forced and arbitrary in a high 
 degree. The light is mentioned, not in allusion to the illumination of the 
 court of the women at the feast of tabernacles (Deyling. Obs. Sacr. ii. p. 
 221), but as a common designation of the Scriptures and of Christ himself. 
 (Prov. 6 : 23. Ps. 119 : 105. Isai. 51 : 4. Acts 26 : 23. 2 Cor. 4 : 4.) 
 
 V. 6. The exhortation in v. 5 implied that the Jews were not actually 
 walking in God's light, but were alienated from him, a fact which is now 
 explicitly asserted and the reason of it given, viz. illicit intercourse with 
 foreign nations, as evinced by the adoption of their superstitious practices, 
 reliance on their martial and pecuniary aid, and last but worst of all, the 
 worship of their idols. In this verse, the first of these effects is ascribed to 
 intercourse \\ ith those eastern countries, which are always represented by 
 the ancients as the cradle of the occult arts and sciences. As if he had said, 
 I thus exhort, O Lord, thy chosen people, because thou hast forsaken thy 
 people, became they are replenished from the East and (full of) soothsayers 
 
28 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 like the Philistines, and with the children of strangers they abound. — The 
 various renderings of ^3 by therefore (Eng. Vs.), verily (Low.), surely 
 (Henders.), but (Hendew. Ew.), etc., all arise from misconception or neglect 
 of the connexion, which requires the common meaning for, because (Sept 
 Vulg. Ges. Hitz. Um. Bar.). Abarbenel supposes these words to be ad- 
 dressed to the ten tribes, < thou, O house of Jacob, hast forsaken thy people' 
 Judah. Others suppose them to be addressed to Judah, but in this sense, 
 ' thou, O house of Jacob, hast forsaken thy nation,' i. e. thy national honour, 
 religion, and allegiance (Saad. J. D. Mich. Hitz.). This last is a forced 
 construction, and the other is at variance with the context, while both are 
 inconsistent with the usage of the verb, which is constantly used to denote 
 God's alienation from his people and especially his giving them up to 
 their enemies (Judg. 6:13. 2 Kings 21 : 14. Jer. 7 : 29. 23 : 33).— Filled 
 cannot mean inspired as in Micah 3 : 8 (Vitr.), for even there the idea is 
 suggested by the context. — J. D. Michaelis thinks fifij? here synonymous 
 with n^j? the east wind, ' full of the east wind,' i. e. of delusion (Job. 15 : 2), 
 which is wholly arbitrary. All the ancient versions supply as before this 
 word, and two of them explain the phrase to mean as of old (Sept. wg to 
 an uqx^'- Vulg. sicut olim) ; but all modern writers give it the local sense 
 of east, applied somewhat indefinitely to the countries east of Palestine, 
 especially those watered by the Tigris and Euphrates. Some read they are 
 full of the east, i. e. of its people or its superstitions (Calv. Ges. Ros. Hitz. 
 De W. Hn. Um.) ; others more than the east (Lu. Dutch Vs.) ; but the true 
 sense is no doubt from the east (Cler. ex oriente. Ewald, vom Morgen- 
 lande her), denoting not mere influence or imitation, but an actual influx of 
 diviners from that quarter. — Whether the root of D**M5j be )*9 an eye 
 (Vitr.), b ( 32 a cloud (Ros.), or £* to cover (Ges.), it clearly denotes the 
 practitioners of occult arts. Henderson treats it as a finite verb (they prac- 
 tise magic) ; the English Version supplies are ; but the construction which 
 connects it with the verb of the preceding clause, so that he first says whence 
 they are filled and then wherewith, agrees best with the mention of repletion 
 or abundance both before and after. The Philistines are here mentioned 
 rather by way of comparison than as an actual source of the corruption. 
 That the Jews were familiar with their superstitions may be learned from 
 1 Sam. 6:2. 2 Kings 1 : 2. — The last verb does not mean they clap their 
 hands in applause, derision, or joy (Calv. Vitr. Eng. Vs. they please them- 
 selves), nor they strike hands in agreement or alliance (Ges. Ros. De W. 
 Hg. Hk. Hn. Um.), but they abound, as in Syriac, and in 1 Kings 20: 10 
 (J. H. Mich. Cler. Eng. Vers. marg. Ewald). The causative sense multi- 
 ply (Lowth) does not suit the parallelism so exactly. The Septuagint and 
 Targum apply the clause to alliances by marriage with the heathen. — By 
 children of strangers we are not to understand the fruits, i. e. doctrines and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 29 
 
 practices ofstn (Vitr.), nor is it merely an expression of contempt, as 
 
 Lowth and Gesenhis seem to intimate by rendering it strange or spurious 
 brood. It rather means strangers themselves, not strange gods or their chil- 
 dren, i. e. worshippers (J. D. Mich.), but foreigners considered ai ud- 
 ants of a strange stock, and therefore as aliens from the commonwealth of 
 Israel. — The conjectural emendations of the text by reading cop for zip 
 (Brent.), "»TO for "n^a (Hitz.), and m rrj: for rtnosa (Houbigant), are 
 wholly unnecessary. — For the form ITO&S, see Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 44. 2. 2. 
 
 V. 7. The second proof of undue intercourse with heathen nations, 
 which the Prophet mentions, is the influx of foreign money and of foreign 
 troops, with which he represents the land as filled. And his land (referring 
 to the singular noun people in v. 6) is filled with silifer and gold, and there 
 is no end to his treasures ; and his land is filled with horses, and there is 
 no end to his chariots. — The common interpretation makes this verse descrip- 
 tive of domestic wealth and luxury. But these would hardly have been 
 placed between the superstitions and the idols, with which Judah had been 
 flooded from abroad. Besides, this interpretation fails to account for gold 
 and silver being here ''combined with horses and chariots. Hitzig supposes 
 the latter to be mentioned only as articles of luxury ; but as such they are 
 never mentioned elsewhere, not even in the case of Absalom and Naaman 
 to which he appeals, both of whom were military chiefs as well as nobles. 
 Even the chariots of the peaceful Solomon were probably designed for mar- 
 tial show. The horses and chariots of the Old Testament are horses and 
 chariots of war. The common riding animals were mules and asses, the 
 latter of which, as contrasted with the horse, are emblematic of peace (Zech. 
 9:9. Matth. 21 : 7). But on the supposition that the verse has refer- 
 ence to undue dependence upon foreign powers, the money and the armies 
 of the latter would be naturally named together. Thus understood, this 
 verse affords no proof that the prophecy belongs to the prosperous reign of 
 Uzziah or Jotham, since it merely represents the land as flooded with foreign 
 gold and foreign troops, a description rather applicable to the reign of Ahaz. 
 The form of expression, too, suggests the idea of a recent acquisition, as the 
 strict sense of the verb is not it is full (E. V. Ges. Hn.), nor even it is filled, 
 but it was or has been filled (LXX. Vulg. Hg. Ew. Kn.). — There is no 
 need of explaining the words no end as expressing an insatiable desire 
 (Calv.), or as the boastful language of the people (Vitr.), since the natural 
 hyperbole employed by the Prophet is one by which no reader can be puz- 
 zled or deceived. The intimate connexion of this verse with that before it 
 is disturbed by omitting and at the beginning (Ges. Hg. Urn.), nor is there 
 any need of rendering it also (E. V.), yea (Hn.), or so that (Hk. Ew.), 
 either here or in the middle of the sentence. 
 
30 SAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 V. 8. The third and greatest evil flowing from this intercourse with 
 foreign nations was idolatry itself, which was usually introduced under the 
 cloak of mere political alliances (see e. g. 2 Kings 16: 10). Here as else- 
 where the terms used to describe it are contemptuous in a high degree. 
 And his land is filled with idols (properly nonentities, ' gods which yet 
 are no gods,' Jer. 2 : 11; ' for we know that an idol is nothing in the world,' 
 1 Cor. 8 : 4), to the work of their hands they bow down, to that which their 
 fingers have made, one of the great absurdities charged by the Prophets on 
 idolaters, " as if that could be a god to them which was not only a creature 
 but their own creature" (Matthew Henry). — For idols the Septuagint has 
 abominations (fideivypdzmv), but the true sense of the Hebrew term is that 
 expressed by Clericus, diis nihili. — For their hands, their fingers, the 
 Hebrew has his hands, his fingers, an enallage which does not obscure the 
 sense and is retained in the last clause by Cocceius and Clericus (digiti 
 ipsius). Vitringa has digiti cujusque. J. D. Michaelis makes the verb 
 singular (jeder betet). Barnes has his hands, but their fingers. 
 
 V. 9. Here the Prophet passes from the sin to its punishment, or rather 
 simultaneously alludes to both, the verbs in the first clause being naturally 
 applicable as well to voluntary humiliation in sin as to compulsory humilia- 
 tion in punishment, while the verb in the last clause would suggest of course 
 to a Jewish reader the twofold idea of pardoning and lifting up. They who 
 bowed themselves to idols should be bowed down by the mighty hand of 
 God, instead of being raised up from their wilful self-abasement by the par- 
 don of their sins. The relative futures denote not only succession in time 
 but the relation of cause and effect. And so (by this means, for this reason) 
 the mean man (not in the modern but. the old sense of inferior, low in rank) 
 is bowed down, and the great man is brought low, and do not thou (O Lord) 
 forgive them. This prayer, for such it is, may be understood as expressing, 
 not so much the Prophet's own desire, as the certainty of the event, arising 
 from the righteousness of God. There is no need therefore of departing 
 from the uniform usage of the future with Va as a negative imperative, by 
 rendering it thou dost not (Ges. Hg.), wilt not (Lu. Vitr. Low. Hn.), canst 
 not (J. D. Mich. De W. Hk.) or mayest not forgive (Um. Kn.). The strict 
 translation is as old as the Vulgate (ne demittas) and as late as Ewald 
 (vergib ihnen nicht). — Whether B5*l| and ffix, as is commonly supposed, 
 denote a difference in rank or estimation, like the Greek avyp and av&Qomog, 
 the Latin vir and homo, and the German Mann and Mensch, when in anti- 
 thesis, is a question of no moment, because even if they are synonymous, 
 denoting simply man and man, this man and that man, one man and another 
 (Hg. Hk. Kn.), their combination here must be intended to describe men of 
 all sorts, or men in f general. — On the relative futures, see Ges. Heb. Gr. 
 $> ' 52. 4. c. On the construction with &$, Nordheimer <§><§> 996. 1065. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. SI 
 
 V. 10. Instead of .simply predicting thai their sinful course should be 
 interrupted bj a terrible manifestation of God's presence, the Prophet \i>- 
 
 him'ns already come or near at hand, and addressing the people as an indi- 
 vidual, or singling out one of their nuinher, exhorts him to take refuge under 
 ground or in the rock-, an advice peculiarly significant in Palestine, a coun- 
 try full of caves, often used, if not originally made, for this very purpose 
 (1 Sain. 13: 6. 14: 11. Judg. 6:2). Go into the rock and hide thee 
 in tin dust, from before the terror of Jehovah and from the glory of his 
 majesty. The nouns in the last clause differ, according to their derivation, 
 very much as sublimity and beauty do in English, and express in combina- 
 tion the idea of sublime beauty or beautiful sublimity. The tone of this 
 address is not sarcastic (Glassius) but terrific. — By the terror of Jehovah 
 seems to be intended not the feeling of fear which he inspires (E. V. 
 for fear of the Lord) but some terrible manifestation of his presence. The 
 preposition, therefore, should not be taken in the vague sense of for, on 
 account of (J un. Cocc. E. V. Vitr.), but in its proper local sense of from 
 (Low. Hn.), before (J. D. Mich. Ges. Hk. Ew. Um.), or from before. — The 
 force and beauty of the passage are impaired by converting the im- 
 perative into a future (Targ.), or the singular imperative into a plural 
 (Sept. Pesh. Hg.). — Lowth, on the authority of the Septuagint, Arabic, 
 and a single manuscript, supplies the words when he ariseth to strike 
 the earth with terror, from the last clause of the nineteenth and twenty- 
 first verses. 
 
 ■■% 
 
 V. 11. As the Prophet, in the preceding verse, views the terror of Jeho- 
 vah as approaching, so here he views it as already past, and describes the 
 effect which it has wrought. The eyes of the loftiness of man (i. e. his 
 haughty looks) are cast down, and the height (or pride) of men is brought 
 low, and Jehovah alone is exalted in that day, not only in fact, but in the 
 estimation of his creatures, as the passive form here used may intimate. — 
 Man and men, the same words that occur in v. 9, are variously rendered 
 here by repeating the same noun (Sept. Pesh. Lu. Calv. Vitr. Hn.) by 
 using two equivalents (Lowth, men and mortals, Ewald, men and people) 
 or by an antithesis (Vulg. hominis, virorum). — The verb in the first clause 
 agrees in form with the nearest antecedent, or the whole phrase may be 
 regarded as the subject (Ges. Heb. Gr. $ 145. 1), as in Ewald's version of 
 it by a triple compound (Hochmuthsaugen). 
 
 V. 12. The general threatening of humiliation is now applied specific- 
 ally to a variety of lofty objects in which the people might be supposed to 
 delight and trust, vs. 12-16. This enumeration is connected with what 
 goes before, by an explanation of the phrase used at the close of the eleventh 
 
32 ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 verse. I say that day, for there is a day to Jehovah of Hosts (i. e. an 
 appointed time for the manifestation of his power) upon (or against) every 
 thing high and lofty, and upon every thing exalted, and it comes (orfchall 
 come) down. — The common construction, for the day of Jehovah is or shall 
 be (Sept. Vulg. Calv. E. V. Vitr. Low. Bar.), does not account for the use of 
 the conjunction or the preposition, the former of which refers to the last 
 words of the verse preceding, and the latter denotes the relation of possession : 
 there is a day to Jehovah, i. e. he has a day (Ewald), has it appointed 
 (Cocc. Jun. J. D. Mich.), has it in reserve, or less exactly, holds a day 
 (Hitzig) or holds a judgment-day (Gesenius). — The specific sense of b§, 
 against (Jun. Cler. Vitr. Low. Bar. Hen.), may be considered as included 
 in the wider one of on. — The version every one (Sept. Jun. E.V.) re- 
 stricts the phrase too much to persons, which is only a part of the idea con- 
 veyed by the expression every thing (Lu. Cocc. Vitr. J. D. Mich. Ges. etc.). 
 To refer one clause to persons and the other to things (Calv. Barn.) is wholly 
 arbitrary. — The same objection may be made to the common version of 
 rt»| by proud, instead of its primary and comprehensive sense of high 
 (Ewald. Gesen. in Lex.). — The translation of Vs© as an adjective, implying 
 that the day of Jehovah was against high and low (Calv. in Comm. Cocc. 
 J. D. Mich.), is inconsistent with the usage of the word, and not so well 
 suited to the parallel clause, in which lofty things alone are threatened with 
 humiliation. 
 
 V. 13. To convey the idea of lofty and imposing objects, the Prophet 
 makes use, not of symbols, but of specimens, selected from among the things 
 of this class most familiar to his readers, beginning with the two noblest 
 species of forest-trees. And on all the cedars of Lebanon (or the White 
 Mountain, the chain dividing Palestine from Syria), and on all the oaks of 
 Bashan (now called El Bethenyeh, a mountainous district, east of Jordan, 
 famous of old for its pastures and oak-forests). — Cedars and oaks are sup- 
 posed by some to be here named, as emblems of great men in general (Targ. 
 Jerome. Vitr. Low. Ges.), or of the great men of Syria and Israel distinc- 
 tively (Grotius) ; but this is not in keeping with the subsequent context, in 
 which some things are mentioned, which cannot be understood as emblems, 
 but only as samples of their several classes. . The application of the terms 
 to the oak and cedar wood used in the buildings erected by Uzziah and 
 Jotham, (Knobel) is equally at variance with the context and good taste. 
 That they do not refer to the actual prostration of the forests of Palestine 
 or the neighbouring countries by a tempest (Ros. Ew.), may be inferred 
 from the impossibility of so explaining all the analogous expressions which 
 follow. — On the trees and places mentioned in this verse, see Robinson's 
 Palestine, vol. hi. p. 440, and Appendix, p. 158. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 33 
 
 V. 14. The mention of Lebanon and Bashan in v. 13 now leads to that 
 of mountains in general, as lofty objects in themselves, and therefore helping 
 to complete the general conception of high things, which the Prophet 
 threatens with humiliation. And upon all the high mountains and upon all 
 the elevated hills. — For reasons given under the preceding verse, this cannot 
 be regarded as a threatening against states and governments (Lowth), or 
 against the mountaineers of Palestine (Oecolampadius, Musculus), or against 
 the fortresses erected by Jotham in the highlands of Judah (Knobel), or 
 against the fastnesses to which they had recourse in times of danger (Barnes), 
 but must be explained as an additional specification of the general statement 
 in v. 12, that every high thing should be humbled. 
 
 V. 15. To trees and hills he now adds walls and towers, as a third class 
 of objects with which the ideas of loftiness and strength are commonly asso- 
 ciated. And upon every high tower and upon every fenced wall, literally, 
 cut off, i. e. rendered inaccessible by being fortified. — Lowth and others 
 suppose these to be named as symbols of military strength, while Knobel 
 supposes an allusion to the fortifications built by Jotham and Uzziah, and 
 Hitzig assumes a transition just at this point from emblematical to literal 
 expressions ; all which is more or less at variance with the context. 
 
 V. 16. The Prophet now concludes his catalogue of lofty and con- 
 spicuous objects by adding, first, as a specific item, maritime vessels of the 
 largest class, and then a general expression, summing up the whole in one 
 descriptive phrase, as things attractive and imposing to the eye. And upon 
 all ships of Tarshish (such as were built to navigate the whole length of 
 the Mediterranean sea) and upon all images (i. e. visible objects) of desire, 
 or rather admiration and delight. — It is a very old opinion that Tarshish 
 means the sea, and ships of Tarshish sea-faring vessels (Sept. nXoiov &a- 
 laaarig. Luther, Schiffe im Meer. Cocceius, naves oceani) as distinguished 
 from mere coast or river craft (Piscator). From the earliest times, however, 
 it has also been explained as the name of a place, either Tarsus in Cilicia 
 (Josephus. Targ. on Chron.) or Cilicia itself (Hartmann), or Carthage (Ka 
 Zqduv Sept. alibi), or a port in Ethiopia (Hensler), or Africa in general 
 (atp'nEK Targ. on Jer. and Kings), or a port in India (Jerome on Jer. 10 : 9. 
 Arabic Vs. I Kings ch. 10) or, which is now the common opinion, Tar- 
 tessus, a Phenician settlement in the south-west of Spain, between the 
 mouths of the Baetis or Guadalquivir, sometimes put for the extreme west 
 (Ps. 72: 10). As the principal maritime trade, with which the Hebrews 
 were acquainted, was to this region, ships of Tarshish would suggest the 
 idea of the largest class of vessels, justly included in this catalogue of lofty 
 and imposing objects. To suppose a direct allusion either to commercial 
 
 3 
 
34 ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 wealth or naval strength (Lowth al.) is inconsistent with the context, 
 although these ideas would of course be suggested by association. Most 
 writers understand the last clause, like the first, as a specific addition to the 
 foregoing catalogue, denoting some particular object or class of objects, such 
 as pictures (E. V. Gill < pictures of Christ and the Virgin Mary, of angels, 
 saints, etc.') statues, (J. H. Mich. Doderlein. Ros.), lofty images or obelisks 
 (Ewald), palaces (Targ. Jon.), tapestry (Calv.), ships (Sept. na av &tar 
 ffloicov xulXovg. Henderson < all the vessels of delightful appearance') or 
 their decorated sterns, ' pictae carinae' (Vitr. J. D. Mich. Hg.) or their gay 
 flags and streamers (Gesenius in Thesauro). But this indefinite diversity of 
 explanation, as well as the general form of the expression, makes it probable 
 that this clause, notwithstanding the parallelism, was intended as a general 
 expression for such lofty and imposing objects as had just been enumerated, 
 — * cedars, oaks, mountains, hills, towers, walls, ships, and in short, all 
 attractive and majestic objects' (Vulg. omne quod visu pulchrum est. Ges. 
 ad loc. De W. Hk. Urn. Bar.). Even Lowth's translation, every lovely 
 work of art , is, on this hypothesis, too much restricted. The interpretation 
 which has now been given is confirmed by the use of the analogous prosaic 
 phrase rrn^n ^3 to close and sum up an enumeration of particulars. Kno- 
 bel, to whom we are indebted for this illustration, cites as examples 2 Chron. 
 32 : 27. 36 : 10. Nah. 2 : 10. — For an argument in favour of regarding 
 Tarshish as the name of Carthage, see Murray's Encyclopaedia of Geogra- 
 phy, Book I. ch. 1. § 4. According to Abulfeda, the Arabic geographer, 
 Tunis was anciently called Tarsis. 
 
 V. 17. This verse, by repeating the terms of v. 11, brings us back from 
 details to the general proposition which they were designed to illustrate and 
 enforce, and at the same time has the effect of a strophical arrangement, in 
 which the same burden or chorus recurs at stated intervals. And (thus, by 
 this means, or in this way) shall the loftiness of man be cast down, and the 
 pride of men be brought low, and Jehovah alone be exalted in that day. 
 Or, retaining the form of the first two verbs, which are not passive but neu- 
 ter, and exchanging the future for the present, the sentence may be thus 
 translated. So sinks the loftiness of man and bows the pride of men, 
 and Jehovah alone is exalted in that day. — For the syntax of the first clause, 
 vide supra ad v. 11. Cf. Ewald's Heb. Gr. <§> 567. Gesenius, § 144. 
 
 V. 18. To the humiliation of all lofty things the Prophet now adds the 
 entire disappearance of their idols. And the idols (as for the idols) the 
 whole shall pass away. — The construction he shall utterly abolish or cause 
 to disappear (Calv. E. V. Bar.) is at variance with the usage of the verb as 
 an intransitive. To make it agree with the plural noun, the idols shall ut- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 35 
 
 terly pass away (E. V. marg., Low. Do W. Ilk. Hn.), or the verb itself im- 
 personal, it is past, gone, or all over with the idols (Aug. Ges. Urn.), an; un- 
 usual and harsh constructions. It is best to take b->bs not as an adverb but a 
 noun meaning the whole and agreeing regularly with the verb (Ros. Maur. 
 Ilg. Ew.). The omission of the article or suffix (^SH or o^bs) may be re- 
 solved into the poetical usage of employing indefinite for definite expressions 
 (Ges. Heb. Gr. $ 2. 4) ; but Knobel accounts for it still better by suggest- 
 ing that the full phrase would have been D^Van ^?3 (like vrn Wo Judg. 
 20: 40), but the second noun is placed absolutely at the beginning of the 
 sentence for the sake of emphasis — ' the idols, the whole shall pass away,' 
 instead of ' the whole of the idols shall pass away.' — The brevity of this 
 verse, consisting of a single clause, has been commonly regarded as highly 
 emphatic and, as Hitzig thinks, sarcastic. But Hendewerk supposes what 
 was once the first clause of this verse to have been accidentally transferred 
 to that before it. The eighteenth verse, in his translation, stands as follows 
 — ' Jehovah alone is exalted in that day, and the idols are all gone.' This 
 conjecture, though ingenious, is entirely unsupported by external evidence, 
 and certainly not favoured by the analogy of v. 11, where the same three 
 members are combined as in v. 17. 
 
 V. 19. This verse differs from the tenth only by substituting a direct 
 prediction for a warning or exhortation, and by adding the design of God's 
 terrible appearance. And they (the idolaters, or men indefinitely) shall 
 enter into the caves of the rocks and into the holes of the earth, from before 
 the terror of Jehovah and the glory of his majesty in his arising (i. e. when 
 he arises) to terrify the earth. The first word rendered earth is the same 
 that was translated dust in v. 10, but even there it signifies the solid surface 
 rather than the crumbling particles which we call dust. The most exact 
 translation would perhaps be ground. — God is said to arise when he ad- 
 dresses himself to any thing, especially after a season of apparent inaction. — 
 The transitive meaning of the last verb, though unusual, is here required by 
 the context, and is perhaps the primary and proper one (see Gesen. Thes. 
 s. v.). — The paronomasia in Y*9Si "prb has been imitated by Calvin, not in 
 his version but his notes (ad terram terrendam), and by Gesenius (wenn 
 er sich erheht und die Erde bebt). 
 
 V. 20. This is an amplification of v. 18, explaining how the idols were 
 to disappear, viz. by being thrown away in haste, terror, shame, and des- 
 perate contempt, by those who had worshipped them and trusted in them, 
 as a means of facilitating their escape from the avenging presence of Jeho- 
 vah. In that day shall man cast his idols of silver and his idols of gold 
 (here named as the most splendid and expensive, in order to make the act 
 of throwing them away still more significant) which they have made (an 
 
36 ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 
 
 indefinite construction, equivalent in meaning to which have been made) for 
 him to worship, to the moles and to the bats (a proverbial expression for 
 contemptuous rejection). — This last clause has by some been connected 
 immediately with what precedes, to bow down to moles and bats, i. e. to 
 crouch for concealment in their dark and filthy hiding-places (Luzzatto), or 
 to worship images as blind as moles and bats (Jerome), or to worship moles 
 and bats themselves (Sept. Targ. Vulg. ut adoraret talpas et vespertilio- 
 nes), thus exchanging one form of idolatry for another still more disgusting 
 (Grotius). But as the context relates not to the moral deterioration of idol- 
 aters but to their terror and despair, it is commonly agreed that this clause 
 is to be construed with the verb shall cast, and the words immediately pre- 
 ceding to be read as a parenthesis. The idols made for them to worship 
 they shall cast to the moles and bats, not to idolaters still blinder than them- 
 selves (Glassius), but to literal moles and bats, or the spots which they fre- 
 quent, i. e. dark and filthy places (Knobel, in die Rumpelkammer) . — The 
 word isnb, as it stands in all editions and most manuscripts, is the infinitive 
 of "ten , to dig, preceded by a preposition and followed by a plural noun 
 meaning holes (to dig holes, Kimchi) or rats (to the digging of rats, Ges. 
 s. v.). But as five manuscripts make these two words one ; as several in- 
 stances of long words erroneously divided occur elsewhere (1 Chron. 34: 6. 
 Jer. 46 : 20. Lam. 4:3); and as the next word is also an unusually long 
 one with the very same particle prefixed ; most modern writers are agreed 
 that the true reading is miEnsnb (Theodotion aqjctQcpeocox}) a plural noun de- 
 rived, by doubling two radicals, from ifin , to dig, and here used as the 
 name of an animal, probably the mole (Jerome. Hk. Hn. Ew.) ; for although 
 moles are not found, like bats, in dark recesses, they may be mentioned for 
 that very reason to denote that the idolaters should cast away their idols, 
 not only before setting out, but on the way (Hn. Ew.). More probably, how- 
 ever, moles and bats are put together on account of their defect of sight. 
 On either supposition, it is needless to resort to the rabbinical tradition or 
 the Arabic analogy for other meanings, such as rats (Ges. Maur. De W.) or 
 sparrows (Hg.) or nocturnal birds (Aben Ezra). — The sense of 2"»xn is 
 man in a collective sense, not distributively a man (E. V. Low. Bar.), the 
 article being prefixed to universal terms, in various languages, where we omit 
 it (Ges. Heb. Gr. § 107. 1). — The phrase they have made for him is com- 
 monly explained as a sudden enallage or change of number, really mean- 
 ing they have made for themselves (Ges. De W. Hk. Hn.). Others suppose 
 an abrupt transition from a collective to a distributive construction, which 
 they have made each one for himself (E. V. Ros.). Others refer the plural 
 to the artificers or idol-makers (Hg. Kn.). Others cut the knot by making 
 the verb singular (Um.) or by omitting "ft (Low. Bar.), as do one or two 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. II. 37 
 
 manuscripts. The simplest construction is to take the verb indefinitely, and 
 to make ft mean not for himself (Ewald, die man sich machte) but for him, 
 referring to man, the subject of the sentence. The best translation of this 
 clause is given in an old French version (qu'on lui aura faites). — The Mine 
 version renders a preceding phrase the idols made of his silver, and the 
 same construction is adopted by Umbreit (die Gotzen seines Silbers). But 
 the suffix really belongs to the governing noun (Hk.), or rather to the whole 
 complex phrase (Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 119. 3), and the expression is perfectly 
 equivalent in meaning to his silver idols which is given in some versions 
 (Hn. Ew.). — The use of the present tense in rendering this verse (Ges. Hg. 
 De W. Hk. Um.) does not agree so well with the expression in that day as 
 the old and common future form retained by Ewald (vide supra, ad v. 11). 
 — On the proverbial sense of giving to the bats, as applied to desolated fam- 
 ilies and houses, see Roberts's Oriental Illustrations. 
 
 V. 21. Continuing the sentence, he declares the end for which they 
 should throw away their idols, namely, to save themselves, casting them off 
 as worthless incumbrances in order the more quickly to take refuge in the 
 rocks. To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the fissures of the cliffs 
 (or crags) from before the terror of Jehovah, and from the glory of his ma- 
 jesty, in his arising to terrify the earth, or as Lowth more poetically ren- 
 ders it, to strike the earth with terror. — The translation going, in going, 
 when they go (Vitr. Ges. Hk. Hn.), as if the acts were simultaneous, rests 
 on a forced construction and leaves out of view the very end for which they 
 are described as throwing away their idols, to express which the infinitive, 
 must have its proper meaning (Hg. Bs. Ew. Um. Kn.). — The substitution 
 of flee (Hg.) or creep (Ges. Hk. De W.) for go or enter is allowable in par- 
 aphrase but not in strict translation. — The English phrases ragged rocks 
 (E. V.) and craggy rocks (Low. Bs.) depart too much from the form of the 
 original, which is a simple noun, as well as from its etymological import, 
 which is rather height than ruggedness. — The meaning of ''Ipso is not tops 
 (Calv. Cocc. E. V.), which is elsewhere forbidden by the context (Judg. 
 15: 8, 11), but fissures (Sept. cxiafidg, Vulg. cavernas), answering to clefts, 
 as cliffs to rocks in the other clause. The whole phrase is rendered by a 
 compound word in the German versions of Luther (Felsklufte), De Wette 
 (Bergklufte), and Hendewerk (Felsblocke). — The final recurrence of the 
 same refrain which closed the eleventh and seventeenth verses, marks the 
 conclusion of the choral or strophical arrangement at this verse, the next be- 
 ginning a new context. 
 
 V. 22. Having predicted that the people would soon lose their confi- 
 dence in idols, he now shows the folly of transferring that confidence to hu- 
 
38 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 man patrons, by a general statement of man's weakness and mortality, ex- 
 plained and amplified in the following chapter. Cease ye from man (i. e. 
 cease to trust him or depend upon him) whose breath is in his nostrils (i. e. 
 whose life is transient and precarious, with obvious allusion to Gen. 2:7), 
 for wherein is he to be accounted of (or at what rate is he to be valued) ? 
 The interrogation forcibly implies that man's protection cannot be relied 
 upon. — The version is he valued (De Wette) seems inadequate, the passive 
 participle having very commonly the force not only of the perfect but the 
 future participle in Latin (Ges. Heb. Gr. § 131. 1). The reference of 
 these general expressions to Egypt (Hk. Kn.) or to any other human power 
 in particular, disturbs the relation of this verse, as a general proposition, to 
 the specific threatenings in the following chapter. — Some of the early Jews 
 maliciously applied this verse to Christ, and their Christian opponents, in- 
 stead of denying such a reference as foreign from the context and gratuitous, 
 admitted it, but took the phrase to cease from in the sense of letting alone or 
 ceasing to molest (as in 2 Chr. 35 : 21), and instead of irsa, in what, read 
 RODS, a high place (Origen. Jerome : quia excelsus reputatus est ipse). This 
 strange and forced construction is retained by some of the earlier interpre- 
 ters of modern times (Oecolampadius. Lyranus. Forerius. Menochius). 
 Even Luther's version or rather paraphrase (ihr wisset nicht wie hoch er 
 geachtet ist) seems to presuppose it, but may possibly be founded on a mis- 
 application of the words in their natural and proper sense. In the Septua- 
 gint this verse is wholly wanting, and Vitringa supposes the translators to 
 have left it out, as being an unwelcome truth to kings and princes ; but 
 such a motive must have led to a much more extensive expurgation of un- 
 palatable scriptures. It is found in the other ancient versions and its genu- 
 ineness has not been disputed. — To cease from is to let alone ; in what spe- 
 cific sense must be determined by the context (compare 2 Chron. 35 : 21 
 with Prov. 23: 4). — On the pleonastic or emphatic form, cease for your- 
 selves, see Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 131. 3. e. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 This chapter continues the threatenings against Judah on account of 
 the prevailing iniquities, with special reference to female pride and luxury. 
 
 The Prophet first explains his exhortation at the close of the last chap- 
 ter, by showing that God was about to take away the leading men of Judah 
 and to let it fall into a state of anarchy, vs. 1-7. He then shows that this 
 was the effect of sin, particularly that of wicked rulers, vs. 8-15. He 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 39 
 
 then exposes in detail the pride and luxury of the Jewish women, and 
 threatens them not only with the loss of that in which they now delight 
 but with widowhood, captivity, and degradation, v. 1G — 4: 1. 
 
 The first part opens with a general prediction of the loss of what they 
 trusted in, beginning with the necessary means of subsistence, v. 1 . We 
 have then an enumeration of the public men who were about to be removed, 
 including civil, military, and religious functionaries, with the practitioners of 
 certain arts, vs. 2, 3. As the effect of this removal, the government falls 
 into incompetent hands, v. 4. This is followed by insubordination and con- 
 fusion, v. 5. At length, no one is willing to accept public office, the people 
 are wretched, and the commonwealth a ruin, vs. 6, 7. 
 
 This ruin is declared to be the consequence of sin, and the people rep- 
 resented as their own destroyers, vs. 8, 9. God's judgments, it is true, are 
 not indiscriminate. The innocent shall not perish with the guilty, but the 
 guilty must suffer, vs. 10, 11. Incompetent and faithless rulers must espe- 
 cially be punished, who instead of being the guardians are the spoilers of the 
 vineyard, instead of protectors the oppressors of the poor, vs. 12-15. 
 
 As a principal cause of these prevailing evils, the Prophet now de- 
 nounces female luxury and threatens it with condign punishment, privation 
 and disgrace, vs. 16, 17. This general denunciation is then amplified at 
 great length, in a detailed enumeration of the ornaments which were about 
 to be taken from them and succeeded by the badges of captivity and mourn- 
 ing, vs. 18-24. The agency to be employed in this retribution is a disas- 
 trous war. by which the men are to be swept off and the country left deso- 
 late, vs. 25, 26. The extent of this calamity is represented by a lively ex- 
 hibition of the disproportion between the male survivors and the other sex, 
 suggesting at the same time the forlorn condition of the widows of the slain, 
 chap. 4:1. 
 
 V. 1. This verse assigns as a reason for the exhortation in the one pre- 
 ceding, that God was about to take away from the people every ground of 
 reliance, natural and moral. Cease ye from man, i. e. cease to trust in any 
 human protection, for behold (implying a proximate futurity) the Lord 
 (God considered as a sovereign) Jehovah of Hosts (as self-existent and 
 eternal, and at the same time as the God of revelation and the God of his 
 people) is taking away (or about to take away) from Jerusalem and from 
 Judah (not only from the capital but from the whole kingdom) the stay and 
 the staff (i. e. all kinds of support, and first of all) the whole stay of bread 
 and the whole stay of water (the natural and necessary means of subsist- 
 ence). The terms are applicable either to a general famine produced by 
 natural causes, or to a scarcity arising from invasion or blockade, such as 
 actually took place when Judah was overrun by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 
 
40 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 25: 4. Jer. 52: 6. 38: 9. Lam. 4: 4). — Instead of the whole stay, prose 
 usage would require every stay, the form adopted by Gesenius and the later 
 Germans. But the other construction is sustained by the analogy of the 
 whole head and the whole heart ch. 1 : 5, and by the impossibility of express- 
 ing this idea otherwise without circumlocution, as the addition of another 
 noun excludes the article. — The old version stay and staff is an approxima- 
 tion to the form of the original, in which a masculine and feminine form of 
 the same noun are combined, by an idiom common in Arabic and not un- 
 known in Hebrew (Nah. 2 : 13), to denote universality, or rather all kinds 
 of the object named. This form of expression is retained in the Greek ver- 
 sions (Sept. iofvopta xai la^vovoav. Aqu. tQEiGfia xcu epetGftov* Symm. gti- 
 Qiyfta xai arijQiyfiov), and the Jewish-Spanish (sustentador y sustentadora). 
 Others imitate it merely by combining synonymes alike in form (Calv. vigo- 
 rem et vim. Vitr. fulcimentum et fulturam. Hitz. Stiitze und Stutzpunkt. 
 Ew. Stab und Stiitze). Others simply give the sense by reading every stay 
 (Ges.), all stays of every kind (J. D. Mich.), one stay after another (Hk.), 
 etc. — The last clause is rejected as a gloss by Gesenius in his commentary, 
 on the ground that its explanation of the first clause as denoting food and 
 drink is inconsistent with the subsequent context which explains it to mean 
 public men. This objection is withdrawn in the second edition of his Ger- 
 man version, but renewed by Hitzig and Knobel, with the addition of ano- 
 ther, viz. that water is not a stay or staff of life. The last is frivolous and 
 the other groundless, as the last clause is not an explanation of the first, but 
 begins a specification of particulars included in it. The stays of which they 
 were to be deprived were first the stay of food, v. 1, and then the stay of 
 government, vs. 2, 3. 
 
 V. 2. Next to the necessary means of subsistence, the Prophet enume- 
 rates the great men of the commonwealth, vs. 2, 3. The first clause has 
 reference to military strength, the second to civil and religious dignities. In 
 the second clause there is an inverse parallelism, the first and fourth terms 
 denoting civil officers, the second and third religious ones. The omission of 
 the article before the nouns, though not uncommon in poetry, adds much to 
 the rapidity and life of the description. Hero and warrior, judge and 'pro- 
 phet, and divine and elder. — That the first is not a generic term including 
 all that follow (the great men, viz. the warriors, etc.) is clear from the par- 
 allelism, the terms being arranged in pairs as often elsewhere (ch. 11:2. 
 19: 3, 6-9. 22: 12, 13. 42: 19).— The idea here expressed by Tfca is 
 not simply that of personal strength and prowess (Sept. ylyavTu xal ig^vovjo), 
 but the higher one of military eminence or heroism (J. D. Mich. Ges. Hn. 
 etc.). — The literal version of the next phrase, man of war, has acquired a 
 different sense in modern English. It may here denote either a warrior of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 41 
 
 high rank, as synonymous with liaa (Vitr. militia clarum) or one of ordinary 
 rank, as distinguished from it (Cocc. ducem et mihtem. Kn. Oberste und 
 Gemeine). Compare 2 Sam. 23 : 8. — Judge may either be taken in its re- 
 stricted modem sense (Ilk.) or in the wider one of magistrate or ruler. — To 
 avoid the supposed incongruity of coupling the prophet and diviner together, 
 some take tra in the bad sense of a false or an unfaithful prophet (J. D. 
 Mich. Ges. Hg.) ; others take cop in the good sense of a scribe (Targ.), a 
 prudent man (E. V.), or a sagacious prognosticator or adviser (Sept. Grot. 
 Bar.) ; while Hendewerk refers both words to the prophet, making the first 
 denote his office as a preacher and the second as a foreteller ; all which 
 is arbitrary, contrary to usage, and entirely superfluous. The people are 
 threatened with the loss of all their stays, good or bad, true or false. Vera 
 et falsa a Judaeis pariter auferentur (Jerome). — The last word in the verse 
 is not to be taken in its primary and proper sense of old man (Vulg. senem), 
 much less in the factitious one of sage (Low.) or wise man (Bs.), since all 
 the foregoing terms are titles denoting rank and office, but in its secondary 
 sense of elder (Sept. TrQea^viFQov. Lu. Aeltesten) or hereditary chief, and as 
 such, a magistrate under the patriarchal system. It is here equivalent or 
 parallel to judge, the one term denoting the functions of the office, the other 
 the right by which it was held. — The change of the singulars in this verse 
 for plurals (Luth. J. D. Mich.), though it does not affect the sense, weakens 
 its expression. 
 
 V. 3. To persons of official rank and influence, the Prophet adds, in 
 order to complete his catalogue, practitioners of those arts upon which the 
 people set most value. As the prophet and diviner stand together in v. 2, 
 so mechanical and magical arts are put together here. The first clause sim- 
 ply finishes the list of public functionaries which had been begun in the pre- 
 ceding verse. The chief of fifty, and the favourite, and the counsellor, 
 and the slcilful artificer, and the expert enchanter. — The first title is derived 
 from the decimal arrangement of the people in the wilderness for judicial 
 purposes (Exod. 18 : 25, 26), but is afterwards used only as a military title. 
 Hitzig and Knobel understand it here as denoting an officer of low rank, in 
 opposition to warrior in the verse preceding. — The next phrase literally sig- 
 nifies lifted up in countenance (Vulg. honorabilem vultu), which is com- 
 monly understood as a description of an eminent or honourable person. 
 But as the same words are employed to signify respect of persons or judicial 
 partiality, the phrase may here denote one highly favoured by a sovereign, 
 a royal favourite (2 Kings 5: 1. Lev. 9: 15. Deut. 10: 17. Job 13: 10. 
 Mai. 2: 9), or respected, reverenced by the people (Lam. 4 : 16. Deut. 
 18: 50). Luther translates it as a plural or collective by respectable peo- 
 ple (ehrliche Leute). — The counsellor here meant is not a private or profes- 
 
42 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 sional adviser, but a public counsellor or minister of state. — can is here used 
 in what seems to be its primary sense of skilful, with respect to art (com- 
 pare Goqog in Passow's Greek Lexicon). — The explanation of tn^hm as de- 
 noting occult arts (Cler. Ges. Hg. Hn. Ewald, Hexenmeister) , though coun- 
 tenanced by Chaldee and Syriac analogies, has no Hebrew usage to sup- 
 port it, and the expression of the same idea in the other clause is rather a 
 reason for applying this to the mechanical arts, as is done by the Septuagint 
 (aocpbr cloy u em ova), Luther (weise Werkleute), Vitringa (mechanicarum ar- 
 tium peritum), Knobel, and others. Umbreit seems to apply the term spe- 
 cially to the manufacture of idols, as J. D. Michaelis does to that of arms 
 (gute Waffenschmiede). Gesenius and Hitzig may have been led to reject 
 this old interpretation by a desire to evade the remarkable coincidence be- 
 tween this prophecy and the fact recorded in 2 Kings 24 : 14, 16. — The 
 last word in the verse is taken strictly, as denoting a ' whisper ' or the act of 
 whispering, by Aquila (gvvezov m&vQi6fi<f), Cocceius (prudentem susurro- 
 rum), and Hitzig (kundigen des Geflusters) ; but in its secondary sense of 
 incantation, with allusion to the mutterings and whisperings which formed a 
 part of magical ceremonies, by Symmachus {o^itlia fjvajixrj), the Vulgate 
 (eloquii mystici), and most modern writers. According to J. D. Michaelis 
 and Gesenius, it specially denotes the charming of serpents. The sense of 
 eloquent orator (Lu. Calv. Jun. E. V. Vitr. Low.) seems altogether arbi- 
 trary. The analogous phrase TO* yi=5 (1 Sam. 16: 18), to which Rosen- 
 muller refers, is itself of doubtful import and proves nothing. 
 
 V. 4. The natural consequence of the removal of the leading men must 
 be the rise of incompetent successors, persons without capacity, experience, 
 or principle, a change which is here ascribed to God's retributive justice. 
 And I will give children to be their rulers, and childish things shall govern 
 them. Some apply this, in a strict sense, to the weak and wicked reign of 
 Ahaz (Ew. Hg. Hk. Kn.), others in a wider sense to the series of weak 
 kings after Isaiah (Gro. Low.). But there is no need of restricting it to 
 kings at all, as ^D denotes a ruler in general, and in v. 3 is applied to rulers 
 of inferior rank. The most probable opinion is that the incompetent rulers 
 are called boys or children not in respect to age but character, ' non ratione 
 aetatis sed imprudentiae et ineptitudinis ' (J. H. Mich.). Calvin, Cocceius, 
 Lowth, and Gesenius take s^Vrw as a simple equivalent to="?:.5,and J. D. 
 Michaelis translates it sucklings. Hitzig makes it qualify the verb instead of 
 agreeing with it as its subject. * They (the children) shall rule over them 
 with arbitrary cruelty.' Hendewerk and Knobel give the same meaning 
 to the noun, but retain the usual construction. * And tyranny shall rule 
 over them.' Most probably, however, c^rcn is an abstract term used for 
 the concrete, puerilities or childishnesses for childish persons, or still more con- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 43 
 
 temptuously, childish things (Lu. Ew. Um.). The Targum has weaklings 
 (ffftDbn), the Scptuagint \\inu.Uia.i, the Vulgate cffoeminati, Junius and Tre- 
 mellius facinorosi. 
 
 V. 5. As the preceding verse describes bad government, so this de- 
 scribes anarchy, the suspension of all government, and a consequent disorder 
 in the relations of society., betraying itself in mutual violence, and in the dis- 
 regard of natural and artificial claims to deference. And the people shall 
 act tyrannically, man against man, and man against his fellow. They shall 
 be insolent, the youth to the old man, and the mean man to the noble. The 
 passive construction, the people shall be oppressed (E. V. Low. Bs.), does 
 not agree so well with the usage of the preposition following as the reflexive 
 one now commonly adopted. The insertion of another verb (man striving 
 against man, Bar.) is wholly unnecessary. The second verb is commonly 
 explained to mean the insolence or arrogance of upstarts to their betters 
 (Calv. insolescet. Fr. Vs. se portera arrogamment) ; but the best lexicogra- 
 phers give it the stronger sense of acting ferociously (Cocc. Ges. Winer. 
 Furst), or, to combine both ideas, with ferocious insolence. (Hitzig, stiir- 
 men. Gesenius,lossturmen. Hendewerk, wiithet. Henderson, outrage.) — 
 The passive participles in the last clause properly signify despised and hon- 
 oured, i. e. once despised, once honoured (Cler. qui antea spretus erat) ; or, 
 according to the common idiomatic usage of passive participles, to be de- 
 spised, to be honoured, not so much with reference to moral character as to 
 rank and position in society. The restriction of the first clause to the rigo- 
 rous exaction of debts (Clericus) is inconsistent with the context and the 
 parallelism. On contempt of old age, as a sign of barbarism, see Lam. 
 4 : 16, Deut. 28: 50. Eight manuscripts and fifteen editions read c:.: for 
 toss, but all the ancient versions presuppose the common reading. 
 
 V. 6. Having predicted the removal of those qualified to govern, the 
 rise of incompetent successors, and a consequent insubordination and confu- 
 sion, the Prophet now describes this last as having reached such a height 
 that no one is willing to hold office, or, as Matthew Henry says, " the gov- 
 ernment goes a begging." This verse, notwithstanding its length, seems to 
 contain only the protasis or conditional clause of the sentence, in which the 
 commonwealth is represented as a ruin, and the task of managing it pressed 
 upon one living in retirement, on the ground that he still possesses decent 
 raiment, a lively picture both of general anarchy and general wretchedness. 
 When a man shall take hold of his brother (i. e. one man of another) hi his 
 father's house (at home in a private station, saying) thou hast raiment, a ruler 
 shalt thou be to us, and this ruin (shall be) under thy hand (i. e. under thy 
 power, control, and management). It is equally consistent with the syntax 
 
44 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 and the usage of the words to understand the man as addressing his brother, 
 in the proper sense, or in that of a near kinsman, of or belonging to the 
 house of his (the speaker's) father, i. e. one of the same family ( Vulg. domes- 
 ticum patris sui. J. H. Mich, cognatum. Hendew. Einen von den seinen). 
 But the offer would then seem to be simply that of headship or chieftain- 
 ship over a family or house, whereas a wider meaning is required by the 
 connexion. For raiment Henderson reads an abundant wardrobe, and ex- 
 plains the phrase as meaning thou art rich, because clothing forms a large 
 part of oriental wealth, and the same explanation is given in substance 
 by Clericus, Hendewerk, Barnes, and Umbreit. But Vitringa, Gesenius, 
 Rosenmuller, Knobel and others, understand the words more probably as 
 meaning c thou hast still a garment,' whereas we have none, implying gene- 
 ral distress as well as anarchy. Vitringa and Lowth make nzb a verb, as it 
 is elsewhere, meaning go or come, as a particle of exhortation (vide supra, 
 ch. 2:3), and connect nb^ab with what precedes, but in different ways. 
 Vitringa's construction is that a man shall lay hold of his brother, in whose 
 paternal house there is raiment, saying come on (agedum), etc. Lowth's 
 that a man shall lay hold of his brother by the garment, saying come, etc. 
 All other writers seem to be agreed that tt& is an unusual mode of writing 
 r\h (see Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 35). — The ^3 at the beginning has been variously 
 rendered for, because (Sept. Targ. Vulg. Pesh.), therefore (Lowth), if 
 (Junius), then if (Ros.), then (Lu. Ges. Bs. Kn.). Henderson uses the 
 periphrasis should any one, etc. Hitzig and Ewald agree with Calvin, 
 Vitringa, Clericus, and the English Bible in rendering i&when, and regard- 
 ing the two verses as one continuous sentence. — The word saying in the first 
 clause is inserted by two manuscripts, and supplied by most versions ancient 
 and modern. — Thirty-five manuscripts and two editions read SfJJ in the 
 plural. 
 
 V. 7. This verse contains the refusal of the invitation given in the one 
 preceding. In that day he shall lift up (his voice in reply) saying I will 
 not be a healer, and in my house there is no bread, and there is no clothing ; 
 ye shall not make me a ruler of the people. In that day may either mean 
 at once, without deliberation, or continue the narrative without special em- 
 phasis. Some supply hand after lift up, as a gesture of swearing, or the 
 name of God as in the third commandment, and understand the phrase to 
 mean that he shall swear (Saad. Lu. Calv. E. V., J. D. Mich.). But the 
 great majority of writers supply voice, some in the specific sense of answer- 
 ing (Sept. Vulg. Targ. Pesh. Cler.) or in the simple sense of uttering 
 (Cocc. Ges. De W. Ew.), but others with more probability in that of speak- 
 ing with a loud voice (Vitr. Ros.), or distinctly and with emphasis, he shall 
 protest (Hn.) or openly declare (Low.). The Vulgate, Luther, and Ge~ 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. IS 
 
 senius have I am not a healer, but if that were the sense the verb would 
 probably be suppressed. The meaning of the words seems to be either / 
 cannot, as a confession of unfitness (Targ. Ros. De W. Hk. Urn.), or I will 
 not, as an expression of invincible aversion (Calv. Cocc. Cler. E. V. Low. 
 Hn. Kn.). — The Septtiagint and Clericus take OaVi in the sense of prince 
 or prefect. Cocceius translates it literally binding, Ewald binder. Saadias 
 makes it mean one who binds his head with a diadem ; Montanus an execu- 
 tioner, like the Latin lictor. The true sense of healer is given by the Vul- 
 gate (inedicus), Calvin (curator), Luther (Artzt), and most of the later ver- 
 sions. — There is no need of readings/or in my house (Calv. Cler. Hn. Ew. 
 Kn.), as the words do not directly give a reason for refusing, but simply deny 
 the fact alleged in the request. Clericus, Lowth, and Henderson carry out 
 their interpretation of the previous verse by supposing the excuse here given 
 to be that he was not rich enough to clothe and feast the people as oriental 
 chiefs are expected to do. But the whole connexion seems to show that it 
 is a profession of great poverty, which, if true, shows more clearly the condi- 
 tion of the people, and if false, the general aversion to office. The last clause 
 does not simply mean do not make me, but you must not, or you shall not 
 make me a ruler. Gesenius and all the later Germans except Ewald sub- 
 stitute the descriptive present for the future in this verse. 
 
 V. 8. The Prophet here explains his use of the word ruin in reference 
 to the commonwealth of Israel, by declaring that it had in fact destroyed 
 itself by the offence which its iniquities had given to the holiness of God, 
 here compared to the sensitiveness of the human eye. Do not wonder at its 
 being called a ruin,ybr Jerusalem totters and Judah falls (or Jerusalem is tot- 
 tering and Judah falling), because their tongue and their doings (words and 
 deeds being put for the whole conduct) are against Jehovah (strictly to or 
 towards, but in this connexion necessarily implying opposition and hostility), 
 to resist (i. e. so as to resist, implying both the purpose and effect his 
 holy eyes (and thereby to offend them). The Peshito seems to take these as 
 the words of the man refusing to govern ; but they are really those of the 
 Prophet explaining his refusal or rather one of the expressions used in mak- 
 ing the offer, as ribtis clearly involves an allusion to nb^aia one of its deriva- 
 tives. The ^3 is therefore not to be taken in the sense of yea (Um.), 
 or surely (Calv.), but in its proper sense of for, because (Sept. Vulg. etc.). 
 Here as in ch.l : 16,D^b;S>^ is variously rendered adinventiones (Vulg.), stu- 
 dia (Calv.), conata (Mont.), but the only meaning justified by etymology is 
 that of actions. Cocceius, who refers the whole prophecy to the times of 
 the New Testament, understands by their resisting God's holy eyes the op- 
 position of the Jews to the Son of God when personally present. Tottur 
 and fall are supposed by some to be in antithesis, contrasting the calamities 
 
46 SA1AH, CHAP. III. 
 
 of Jerusalem with the worse calamities of Judah (Knobel), or the partial 
 downfall of the kingdom under Ahaz, with its total downfal under Zedekiah 
 (Vitringa) ; but they are more probably poetical equivalents, asserting the 
 same fact, that Jerusalem and Judah, though peculiarly the Lord's, were 
 nevertheless to fall and be destroyed for their iniquities. — The present form 
 is adopted here, not only by the modern writers, but by the Septuagint, 
 Vulgate, and Luther. — The emendation of the text by changing rjs to "jjs 
 (Low.) or *?* (J. D. Mich.), is needless and without authority. — For the 
 orthography of *»j see Ewald's Heb. Gr. § 30. 
 
 V % 9. As they make no secret of their depravity, and as sin and suffer- 
 ing are inseparably connected, they must bear the blame of their own de- 
 struction. The expression of their countenances testifies against them, and 
 their sin, like Sodom, they disclose, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul, 
 for they have done evil to themselves. — The first clause is applied to respect 
 of persons or judicial partiality, by the Targum (tfS'mi), Clericus (habita 
 hominum ratio), Hitzig (ihr Ansehn der Person), and Gesenius in his The- 
 saurus. This construction is favoured by the usage of the phrase d^sd ^sn 
 (Deut. 1 : 17. 16: 19. Prov. 24: 23. 28: 21) ; but the context seems to 
 show that the Prophet has reference to general character and not to a spe- 
 cific sin, while the parallel expressions in this verse make it almost certain 
 that the phrase relates to the expression of the countenance. Some explain 
 it accordingly of a particular expression, such as shame (Sept.), impudence 
 (Vulg.), obduracy (Jun.), steadfastness (Lowth), confusion (Ges.), insensi- 
 bility (Ew.). But the various and even contradictory senses thus put upon 
 the word may serve to show that it is more correctly understood, as denot- 
 ing the expression of the countenance generally, by Calvin (probatio), 
 Cocceius (adspectus), Gussetius (quod dant cognoscendum), the English 
 Version (show), De Wette (Ausdruck), and other recent writers. The 
 sense is not that their looks betray them, but that they make no effort at 
 concealment, as appears from the reference to Sodom. Quod unum habe- 
 bant in peccatis bonum perdunt, peccandi verecundiam (Seneca). — The 
 expression of the same idea first in a positive and then in a negative form is 
 not uncommon in Scripture, and is a natural if not an English idiom. Mad- 
 ame d'Arblay, in her Memoirs of Dr. Burney, speaks of Omiah, the Tahi- 
 tian brought home by Captain Cook, as " uttering first affirmatively and 
 then negatively all the little sentences that he attempted to pronounce." 
 For examples involving this same verb "in?, see Josh. 7 : 19. 1 Sam. 3 : 17, 
 18. The explanation of &&% as meaning recompense, reward (Vulg. Cler. 
 E. V. Um.), is rejected by most of the modern writers, who make it corres- 
 pond very nearly to the English treat, in the sense of doing either good or 
 evil. ' They have treated themselves ill, or done evil to themselves ' (Cocc. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 47 
 
 sibimet ipsis male faciunt. Ewald : sie thaten sich buses). Hengstenber^ 
 maintains (Comm. on Psalm 7 : 5) that the verb means properly to do 
 good, and is used in a bad sense only by a kind of irony. The phrase to 
 their soul may be understood strictly (Calv. E. V. Hg. De W.) or as mean- 
 ing to their life (Cler. Ges.) ; but the singular form of the noun seems to 
 imply that it is used as a periphrasis for the reflexive pronoun to themselves. 
 David Kimchi says that his father derived --2- from -zr, to be $a'na, mak- 
 ing the n radical ; but the derivation from i?3 is now universally adopted. 
 
 V. 10. The righteous are encouraged by the assurance that the judg- 
 ments of God shall not be indiscriminate. Say ye of the righteous that it 
 shall be well, for the fruits of their doings they shall eat. The object of 
 address seems to be not the prophets or ministers of God, but the people at 
 large or men indefinitely. The concise and elliptical first clause may be 
 variously construed — ' Say, it is right (or righteous) that (they should eat) 
 good, that they should eat the fruit of their doings.' — ' Say, it is right (or 
 God is righteous), for it is good that they should eat,' etc. — ' Say (what is) 
 right,' i. e. pronounce just judgment. The verb is made to govern p" 1 "* 
 directly by Vitringa (justum praedicate beatum), Lowth (pronounce ye a 
 blessing on the righteous), Gesenius (preiset den Gerechten). The prepo- 
 sition to is supplied by the Targum, Peshito, Vulgate (dicite justo), English 
 Version, Barnes, and Henderson. The construction most agreeable to 
 usage is that given by Luther, J. D. Michaelis, De Wette, Hendewerk, 
 Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel — ' Say ye of the righteous (or concerning him) 
 that,' etc. One manuscript reads briar in the singular, but the plural form 
 agrees with p" 1 ^ as a collective. 
 
 V. 11. This is the converse of the foregoing proposition, a threatening 
 corresponding to the promise. Woe unto the wicked, (it shall be) ill (with 
 him), for the thing done by his hands shall be done to him. — Calvin and 
 Ewald separate sranb from "»1H and connect it with s^, ' woe (or alas) ! to 
 the wicked it is (or shall be) ill,' a construction favoured by the Masoretic 
 accents. Kimchi makes s^ agree with soi in the sense of an evil wicked 
 man, i. e. one who is wicked both towards God and man. (See Gill ad loc.) 
 This interpretation is adopted by Luther, Cocceius, Vitringa, Clericus, and 
 J. H. Michaelis. De Wette, Hendewerk, and Knobel give the same con- 
 struction, but take sn in the sense of wretched, ' woe to the wicked, the 
 unhappy.' But Si seems evidently parallel to rivj in v. 10, and cannot 
 therefore be a mere epithet. Umbreit follows the Vulgate, Clericus, etc., 
 in giving to bi^a the sense of recompense. Luther and Henderson explain 
 it to mean merit or desert ; Calvin, Lowth, and Gesenius, more correctly 
 work. 
 
48 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 V. 12. The Prophet now recurs to the evil of unworthy and incapable 
 rulers, and expresses, by an exclamation, wonder and concern at the result. 
 My people ! their oppressors are childish and women rule over them. My 
 people ! thy leaders are seducers, and the way of thy paths (the way where 
 thy path lies) they swallow up (cause to disappear, destroy). — ies is usually 
 construed in the first clause as an absolute nominative ; but by making it (as 
 Umbreit does) an exclamation, the parallelism becomes more exact. — Gese- 
 nius and Hitzig explain I'MBW as a pluralis majestaticus referring to Ahaz, 
 which is needless and arbitrary. W»5o is in the singular because it is used 
 adjectively, the predicate being often in the singular when the subject is 
 plural. (Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 144. 6. c.) Instead of thy guides Luther read sthy 
 comforters ; others, those ivho call thee happy, which is one of the meanings 
 of the Hebrew word, and was perhaps designed to be suggested here, but 
 not directly as the primary idea. The paronomasia introduced into the last 
 clause by Cocceius (qui ducunt te seducunt te), the Dutch Version (die 
 u leyden verleyden u), and Gesenius (deine Fiihrer verfiihren dich), is not 
 found in the original. 
 
 V. 13. Though human governments might be overthrown, God still 
 remained a sovereign and a judge, and is here represented as appearing, 
 coming forward, or assuming his position, not only as a judge but as an ad- 
 vocate, or rather an accuser, in both which characters he acts at once, 
 implying that he who brings this charge against his people has at the same 
 time power to condemn. Jehovah standeth up to plead, and is standing to 
 judge the nations. The first verb properly denotes a reflexive act, viz. that 
 of placing or presenting himself. The participle is used to represent the 
 scene as actually passing. The meaning of 3*n is to plead or conduct a 
 cause for another or one's self. — Some understand the last clause to mean 
 that the judge is still standing, that he has not yet taken his place upon the 
 judgment-seat. According to Clericus, it represents the case as so clear 
 that the judge decides it standing, without sitting down to hear argument or 
 evidence. But these are needless and unnatural refinements. — Vitringa 
 makes n"^ and "p*t synonymous, which is contrary to usage. — Nations here 
 as often elsewhere means the tribes of Israel. See Gen. 49 : 10. Deut. 32 : 
 8. 33: 3, 19. 1 Kings 22: 28. Mich. 1 : 2. There is no need therefore 
 of reading ia? for &*»?, as Lowth does. 
 
 V. 14. This verse describes the parties more distinctly and begins the 
 accusation. Jehovah will enter into judgment (engage in litigation, both as 
 a party and a judge) with the elders of his people (the heads of houses, 
 families and tribes) and the chiefs therof (the hereditary chiefs of Israel, 
 here and elsewhere treated as responsible representatives of the people). 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IH. 49 
 
 And ye (even ye) have consumed (he vineyard (of Jehovah, his church or 
 chosen people), the spoil of (he poor (that which is taken from him by vio- 
 lence) is in your houses. — Hendewerk regards the last clause as the lan- 
 guage of the Prophet, giving a reason why God would enter into judgment 
 with them ; but it is commonly regarded as the commencement of the 
 judge's own address, which is continued through the following verse. — The 
 particle with which the second clause begins is not equivalent to for (Vulg. 
 Lu.) or bu( (Cocc), but connects what follows with an antecedent thought 
 not expressed. It may here be rendered even, and so, or so (hen (Ges.). 
 Lowth has as for you, and the pronoun is certainly emphatic, you from whom 
 it could least have been expected, you who ought to have prevented it. — 
 Henderson thinks that vineyard is here used collectively for vineyards, and 
 that literal spoliation of the poor is the particular offence denounced, or one 
 here chosen to represent the rest. But the common opinion is more proba- 
 ble, viz. that the Prophet here uses the same metaphor which forms the ba- 
 sis of his parable in ch. 5. — The proper meaning of ^sn is the afflicted 
 from whatever cause ; but it is commonly applied to the poor. Ewald 
 translates rigidly (he sufferer's spoil (des Dulders Raub). 
 
 V. 15. The Lord's address to the elders of Israel is continued in a tone 
 of indignant expostulation. Wha( mean ye (literally wha( is (o you, equiva- 
 lent in English to what have you, i. e. what right, what reason, what mo- 
 tive, what advantage) (ha( ye crush my people (a common figure for severe 
 oppression, Job 5 : 4. Prov. 22: 22) and grind (he faces of (he poor (upon 
 the ground, by trampling on their bodies, another strong figure for con- 
 temptuous and oppressive violence), sai(h (he Lord Jehovah of Hos(s (which 
 is added to remind the accused of the sovereign authority, omniscience, and 
 omnipotence of Him by whom the charge is brought against them). — The 
 first verb does not mean merely to weaken (Cocc), bruise (Calv.), or break 
 (Vitr.), but to break in pieces, to break utterly, to crush (Lowth). — By the 
 faces of the poor some understand their persons or the poor themselves, and 
 by grinding them, reducing, attenuating, by exaction and oppression (Ges. 
 Hg. Hk. Hn.). Others refer the phrase to literal injuries of the face by 
 blows or wounds (Ew. Um.). But the simplest and most natural interpre- 
 tation is that which applies it to the act of grinding the face upon the ground 
 by trampling on the body, thus giving both the noun and verb their proper 
 meaning, and making the parallelism more exact. — The phrase at the begin- 
 ning of the verse cannot constitute an independent clause, wha( mean ye ? 
 (Barnes) but merely serves to introduce the question. # 
 
 Vs. 16, 17. The Prophet here resumes the thread which had been 
 dropped or broken at the close of v. 12, and recurs to the undue predomi- 
 
 4 
 
50 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 nance of female influence, but particularly to the prevalent excess of female 
 luxury, not only as sinful in itself, but as a chief cause of the violence and 
 social disorder previously mentioned, and therefore to be punished by disease, 
 widowhood, and shameful exposure. These two verses, like the sixth and 
 seventh, form one continued sentence, the and at the beginning of v. 17 in- 
 troducing the apodosis, for which reason, and also on account of its relation 
 to because in v. 16, its full force cannot be expressed by a literal translation. 
 And Jehovah said (in addition to what goes before, as if beginning a new 
 section of the prophecy), because the daughters of Zion (the women of Je- 
 rusalem, with special reference to those connected with the leading men) 
 are lofty (in their mien and carriage) and walk with outstretched neck (lite- 
 rally, stretched of neck, so as to seem taller), and gazing (ogling, leering, 
 looking wantonly) with their eyes, and with a tripping walk they walk, and 
 with their feet they make a tinkling (i. e. with the metallic rings or bands 
 worn around the ankles), therefore the Lord will make bald the crown of 
 the daughters of Zion, and their nakedness Jehovah will uncover (i. e. he 
 will reduce them to a state the very opposite of their present pride and 
 finery). — Jerome speaks of some who understood the daughters of Zion 
 here to mean the souls of men. Eichhorn takes it in the geographical sense 
 of smaller towns dependent on Jerusalem (Jos. 15: 45, 47. 2 Chron. 18: 
 18). But the obvious meaning is preferred by almost all interpreters! — 
 They are described as stretching out the neck, not by bending forwards, nor 
 by tossing the head backwards (Hn.) but by holding it high (Sept. viprjlcj) 
 tQax^lco), so that the phrase corresponds to lofty in the clause preceding. — 
 Above forty editions and eight manuscripts read rvrSjrtSa, deceiving, i. e. by 
 a false expression of the eyes (Cocc. mentientes oculis), or by disguising 
 them with paint (Lowth), in allusion to the very ancient fashion (2 Kings 
 9: 30) oculos circumducto nigrore fucare (Cyprian de Hab. Virg.). This 
 last sense may be put upon the common reading by deriving it from ^£to i. q. 
 Chald. i£t3 to stain or dye, which may be the ground of Luther's version, 
 with painted faces. It is commonly agreed, however, that it comes from 
 the same verb in the sense of looking, looking around, with the accessory 
 idea here suggested by the context of immodest, wanton looks. This idea 
 is expressed by the Septuagint (hv vevpaaiv dcp&cdficor), the Vulgate (vagantes 
 oculis), Gesenius (frech die Augen werfend), Ewald (schielender Augen), 
 and Henderson (ogling eyes.) — The masculine suffix in tarph'n is regarded 
 by Henderson and Knobel as containing an allusion to the unfeminine con- 
 duct of these women ; but the manner here described is rather childish than 
 masculine,- and this form is probably used as the primary one and originally 
 common to both genders. (See Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 119. 1). — The baldness 
 mentioned in the last clause is variously explained as an allusion to the shav- 
 ing of the heads of prisoners or captives (Knobel), or as a sign of mourning 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 51 
 
 (Rosenmuller) or as the effect of disease (Ges. Ew. etc.), and particularly 
 of the disease which bears a name (Lev. 13 : 2) derived from the verb here 
 used (Jun. Cocc. E. V.). Neither of these ideas is expressed, though all 
 may be implied, in the terms of the original. For the construction of 
 tftKf] ^ibn, see Gesen. Heb. Gr. § 126. 3. For that of fh| rYhWO, vide 
 supra, ch. 1 : 4. 
 
 V. 18. Although the prediction in v. 17 implies the loss of all ornaments 
 whatever, we have now a minute specification of the things to be taken away. 
 This specification had a double use ; it made the judgment threatened more 
 explicit and significant to those whom it concerned, while to others it gave 
 some idea of the length to which extravagance in dress was carried. There 
 is no need (as Ewald well observes) of supposing that all these articles were 
 ever worn at once, or that the passage was designed to be descriptive of a 
 complete dress. It is rather an enumeration of detached particulars which 
 might or might not be combined in any individual case. As in other cases 
 where a variety of detached particulars are enumerated simply by their names, 
 it is now very difficult to identify some of them. This is the less to be re- 
 gretted, as the main design of the enumeration was to show the prevalent 
 extravagance in dress, an effect not wholly dependent on an exact interpre- 
 tation of the several items. The interest of the passage, in its details, is 
 not exegetical but archaeological, in which light it has been separately and 
 elaborately discussed by learned writers, especially by Schroeder in his Com- 
 mentarius philologico-criticus de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum, ad Jesai. 3 : 
 v. 16-24, cum praefatione Alberti Schultens, Lugd. Bat. 1745. Of later 
 date, but less authority, is Hartmann's Hebraerinn am Putztische und als 
 Braut. Nothing more will be here attempted than to give what is now most 
 commonly regarded as the true meaning of the terms, with a few of the more 
 important variations in the doubtful cases. — In that day (the time appointed 
 for the judgments just denounced) the Lord will take away (literally, cause 
 to depart, from the daughters of Zion) the bravery (in the old English senso 
 of finery) of the ankle-bands (the noun from which the last verb in v. 16 fe 
 derived) and the cauls (or caps of net-work) and the crescents (or Httle 
 moons, metallic ornaments of that shape.) — Schroeder explains fc^aa to. 
 mean little suns, corresponding to the little moons which follow, and derives 
 the word as a diminutive from cSbw, with a permutation of one labial for 
 another. This explanation is adopted by Winer, Ewald and Knobel. Ac- 
 cording to Henderson, the word means (assellcd tresses, i K e. locks of hair 
 braided and hanging to the feet. 
 
 V. 19. The pendants (literally, drops, i. e. ear-rings) and the bracelets 
 (for the arm, or according to Ewald, collars for the neck, Halsbande) and the 
 
52 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 veils (the word here used denoting the peculiar oriental veil, composed of 
 two pieces hooked together below the eyes, one of which pieces is thrown 
 back over the head, while the other hides the face). The first word in the 
 verse is rendered by the English Version, chains, and in the margin, siveet- 
 balls, but more correctly by the Septuagint, xa&ena or pendant. 
 
 V. 20. The caps (or other ornamental head-dresses) and the ankle-chains 
 (connecting the ankle-bands, so as to regulate the length of the step) and 
 the girdles, and the houses (i. e. places or receptacles) of breath, (meaning 
 probably the perfume-boxes or smelling-bottles worn by the oriental women 
 at their girdles) and the amulets (the same word used above in v. 3, in the 
 sense of incantations, but which seems like the Latin fascinum to have also 
 signified the antidote). The first word of this verse is now commonly ex- 
 plained to mean turbans, but as these are distinctly mentioned afterwards, 
 this term may denote an ornamental cap, or perhaps a diadem or circlet of 
 gold or silver. (Ewald, Kronen. Eng. Vs. bonnets.) The next word is ex- 
 plained to mean bracelets by the Septuagint (\psXXia) and Ewald [Arm- 
 spangen), but by the English Version more correctly, though perhaps too 
 vaguely, ornaments of the leg. For girdles, smelling botiles, and amulets, 
 the English Version has head-bands, tablets (but in the margin, houses of 
 the soul), and ear-rings, perhaps on account of the superstitious use which 
 was sometimes made of these (Gen. 35 : 4). 
 
 V. 21. The rings, strictly signet-rings, but here put for finger-rings or 
 rings in general, and the nose-jewels, a common and very ancient ornament 
 in eastern countries, so that the version, jewels of the face, is unnecessary, 
 as well as inconsistent with the derivation from Dti, to perforate. 
 
 V. 22. The holiday-dresses, and the mantles and the robes and the 
 purses. The first word is from y\n to pull off, and is almost universally 
 explained to mean clothes that are taken off and laid aside, i. e. the best 
 suit, holiday or gala dresses, although this general expression seems misplaced 
 in an enumeration of minute details. The English version, changeable suits 
 of apparel, though ambiguous, seems intended to express the same idea. 
 The next two words, according to their etymology, denote wide and flowing 
 upper garments. The English version of the last word, Crispin g-pins, sup- 
 poses it to relate to the dressing of the hair. The same idea seems to be 
 expressed by Calvin (acus) and Cocceius (acus discriminales.) The word 
 is now commonly explained, from the Arabic analogy, to signify bags or 
 purses probably of metal. 
 
 V. 23. The mirrors and the tunics (inner garments made of linen), 
 and the turbans (the common oriental head-dress, from C]3S to wrap) and the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 veils. — The first word is explained to mean their thin transparent dresses, by 
 the SeptuaglDt (Jtuupptpy hc/xoir/.u), Kimehi, Schroeder, Rosenmulh t and 
 Ewald (der feinm Zeuge) ; but most writers understand it to denote the small 
 metallic minora carried about by oriental women. Instead of turbans (Eng. 
 Vs. hoods) Henderson supposes niB"5s to denote ribands used for binding 
 the hair or fastening the tiara. The same writer explains the veil li 
 spoken of to be the large veil covering all the other garments, and therein 
 differing from the small veil mentioned in v. 19. The same explanation is 
 given by Knobel (Ueberw iirfe) ; but other writers make an opposite dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 V. 24. The threatening is still continued, but with a change of form, 
 the things to be taken away being now contrasted with those which should 
 succeed them. And it shall be or happen (equivalent in force to then, after 
 all this) that instead of perfume (aromatic odour or the spices which afford it) 
 there shall be stench, and instead of a girdle a rope, and instead of braided 
 work baldness (or loss of hair by disease or shaving, as a sign of captivity 
 or mourning), and instead of a full robe a girding of sackcloth, burning 
 instead of beauty. The inversion of the terms in this last clause, and its 
 brevity, add greatly to the strength of the expression. — Several of the ancient 
 versions render p£ by dust (Sept. Arab. Syr.), but it strictly denotes dissolu- 
 tion, putrefaction, and is here used as the opposite of D«Ja, viz. stench, not 
 specifically that of corpses, wounds, or the disease supposed to be referred 
 to in v. 17 (Ros. Ges. Hg. Hk. Ew.),but stench in generator perhaps with 
 particular allusion to the squalor of captivity or mourning. — nap 3 is ex- 
 plained to mean a rent, rent garment, rag or rags, as signs of poverty or grief, 
 by Calvin (laceratio), Cocceius (lacerum), Lowth (rags), and Knobel (ein 
 Fetzen). But the meaning, cord or rope, given in the Septuagint (oyoiri(p 
 Zcoorj) and Vulgate (pro zona funiculus), is adopted by Clericus (funis). 
 Gesenius (einen Strick), and most modern writers. — The Septuagint explains 
 nirpr to mean a golden ornament of the head ; Vitringa a solid ornament 
 of gold, perhaps from ruap hard. It is now explained, from an Arabic 
 meaning of the same root, to denote turned work, or a shape produced by 
 turning. (See Gesen. s. v.) The cognate n$fH9 is applied to ornamental 
 work in wood or metal, but this, perhaps in derision, to the laborious braid- 
 ing of the hair, as appears from its being in antithesis to baldness. — Ewald 
 reads ^ t)b as two words, meaning the fulness or wideness (from nra to 
 open) of an ample robe (from fe^l to revolve or flow around), contrasted 
 with a tight girding of sackcloth. Gesenius makes the sense the same, but 
 regards b^ntt as a compound word denoting the full robe itself. The 
 English Version (stomacher) supposes it to be a particular ornamental part 
 of dress. — The ancient versions take *\ as a conjunction, and connect 
 
54 ISAIAH, CHAP. III. 
 
 the last clause with the next verse, ' for instead of beauty, thy men, he* 
 (Sept. Vulg.), or make it an independent clause, by treating ^nn as a verb 
 (Targ. Pesh.) ; but all the modern writers are agreed in making •»$ a noun, 
 from n;s, to burn, like ■% ^, from »n», hi*. The burning mentioned is 
 supposed to be that of the skin from long exposure, by the French Version 
 (au lieu du beau teint le hale), Clericus (adusta facies), and Lowth (a 
 sun-burnt skin.) But most interpreters understand by it a brand, here men- 
 tioned either as a stigma of captivity, or as a self-inflicted sign of mourning. 
 Hitzig gives the noun the general sense of wound or mark ; but this is un- 
 authorized, and weakens the expression. Sackcloth is mentioned as the 
 coarsest kind of cloth, and also as that usually worn by mourners. The two 
 nouns nteJJo and ntffjta are in apposition, the first denoting artificial adjust- 
 ment, the second its precise form. 
 
 V. 25. The Prophet now assigns as a reason for the grief predicted in 
 v. 24, a general slaughter of the male population, the effect of which is 
 again described in v. 26, and its extent in chap. 4:1, which belongs more 
 directly to this chapter than the next. In the verse before us, he first ad- 
 dresses Zion or Jerusalem directly, but again, as it were, turns away, and 
 in the next verse speaks of her in the third person. Thy men by the sword 
 shall fall and thy strength in war, — *t(fsvo does not mean thy common people, 
 as opposed to warriors or soldiers of distinction (Luther : dein Pobel) ; nor 
 does it simply mean thy people or inhabitants (Cocc. homines tui. Fr. Vs. 
 tes gens. Lowth, thy people) ; but thy men, i. e. thy males (Vulg. viri 
 tui. Ges. deine Manner). — The present form used by Gesenius greatly de- 
 tracts from the minatory force of the future, which is retained by Hitzig, 
 DeWette, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit. The abstract strength is resolved 
 into a concrete by the Septuagint (^la^vovieg), Vulgate, Luther, Lowth, and 
 Gesenius ; but it is better to retain the original expression, not in the mili- 
 tary sense of forces (Hg. Hn.), but as denoting that which constitutes the 
 strength of a community, its male population (Calv. robur tuum, Fr. Vs. ta 
 force. Ewald, deine Mannschaft). 
 
 V. 26. The effect of this slaughter on the community is here described, 
 .first by representing the places of chief concourse as vocal with distress, 
 and then by personifying the state or nation as a desolate widow seated on 
 the ground, a sign both of mourning and of degradation. And her gates 
 (those of Zion or Jerusalem) shall lament and mourn, and being emptied 
 (or exhausted) she shall sit upon the ground. The gates are said to mourn, 
 by a rhetorical substitution of the place of action for the agent (Hende- 
 werk), or because a place filled with cries seems itself to utter them (Kno- 
 bel). The meaning of nr j?3 (which may be either the preterite or participle 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. 55 
 
 passive of n^3 is taken in its proper sense of emptied or exhausted by Junius 
 (expurgata), Vitringa (evacuata), and Ewald (ausgeleert). This is ex- 
 plained to mean emptied of her strength, i. e. weakened, by Hendewerk 
 (entkr ftet), emptied of her people, i. e. solitary, desolate, by the Vulgate 
 (desolata), the English Version (desolate), Gesenius (verodet), Hitzig 
 (einsam) etc. The reference of this word to her former condition seems 
 peculiar to Clericus (quae munda erat). She is described not as lying (Calv. 
 Cler.), but sitting on the ground, as on one of Vespasian's coins a woman is 
 represented, in a sitting posture, leaning against a palm-tree, with the legend 
 Judaea Capta. 
 
 Ch. 4: v. 1. The paucity of males in the community, resulting from 
 this general slaughter, is now expressed by a lively figure representing seven 
 women as earnestly soliciting one man in marriage, and that on the most 
 disadvantageous terms, renouncing the support to which they were by law 
 entitled. And in thai day (then, after the judgments just predicted) seven 
 women, (i. e. several, this number being often used indefinitely) shall lay 
 hold of one man (earnestly accost him), saying, we will eat our own bread 
 and wear our own apparel, only let thy name be called upon us (an idiomatic 
 phrase meaning let us be called by thy name, let us be recognized as thine), 
 take thou away our reproach, the 'reproach of widowhood' (Isai. 54: 4), 
 or celibacy, or rather that of childlessness which they imply, and which was 
 regarded with particular aversion by the Jews before the time of Christ. — 
 This verse appears to have been severed from its natural connexion in ac- 
 cordance with an ancient notion that the one man was Christ, and the seven 
 women, souls believing on him. This view of the passage may indeed have 
 been either the cause or the effect of the usual division and arrangement of 
 the text. Some writers think that the Prophet intended to present an accu- 
 mulation of strange things, in order to show the changed condition of the 
 people ; women forsaking their natural modesty, soliciting marriage, with 
 violent importunity, in undue proportion, and on the most disadvantageous 
 terms. But the more probable opinion is the common one, that he simply 
 meant to set forth by a lively figure the disproportion between the sexes in- 
 troduced by a destructive war. Instead of our own bread, our own clothe , 
 Cocceius would simply read our bread, our clothes, and understand the 
 clause as a promise of domestic diligence. The common interpretation 
 agrees better with the other circumstances and expressions of the verse and 
 context. Luther gives ^bx a subjunctive form, that our reproach may be 
 taken from us. The English Version and Henderson make it an infinitive, 
 to take away; Barnes a participle, taking aicay ; but the imperative con- 
 struction, which is given in the margin of the English Bible, and preferred 
 by almost all translators, ancient and modern, agrees best with the absence 
 
56 ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. 
 
 of a preposition, and adds to the vivacity of the address. To this verse 
 Calvin cites a beautiful parallel from Lucan, which is copied by Grotius, 
 and credited to him by later writers — 
 
 Da tantum nomen inane 
 Connubii : liceat tumulo scripsisse Catonis 
 Marcia. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Besides the first verse, which has been explained already, this chapter 
 contains a prophecy of Christ and of the future condition of the Church. 
 The Prophet here recurs to the theme with which the prophecy opened, 
 (ch. 2: 1—4), but with this distinction, that instead of dwelling on the in- 
 fluence exerted by the church upon the world, he here exhibits its internal 
 condition under the reign of the Messiah. 
 
 He first presents to view the person by whose agency the church is to 
 be brought into a glorious and happy state, and who is here described as a 
 partaker both of the divine and human nature, v. 2. He then describes 
 the character of those who are predestined to share in the promised exalta- 
 tion, v. 3. He then shows the necessity, implied in these promises, of 
 previous purgation from the defilement described in the foregoing chapters, 
 v. 4. When this purgation is effected, God will manifest his presence 
 gloriously throughout his church, v. 5. To these promises of purity and 
 honour he now adds one of protection and security, with which the prophecy 
 concludes, v. 6. 
 
 It is commonly agreed that this prediction has been only partially ful- 
 filled, and that its complete fulfilment is to be expected, not in the literal 
 Mount Zion or Jerusalem, but in those various assemblies or societies of 
 true believers, which now possess in common the privileges once exclusively 
 enjoyed by the Holy City and the chosen race of which it was the centre 
 and metropolis. 
 
 V. 2. At this point the Prophet passes from the tone of threatening to 
 that of promise. Having foretold a general destruction, he now intimates 
 that some should escape it, and be rendered glorious and happy by the 
 presence and favour of the Son of God, who is at the same time the Son of 
 Man. In that day (after this destruction) shall the Branch (or Offspring) 
 of Jehovah be for honour and for glory, and the Fruit of the Earth for 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. 57 
 
 sublimity and beauty, to the escaped of Israel, literally, the escape or deliv- 
 erance of Israel, the abstract being used for the collective concrete, meaning 
 those who should survive these judgments.— -b mm may be taken either in 
 the sense of being for, serving as, or in that of becoming, as in ch. 1: 14, 
 21, 22, 31. — As max, in its physical and proper sense, means growth, vege- 
 tation, or that which grows and vegetates (Gen. 19: 25. Ps. 65: 11. Hos. 
 8: 7. Ezek. 16: 7), it is here explained by Hitzig, Maurer and Ewald, as 
 synonymous with fruit of the earth, but in its lowest sense, that of vege- 
 table products or abundant harvests. To this interpretation, which is 
 adopted by Gesenius in his Thesaurus, it may be objected, first, that such a 
 subject is wholly incongruous with the predicates applied to it, honourable, 
 glorious, sublime and beautiful ; secondly, that this explanation of rnas is 
 precluded by the addition of the name Jehovah, a difficulty aggravated by 
 the parallelism, which requires the relation between branch and Jehovah to 
 be the same as that between fruit and earth, and as the last phrase means 
 the offspring of the earth, so the first must mean the offspring of Jehovah, 
 an expression which can only be applied to persons. This last objection 
 applies also to the explanation of the phrase as meaning spiritual gifts in 
 opposition to temporal or earthly gifts (Calv. Jun. Schleusner). It does not 
 lie against that proposed by Grotius, and adopted by J. D. Michaelis, 
 Koppe and Eichhorn, by Gesenius in his Commentary, and more recently 
 by Knobel, which applies the phrase to the better race of Israelites who were 
 to spring up after the return from exile. But although the sense thus put 
 upon the word is personal it is not individual, as in every other case where 
 hex is used figuratively elsewhere, but collective. Another objection to it is, 
 that this better race of Israelites are the very persons here called the escaped 
 of Israel, who would then be described as a beauty and a glory to them- 
 selves. Knobel evades this objection by denying that the last words of the 
 verse have any connexion with the first clause ; but his evasion is an arbi- 
 trary one, suggested by the difficulty which attends his doctrine. — The first 
 of these objections applies also to Hendewerk's interpretation of the phrase 
 as meaning the government or administration, (das regierende Personale 
 des Staates). — The usage of the Hebrew word in application to an individual 
 will be clear from the following examples. " Behold the days come, saith 
 the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall 
 reign and prosper" (Jer. 23: 5). "In those days and at that time will I 
 cause the branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall 
 execute judgment" (Jer. 33 : 15). Behold I will bring forth my servant the 
 Branch" (Zech. 3: 8). "Behold the man whose name is the branch" 
 (Zech. 6: 12). The Branch is here represented as a man, a king, a 
 righteous judge, a servant of God. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that 
 the same person, whom Jeremiah calls the branch (or son) of David, is 
 
58 ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. 
 
 called by Isaiah in the verse before us the branch (or son) of Jehovah. 
 This view of the passage is strongly recommended by the following consid- 
 erations. It is free from the difficulties which attend all others. It is the 
 ancient Jewish interpretation found in the Chaldee Paraphrase, which ex- 
 plains the Branch of Jehovah as meaning his Messiah, (**% RTvq&e). The 
 parallel passages already quoted are referred to the Messiah even by Gesenius, 
 who only hesitates to make the same admission here, because he thinks the 
 parallel phrase, fruit of the earth, cannot be so applied. But no expres- 
 sion could in fact be more appropriate, whether it be translated fruit of the 
 land and referred to his Jewish extraction (Hengstenberg), or fruit of the 
 earth and referred to his human nature (Vitr. Hn.). On the latter suppo- 
 sition, which appears more probable, the parallel terms correspond exactly to 
 the two parts of Paul's description (Rom. 1 : 3, 4), and to the two titles 
 used in the New Testament in reference to Christ's two natures, Son of 
 God and Son of Man. 
 
 V. 3. Having foretold the happiness and honour which the Son of God 
 should one day confer upon his people, the Prophet now explains to whom 
 the promise was intended to apply. In the preceding verse they were 
 described by their condition as survivors of God's desolating judgments. In 
 this they are described by their moral character, and by their eternal desti- 
 nation to this character and that which follows it. — And it shall be, happen, 
 come to pass, that the left in Zion and the spared in Jerusalem, singular 
 forms with a collective application, shall be called holy, literally, holy shall 
 be said to him, i. e. this name shall be used in addressing him, or rather may 
 be used with truth, implying that the persons so called should be what they 
 seemed to be, every one written, enrolled, ordained, to life, in Jerusalem. — 
 The omission of n^y (Lu. Ges. De W. Ew. Hn.) is a needless departure 
 from the idiomatic form of the original. The expression may be paraphrased, 
 and this shall be the consequence or this shall follow, preparing the mind 
 for an event of moment. As tiWn may be either a plural adjective or 
 abstract noun, some understand the phrase to mean enrolled among the living 
 (Lu. Calv. Cler. E. V. Low. Bs.), others enrolled to life (Jun. Cocc. Vitr. 
 J. H.Mich. J. D. Mich. Ges. Hg. De W. Ew. Urn. Hn.). In either case 
 the figure denotes not simply actual life but destination to it. For the origin 
 and usage of the figure itself, see Ex. 30: 12. Num. 1 : 18. Ezek. 13 : 9. 
 Phil. 4 : 3. Rev. 3 : 5. 
 
 V. 4. This verse contains a previous condition of the promise in v. 3, 
 which could not be fulfilled until the church was purged from the pollution 
 brought upon it by the sins of those luxurious women and of the people 
 generally, a work which could be effected only by the convincing and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. 59 
 
 avenging influences of the Holy Spirit. The construction is continued from 
 the verse preceding. All this shall come to pass, if, (provided that, on this 
 condition, which idea may he here expressed by when) the Lord shall have 
 washed away (the Hebrew word denoting specially the washing of the body, 
 and suggesting the idea of the legal ablutions) the filth (a very strong term, 
 transferred from physical to moral defilement) of the daughters of Zion 
 (the women before mentioned), and the blood (literally bloods, i. e. blood- 
 shed or blood-guiltiness) of Jerusalem (i. e. of the people in general), by a 
 spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning, i. e. by the judgment and burn- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit, with a twofold allusion to the purifying and destroy- 
 ing energy of fire, or rather to its purifying by destroying, purging the whole 
 by the destruction of a part, and thereby manifesting the divine justice as 
 an active principle. The daughters of Zion are by some understood to be 
 the other towns of Judah (Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg, Umbreit), the objec- 
 tion to which is not its unpoetical character (Gesenius), but its disagreement 
 both with the immediate connexion and with the use of the same terms in 
 ch. 3 : 16. Others understand by daughters the inhabitants in general 
 (Sept. sons and daughters), or the female inhabitants regarded as mothers 
 and as forming the character of their children (Hendewerk). But it is 
 natural that in closing his prediction the Prophet should recur to those 
 luxurious women, to whose influence much of the disorder and oppression 
 which prevailed may have been owing. He then makes a transition from 
 particular to general expressions. The idea does not seem to be, the 
 uncleanness of the women and the blood-guiltiness of the men (Hk. Hn.), or 
 the uncleanness and blood-guiltiness both of men and women (Kn.), but the 
 uncleanness of the women and the blood-guiltiness of the people generally. — 
 IWi does not mean to remove (Cler. Low. Bs.), nor to drive out (Lu. Urn.), 
 nor to extirpate (Ges. Hg. Hk. Ew.), nor to expiate (Calv.), but simply 
 to wash or purge out (Sept. Vulg. Cocc. E. V. Hn.), the verb being specially 
 applied to the washing of the altar and sacrifices (2 Chr. 4 : 6. Ezek. 40 : 
 38). Two of these senses are combined by J. H. Michaelis (lavando eje- 
 cerit). — The word spirit cannot be regarded as pleonastic or simply emphatic 
 (Hn.) without affording license to a like interpretation in all other cases. 
 It is variously explained here as meaning breath (Hg. Urn.), word (Targ. 
 Jon. T*i x"!*:^:;), and power or influence (Ges. Hengstenberg, Bs., etc.). 
 But since this is the term used in the New Testament to designate that 
 person of the Godhead, whom the Scriptures uniformly represent as the 
 executor of the divine purposes, and since this sense is perfectly appropriate 
 here, the safest and most satisfactory interpretation is that which understands 
 by it a personal spirit, or as Luther expresses it, the Spirit who shall judge 
 and burn. Even Ewald adopts the same interpretation upon grounds, as it 
 would seem, entirely philological. Calvin supposes spirit of burning and 
 
60 ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. 
 
 of judgment to be equivalent in meaning to the burning and judgment of the 
 Spirit. He also gives the preposition its primary meaning, as do the Seventy 
 (iv nvevfiari), in (i.e. in the person of) the Spirit. The common explana- 
 tion is by (i. e. by means of) or through (i. e. through the intervention of) 
 the Spirit. — The translation of "nsa by consumption or extermination (Cocc. 
 Ges. Hg. De W. Hk. Urn.) is neither so precise nor so poetical as that by 
 burning (Sept. Pesh. Vulg. Lu. Calv. E. V. Low. Bs. Ew.).— J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis translates this clause, by the righteous zeal of the tribunals and by a 
 destructive wind! 
 
 V. 5. The church is not only to be purified by God's judgments, but 
 glorified by his manifested presence, and in that state of glory kept secure 
 by his protection. The presence of God is here denoted by the ancient 
 symbol of a fiery cloud, and is promised to the church in its whole extent and 
 to its several assemblies, as distinguished from the one indivisible congrega- 
 tion, and its one exclusive place of meeting, under the old economy. And 
 Jehovah will create (implying the exercise of almighty power and the pro- 
 duction of a new effect) over the whole extent (literally, place or space) of 
 Mount Zion (in its widest and most spiritual sense, as appears from what 
 follows), and over her assemblies, a cloud by day and smoke (i. e. a cloud 
 of smoke), and the brightness of a flaming fi re by night ; for over all the 
 glory (previously promised, there shall be) a covering (or shelter). — Most 
 of the modern versions make this the apodosis of a sentence beginning with 
 v. 4, ' When the Lord shall have washed, etc., then will Jehovah create/ 
 etc. (Cler. Low. Ges. Bs. Hn. Um. Kn.) But although this is grammatical 
 and leaves the general sense unchanged, the absence of the 1 at the begin- 
 ning of v. 4, and its insertion here, seem to show that v. 4 is itself the apo- 
 dosis of a sentence beginning with v. 3, and that a new one begins here 
 (Calv. Cocc. Vitr. J. D. Mich. E. V. Hg. De W. Hk. Ew.). The present 
 tense (Ges. De W. Ew. Um.) is not so well suited to the context as the 
 future (Hg. Hk. etc.). The older writers give |is» the sense of dwelling- 
 place ; but the modern lexicographers explain it to mean place in general. 
 •paa ba may be rendered either whole place or every place without a change 
 of sense (vide supra, ch. 1 : 5. 3 : 1). The two appearances described in 
 this verse are those presented by a fire at different times, a smoke by day 
 and a flame by night. There is no need therefore of explaining }ti9 to 
 mean vapour (Knobel), or of connecting it with what follows (Sept. Vitr. 
 Cler. Hitzig. Hengstenberg) in violation of the Masoretic accents. — The 
 meaning of the promise is the same whether lywpjo be explained to mean 
 her assemblies (Low. Hengst. Ew. Um. Kn.) or her places of assembly (Lu. 
 J. D. Mich. Ges. Hn.) ; but the former is the sense most agreeable to usage. 
 — Lowth omits ^= before yoa on the authority of eight manuscripts, and in- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IV. T>1 
 
 sorts it before Miopia on the authority of one manuscript and the Septuagmt. 
 More than forty manuscripts and nearly fifty editions read mop©, and 
 almost all interpreters explain it as a plural. — In the last clause *? has its 
 usual meaning and not that of yea (Low.), which (Hn.),or so thai (Kn.). — 
 Clericus, J. D. Michaelis, and Lee (Heb. Lex. s. v. mpm) make Ti3| the 
 subject of the last clause, * over all, glory shall be a defence,' which is 
 wholly inconsistent with the Masoretic pointing. Instead of over Kocher 
 reads above, i. e. superior to all former glory, a construction which is given 
 in the Clmldee Paraphrase, yq fVP (more than). Some regard this as the 
 statement of a general fact, l over every thing glorious there is protection/ 
 i. e. men are accustomed to protect what they value highly (Vitr. Ros. 
 Hengst. Ew.) ; but the great majority of writers understand it as a prophecy 
 or promise. — nsn is construed as a passive verb, it is or shall be covered, 
 by the Septuagint (n-AEnaa\>i t <sejai), Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel. But as this 
 is a harsh construction, and as the Pual of hbm does not occur elsewhere, it 
 is better, with Ewald, Umbreit, Hengstenberg, and the older writers, to 
 explain it as a noun derived from tftft, and agreeing with the verb is or shall 
 be understood, or, as Hitzig and Hendewerk suppose, with the same verb in 
 the first clause of the next verse, ' For over all the glory a covering and 
 shelter there shall be.' The sense is not affected by this last construction, 
 but such a change in the division of the text can be justified only by 
 necessity. 
 
 V. 6. The promise- of refuge and protection is repeated or continued 
 under the figure of a shelter from heat and rain, natural emblems for distress 
 and danger. And there shall be a shelter, (properly a booth or covert of 
 leaves and branches, to serve) for a shadow by day (as a protection) from heat, 
 and for a covert and for a hiding-place from storm and from rain. — Instead 
 of making mso the subject of the sentence (E. V. De W. Hn. Urn.), some 
 regard it as the predicate referring to a subject understood. He, i. e. God, 
 shall be a shelter, etc. (Ges. Bs.). It, the cloud or the protection, shall be 
 a shelter, etc. (Low. Hg.). — That M3D means the tabernacle or temple, 
 which it never does elsewhere, is a notion peculiar to Clericus. — Q^t is not 
 a whirlwind (Vulg.) or a hail-storm (J. D. Mich.), but an inundation (Jun. 
 Cler. J. H. Mich.), i. e. a flood of rain, a pouring, driving rain (Luther, 
 Wetter. Gesenius, Ungewitter). 
 
62 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 This chapter contains a description of the prevalent iniquities of Judah 7 
 and of the judgments which, in consequence of these, had been or were to 
 be inflicted on the people. The form of the prophecy is peculiar, consisting 
 of a parable and a commentary on it. 
 
 The prophet first delivers his whole message in a parabolic form, vs. 1— 
 7. He then explains and amplifies it at great length, vs. 8-30. 
 
 The parable sets forth the peculiar privileges, obligations, guilt, and 
 doom of Israel, under the figure of a highly favoured vineyard which, instead 
 of good fruit, brings forth only wild grapes, and is therefore given up to 
 desolation, vs. l-<6\ The application is expressly made by the Prophet 
 himself, v. 7. 
 
 In the remainder of the chapter, he enumerates the sins which were 
 included in the general expressions of v. 7, and describes their punishment. 
 In doing this, he first gives a catalogue of sins with their appropriate punish- 
 ments annexed, vs. 8-24. He then describes the means used to inflict them, 
 and the final issue, vs. 25-30. 
 
 The catalogue of sins and judgments comprehends two series of woes or 
 denunciations. In the first, each sin is followed by its punishment, vs. 8— 
 17. In the second, the sins follow one another in uninterrupted succession, 
 and the punishment is reserved until the close, vs. 18-24. 
 
 In the former series, the first woe is uttered against avaricious and ambi- 
 tious grasping after lands and houses, to be punished by sterility and deso- 
 lation, vs. 8-10. The second woe is uttered against drunkenness, untimely 
 mirth, and disregard of providential warnings, appropriately punished by 
 captivity, hunger, thirst, and general mortality, vs. 11-14. To these two 
 woes are added a general declaration of their purpose and effect, to humble 
 man and exalt God, and a repeated threatening of general desolation as a 
 punishment of both the sins just mentioned, vs. 15-17. 
 
 The sins denounced in the second series of woes are presumptuous and 
 incredulous defiance of God's judgments, the deliberate confounding of moral 
 distinctions, undue reliance upon human wisdom, and drunkenness considered 
 as a vice of judges, and as causing the perversion of justice, vs. 18-23. To 
 these he adds a general threatening of destruction as a necessary consequence 
 of their forsaking God, v. 24. 
 
 In declaring the means used to effect this condign retribution, the 
 Prophet sets before us two distinct stages or degrees of punishment. The 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 63 
 
 first, which is briefly and figuratively represented as a violent and destructive 
 stroke of God's hand, is described as ineffectual, v. 25. To complete the 
 work, another is provided, in the shape of an invading enemy, before whom, 
 after a brief fluctuation, Israel disappears in total darkness, vs. 26-30. 
 
 In its general design and subject, this prophecy resembles those which 
 go before it ; but it differs remarkably from both in holding up to view ex- 
 clusively the dark side of the picture, the guilt and doom of the ungodly 
 Jews, without the cheering contrast of purgation and deliverance to be ex- 
 perienced from the same events by the true Israel, the Church of God. This 
 omission, which of course must be supplied from other prophecies, is by 
 Hitzig incorrectly represented as a reason for regarding this as the conclusion 
 of the one preceding, to confirm which supposition he appeals to certain verbal 
 coincidences, particularly that between v. 15 and ch. 2 : 9, 17. But these, 
 and the more general resemblance of the chapters, can only prove at most 
 what must be true on any hypothesis, to wit, that the prophecies relate to the 
 same subject and belong to the same period. A similar coincidence between 
 v. 25 and ch. 9 : 11, 16, 20. 10:4, has led Ewald to interpolate the whole of 
 that passage (from ch. 9 : 5 to ch. 10:4) between the twenty-fifth and twenty- 
 sixth verses of this chapter ; as if the same form of expression could not be 
 employed by the same author upon different occasions, and as if such a 
 treatment of the text did not open the door to boundless license of conjec- 
 ture. With still less semblance of a reason, Hendewerk connects this chap- 
 ter with the first nine verses of the seventh and the whole of the seventeenth, 
 as making up one prophecy. The old opinion, still retained by Gesenius, 
 Henderson, Umbreit, and Knobel, is that this chapter, if not an independent 
 prophecy, is at least a distinct appendix to the one preceding, with which h 
 is connected, not only in the way already mentioned, but also by the seem- 
 ing allusion in the first verse to ch. 3 : 14, where the Church of God is 
 called his vineyard, a comparison which reappears in other parts of Scrip- 
 ture, and is carried out in several of our Saviour's parables. 
 
 This chapter, like the first, is applicable not to one event exclusively, 
 but to a sequence of events which was repeated more than once, although 
 its terms were never fully realized until the closing period of the Jewish his- 
 tory, after the true Messiah was rejected, when one ray of hope was quench- 
 ed after another, until all grew dark for ever in the skies of Israel. 
 
 V. 1. The parable is given in vs. 1-6, and applied in v. 7. It is intro- 
 duced in such a manner as to secure a favourable hearing from those whose 
 conduct it condemns, and in some measure to conceal its drift until the appli- 
 cation. The Prophet proposes to sing a song, i. e. to utter a rhythmical 
 and figurative narrative, relating to a friend of his, his friend's own song 
 indeed about his vineyard. In the last clause he describes the situation of 
 
64 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 the vineyard, its favourable exposure and productive soil. I will sing, if you 
 please (or let me sing, I pray you), of my friend (i. e. concerning him), my 
 friend's song of his vineyard (i. e. concerning it). My friend had a vine- 
 yard in a hill of great fertility (literally in a horn, a son of fatness, ac- 
 cording to the oriental idiom which applies the terms of human kindred to 
 relations of every kind.) — The common version, now will I sing, seems to 
 take to as an adverb of time, whereas it is a particle of entreaty, used to 
 soften the expression of a purpose, and to give a tone of mildness and cour- 
 tesy to the address. — Sing and song are used, as with us, in reference to 
 poetry, without implying actual musical performance. — Calvin's translation, 
 (for my beloved, i. e. in his name, his person, his behalf) is at variance with 
 the usage of the particle. Grotius's (to my beloved) is inappropriate, as the 
 friend is not addressed, and this is not a song of praise. Maurer's (of my 
 beloved, i. e. belonging to him, like wb a Psalm of David) is a form only 
 used in titles or inscriptions. The h has doubtless the same sense before 
 this word as before his vineyard. Knobel supposes song of my friend also 
 to denote a song respecting him, because he is not introduced as speaking 
 till v. 3. But for that very reason, it is first called a song concerning him, 
 and then his own song. — The cognate words WJJ and *yta are referred by 
 some to different subjects ; but their identity is plain from the possession of 
 the vineyard being ascribed to both. — The Vulgate and Luther give to thi 
 its usual sense of uncle, and Cocceius applies it to the Holy Spirit, which is 
 altogether arbitrary. It seems to be joined with TWJ to vary the expression 
 of the same idea, that of friend, the unusual terms being used not mystically 
 but poetically. The Prophet must be understood as speaking of a human 
 friend, until he explains himself. — Umbreit makes "j^ govern the next phrase ; 
 on the projection (Vorsprung) of a fat place ; but the latter is in that case 
 too indefinite. — Clericus supposes an allusion to a horn of oil, Vitringa to 
 the curved shape of the Holy Land ; but most interpreters agree that horn 
 is here used, as in various other languages, for the sharp peak of a mountain 
 (e. g. Schreckhom and Wetterhorn in Switzerland) or, as in Arabic, for a 
 detached hill. — The preposition does not properly mean on but in, implying 
 that the vineyard only occupied a part, and that this was not the summit, 
 but the acclivity exposed to the sun, which is the best situation for a vine- 
 yard. (Apertos Bacchus amat colles. Virg. Georg. 2: 112.) 
 
 V. 2. Not only was the vineyard favourably situated, but assiduously 
 tilled, protected from intrusion, and provided with every thing that seemed 
 to be needed to secure an abundant vintage. And he digged it up, and 
 gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with Sorek, mentioned else- 
 where (Jer. 2: 21) as the choicest kind of vine, which either gave or owed 
 its name to the valley of Sorek (Judg. 16. 4), and built a tower in the midst 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 65 
 
 of it, partly for protection from men and beasts, and partly for the pleasure 
 and convenience of the owner, and also a wine-vat, to receive the juice from 
 the wine-press immediately above, he hewed in it, i. e. in a rock (or hewed 
 may be simply used for excavated in the ground, a common situation in hot 
 countries for the laciis, reservoir, or wine- vat), and he waited for it, i. e. he 
 allowed it time, to make, produce, bear, bring forth, grapes, and it produced 
 wild grapes. — Instead of he waited for it, Umbreit reads he hoped, Lowth, 
 Barnes, and Henderson, he expected, and the authorized version, he looked, 
 in the old English sense. But the first translation, which is that of the 
 Septuagint (tfieire), is entitled to the preference, because it conveys the full 
 sense of the Hebrew word without creating any difficulty in the subsequent 
 application of the figure. — J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, and Rosenmuller take 
 = n rx2 in the sense of aconite or nighJ|^de ; a plant which does not grow 
 in Palestine. Most modern writers aj^ove the version of Jerome, labrusca, 
 the labrusca vitis of Pliny, and labrusca uva of Columella, an acrid and 
 unwholesome grape, contrasted with the good grape by Sedulius (1 : 29) 
 precisely as the two are here contrasted by Isaiah : 
 
 Labruscam placidis quid adhuc praeponitis uvis? 
 
 For he digged it up and gathered out the stones thereof the Septuagint has 
 he hedged it and walled it, both which senses may be reconciled with ety- 
 mology, although rejected by the modern lexicographers. The question is 
 of no exegetical importance, as the words in either case denote appropriate 
 and necessary acts for the culture or protection of the vineyard. 
 
 V. 3. Having described the advantageous situation, soil, and culture of 
 the vineyard, and its failure to produce good fruit, he submits the case to 
 the decision of his hearers. And now, not merely in a temporal but a logical 
 sense, * this being the case,' oh inhabitant of Jerusalem and man of Judah, 
 the singular form adding greatly to the individuality and life of the expres- 
 sion, judge I pray you, pray decide or act as arbiters, between me and my vine- 
 yard. — To suppose, with Calvin and others, that the people are here called 
 upon directly to condemn themselves because their guilt was so apparent, is to 
 mar the beauty of the parable by a premature application of its figures. They 
 are rather called upon to judge between a stranger and his vineyard, simply as 
 such, unaware that they are thereby passing judgment on themselves. The 
 meaning and design of the appeal are perfectly illustrated by that which Christ 
 makes (Matt. 21: 40) in a parable analogous to this and founded on it. There 
 as here the audience are called upon to judge in a case which they regard as 
 foreign to their own, if not fictitious, and it is only after their decision that 
 they are made to see its bearing on themselves. So too in Nathan's parable 
 to David (2 Sam. 12 : 1), it was not till " David's anger was greatly kin- 
 
 5 
 
66 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 died against the man," i. e. the stranger of whom he understood the Prophet 
 to be speaking, that " Nathan said to David, Thou art the man." A dis- 
 regard of these analogies impairs both the moral force and the poetical 
 unity and beauty of the apologue. The same thing may be said of the 
 attempt made by the Chaldee Paraphrast, Cocceius, Vitringa, and most 
 recently by Umbreit, to put a specific figurative sense on each part of the 
 parable, the wall, the tower, the hedge, etc. which is not more reasonable 
 here than it would be in explaining Esop's fables. The parable, as a whole, 
 corresponds to its subject as a whole, but all the particulars included in the 
 one are not separately intended to denote particulars included in the other. 
 A lion may be a striking emblem of a hero ; but it does not follow that the 
 mane, claws, etc. of the beast must all be significant of something in the 
 man. Nay, they cannot even be^ypposed to be so, without sensibly 
 
 y^f 
 
 detracting from the force and beauty^F the image as a whole. 
 
 V. 4. This verse shows that the parable is not yet complete, and that 
 its application would be premature. Having called upon the Jews to act as 
 umpires, he now submits a specific question for their arbitration. What to 
 do more (i. e. what more is there to be done) to my vineyard and I have not 
 (or in the English idiom, that I have not) done in it (not only to or for but 
 in it, with reference to the place as well as the object of the action) 1 Why 
 did I wait for it to bear grapes and it bore wild grapes 1 — Calvin and 
 Gesenius supply was instead of is in the first clause, what was there to do 
 more, i. e. what more was there to be done, or was I bound to do ? But 
 this, though grammatically unexceptionable, does not agree so well with the 
 connexion between this verse and the next, as a question and answer. Still 
 less exact is the English Version (followed by Lowth, Barnes, and Hender- 
 son), what more could have been donel The question whether God had 
 done all that he could for the Jews, when the Scriptures were still incom- 
 plete and Christ had not yet come, however easy of solution, is a question 
 here irrelevant, because it has relation not to something in the text but to 
 something supplied by the interpreter, and that not only without necessity 
 but in violation of the context ; for the next verse is not an answer to the 
 question what God could have done but what he shall or will do. The 
 most simple, exact, and satisfactory translation of this first clause is that 
 given by Cocceius (quid faciendum amplius vinae meae) and Ewald (was 
 ist noch meinem Weinberge zu thun ?) — In the last clause Calvin under- 
 stands the owner of the vineyard to express surprise at his own unreasonable 
 expectations. Why did I expect it (i. e. how could I expect it) to bear 
 grapes 1 This construction not only raises a new difficulty in the applica- 
 tion of the words to God, but is inconsistent with the context, the whole 
 drift of which is to show that the expectation was a reasonable one. The in- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 67 
 
 terrogation really belongs to the second member only, the first being merely 
 introductory, or rather to the whole clause as a complex sentence. ' Why, 
 when I waited for it to bear grapes, did it bear wild grapes ?' As other 
 examples of the same construction, Knobel refers to ch. 12: 1. 50: 2, and 
 to Job 2: 10. 4: 2.3: 11. 
 
 V. 5. He now proceeds to answer his own question, in a tone of pun- 
 gent irony, almost amounting to a sarcasm. The reply which might naturally 
 have been looked for was a statement of some new care, some neglected 
 precaution, some untried mode of culture ; but instead of this he threatens 
 to destroy the vineyard, as the only expedient remaining. The rhetorical 
 effect of this sudden turn in the discourse is heightened by the very form of 
 the last clause, in which the simple future, as the natural expression of a 
 purpose, is exchanged for the infinitive, denoting the bare action without 
 specification of person, time, or number. And now (since you cannot tell) 
 I will let you know if you please (or let me tell you) what I am doing to 
 . my vineyard (i. e. according to the idiomatic use of the participle, what I 
 am about to do, suggesting the idea of a proximate futurity), remove its hedge 
 and it shall become a pasture (literally, a consuming, but with special refer- 
 ence to cattle), break down its wall, and it shall become a trampling-place 
 (i. e. it shall be overrun and trampled down). — Remove and break are not 
 imperatives but infinitives, equivalent in meaning to I will remove and break, 
 but more concise and rapid in expression. Cocceius and Vitringa suppose 
 an ellipsis of the finite verb after the infinitive, ' removing I will remove/ 
 ■ breaking down I will break down.' This construction, in its full form, is 
 extremely common ; but against the supposition of its ever being elliptically 
 used, there is this objection, that the repetition is designed to be emphatic, 
 an effect which is entirely destroyed by the omission. Knobel supposes 
 that the thorn hedge and stone wall, which are separately mentioned else- 
 where, are here put together to denote a more than ordinary care bestowed 
 on the ideal vineyard. The more common opinion is that both were actually 
 used in the same case with a view to different kinds of depredation. — Os*ie 
 is a noun of place formed in the usual manner (Ges. Heb. Gr. § 83. 14) from 
 the verb OoS, which occurs in ch. 1 : 12. — On the sense become (instead of 
 be for) vide supra, ch. 1 : 14, 21, 22, 31. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 V. 6. To the threatening of exposure he now adds that of desolation 
 arising from neglect of culture, while the last clause contains a beautiful 
 though almost imperceptible transition from the apologue to the reality. By 
 adding to the other threats, which any human vine-dresser might have rea- 
 sonably uttered, one which only God could execute, the parable at one 
 stroke is brought to a conclusion, and the mind prepared for the ensuing 
 
68 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 application. And I place it (render it) a desolation. It shall not be pruned 
 and it shall not be dressed, and there shall come up thorns and briers. And 
 I will lay my commands upon the clouds from raining rain upon it, i. e. that 
 they rain no rain upon it. The addition of the noun rain is emphatic and 
 equivalent to any rain at all. — The English Version lay waste is perhaps 
 too strong for the original expression, which rather signifies the letting it run 
 to waste by mere exposure and neglect. — The older versions take trf* in 
 the sense of digging (Sept. Vulg. Luther, Calv.), but the latest writers 
 prefer that of dressing, arranging, putting in order. — Gesenius and Ewald 
 follow Cocceius in referring f&9 to the vineyard as its subject ; it shall 
 come up thorns and briers, as the eye is said to run down water (Lam. 3 : 
 48), and a land to flow milk and honey (Exod. 3:8). The construction, 
 though undoubtedly good Hebrew, is not so obvious as the old and common 
 one. To command from or away from is to deter from any act by a com- 
 mand, in other words to forbid or to command not to do the thing in question. 
 In this sense only can the preposition from be said to have a negative meaning. 
 
 V. 7. The startling menace at the close of the sixth verse would 
 naturally prompt the question, Who is this that assumes power over 
 clouds and rain, and what is the vineyard which he thus denounces ? To 
 this tacit question we have here the answer. As if he had said, do not 
 wonder that the owner of the vineyard* should thus speak, for the vine- 
 yard of Jehovah of Hosts is the House of Israel, the church, considered 
 as a whole, and the man of Judah is the plant of his pleasures, or his 
 favourite plant. And he waited for judgment, practical justice, as in 
 ch. 1.: 17, and behold bloodshed, for righteousness and behold a cry, either 
 -outcry and disturbance, or more specifically the cry of the oppressed, 
 which last is more agreeable to usage, and at the same time more poetical 
 and graphic. — The n s at the beginning has been variously rendered 
 but (Lu. Ges. Hendew. Umbr.), to wit (Hitz.), certainly (Calvin), etc. 
 But the true connexion of the verse with that before it not only admits but 
 requires the strict sense, for, because, as given in the ancient versions, and 
 retained by Cocceius, Ewald, and Knobel. — J. D. Michaelis and all the 
 later Germans follow Pagninus and Montanus in translating 5M3 plantation. 
 But the word is unambiguously used in that sense nowhere else, and it does 
 not agree well with the singular term man. It is true that plant and man 
 may be put for a collection of plants and men, but this should not affect the 
 strict translation of the sentence. — The paronomasia or designed correspond- 
 ence in the form and sound of the parallel expressions in the last clause has 
 "been copied by Augusti, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel. But, as 
 Hendewerk has well observed, such imitations can even approximate to the 
 form of the original, only by departing more or less from the strict sense of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 69 
 
 particular expressions, a loss which can hardly be considered as made 
 good by the mem assonance of such combinations as GerechiigJceit and 
 Schlechtigkeit, Begl'uckung and Bedruckung, Milde and Unbilde. 
 
 V. 8. Here begins a detailed specification of the sins included in the 
 general expressions of v. 7. We have first two woes pronounced against as 
 many sins, each followed by a threatening of appropriate punishment, and 
 a general threatening which applies to both, vs. 8-17. The first sin thus 
 denounced is that of ambitious and avaricious grasping after property, not 
 merely in opposition to the peculiar institutions of the law, but to the funda- 
 mental principles of morals, connected as it always is with a neglect of char- 
 itable duties and a willingness to sacrifice the good of others. The verse 
 before us may be understood, however, as descriptive rather of the tendency 
 and aim of this ambitious grasping, than of its actual effects. Woe to the 
 joiners of house with house, or those making house touch house, field to 
 field they bring together, literally, cause them to approach, even to a failure 
 (or defect) of place, i. e. until there is no room left, and ye, by a sudden 
 apostrophe addressing those of whom he had been speaking, are made (or 
 left) to dwell by yourselves in the midst of the land, owning all from the 
 centre to the circumference, or simply within its bounds, within it. The 
 translation earth is equally agreeable to usage, and expresses still more 
 strongly the extent of their desires ; but land is more natural and preferred 
 by almost all interpreters. Ewald regards ^in as a simple exclamation (O 
 die Haus reihen an Haus !) But this translation is inadequate, as an ex- 
 pression of denunciation is required by the context. 
 
 V. 9. The inordinate desire of lands and houses shall be punished with 
 the loss of them, vs. 9, 1 0. And first, he threatens that the valuable houses 
 which they coveted, and gained by fraud or violence, shall one day be left 
 empty, an event implying the death, captivity, or degradation of their own- 
 ers. In my ears Jehovah of Hosts is saying, as if his voice were still ring- 
 ing in the Prophet's ears, of a truth (literally, if not, being part of an old 
 formula of swearing, ' may it be so and so if,' etc ; so that the negative 
 form conveys the strongest affirmation, surely, certainly)^many houses shall 
 become a desolation, great and good, for want of an inhabitant. — The Sep- 
 tuagint and Vulgate, followed by Luther, Calvin and J. D. Michaelis, make 
 in my ears the words of God himself, as if he had said ( these things are in * 
 my ears,' or ■ it (the cry, v. 7) is in my ears, saith Jehovah of Hosts.' But 
 most modern writers follow the Targum and Peshito in construing thi> 
 clause according to the analogy of ch. 22 : 14 (' in my ears it was revealed b) 
 Jehovah of Hosts,' or 'Jehovah of Hosts revealed himself.') — The common 
 version, shall be desolate, does not convey the whole idea, which is that of be- 
 
70 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 coming, being changed into (vide supra, v. 6), and is so rendered in most ver- 
 sions. — The sense usually given to d**a1b is the specific one of fair or beautiful 
 (Henderson, fine ; Barnes, splendid). But Cocceius and Vitringa take it more 
 correctly in the general sense of good, including the ideas of profit and conve- 
 nience, as well as that of elegance or beauty. — By most interpreters "psta in the 
 last clause is regarded as a synonyme or at most as an intensive form of "ps, 
 f wholly without inhabitant.' But the causative meaning, ' for the want of,' 
 ' from the absence of,' "p$ being properly a noun, affords a better sense here, 
 as explaining how or why the houses should be desolate, and may be justi- 
 fied by the analogy of Jer. 19: 1 1. (J. D. Michaelis, ' because there will 
 be no one to inhabit them.) Clericus, Vitringa and Hendewerk explain it 
 to mean so that there shall not be, but without authority from usage. — Hen- 
 derson's version of the foregoing words, the numerous houses, the large and 
 fine ones, and that of Gesenius from which it is derived, seem to lay too 
 much stress upon the adjectives. — On the form if not, compare ch. 14 : 24. 
 Deut. 1: 35. Ps. 131: 2. 
 
 V. 10. As the sin related both to lands and houses, so both are men- 
 tioned in denouncing punishment. The desolation of the houses was in fact 
 to arise from the unproductiveness of the lands. Ruinous failure of crops^, 
 and a near approach to absolute sterility are threatened as a condign punish- 
 ment of those who added field to field and house to house. The meaning 
 of this verse depends not on the absolute value of the measures men- 
 tioned, but on their proportions. The last clause threatens that the seed 
 sown, instead of being multiplied, should be reduced nine-tenths ; and a sim- 
 ilar idea is no doubt expressed by the analogous terms of the preceding 
 clause. For ten acres (literally yokes, like the Latin jugerum from jugum) 
 of vineyard shall make (produce) one bath, a liquid measure here put for a 
 very small quantity of wine to be yielded by so large a quantity of land, and 
 the seed of a homer, i. e. seed to the amount of a homer, or in our idiom, a 
 homer of seed, shall produce an ephah, a dry measure equal to the liquid 
 bath, and constituting one tenth of a homer, as we learn from Ezek. 45 : 11 
 -14. The English Version, followed by Lowth, translates *3 yea, while 
 Clericus and Ges^iius omit it altogether. But the particle is necessary, 
 in its usual sense, to connect this verse with the prediction in v. 9, of which 
 it gives the ground or reason. 
 
 V. .11. The second woe is uttered against drunkenness and heartless 
 dissipation, with its usual accompaniment of inattention to God's providen- 
 tial dealings, and is connected with captivity, hunger, thirst, general mor- 
 tality, as its appropriate punishment, vs. 11-14. The description of the 
 sin is contained in vs. 11, 12, and first that of drunkenness, considered not 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 71 
 
 as an occasional excess, but as a daily business, diligently prosecuted with 
 a devotion such as would ensure success in any laudable or lawful occupa- 
 tion. Woe to those rising early in the morning to pursue strong drink (lit- 
 erally, strong drink they pursue), delaying in the twilight (until) wine in- 
 flames them. — That ::: does not here mean the morning twilight, but as 
 usual the dusk of evening (Prov. 7 : 9), is plain from the preposition in pre- 
 fixed. The idea of continuing till night (Vulg. Calv. Eng. Vs.) is rather 
 implied than expressed. The allusion is not so much to the disgracefulness 
 of drinking in the morning (Knobel, Henderson) as to their spending day 
 and night in drinking, rising early and sitting up late. Before wine in the 
 last clause the older writers supply and (Pesh. J. D. Mich.), while (Calv. 
 Vitr.), or so that (Vulg. Lu. Cocc. Low. Ros.). Gesenius avoids this by a 
 paraphrase (' sit late at night by wine inflamed '), and Ewald treats the par- 
 ticiples in both clauses as adverbial expressions used to qualify the finite 
 verb (' they who early in the morning run after strong drink, late in 
 the evening are inflamed by wine'). The precise construction of the 
 Hebrew may be thus retained — ' those who, rising early in the morning, 
 pursue strong drink ; those whom, delaying in the evening, wine inflames.' 
 The same application of Of»*ing« occurs in the parallel passage, Prov. 23 : 
 29-32. Strong drink differs from wine only by including all intoxicating 
 liquors, and is here used simply as a parallel expression. — The waste of 
 time here censured is professed and gloried in by the convivial poets of 
 heathen antiquity. Thus Horace says of himself, 
 
 Est qui nee veteris pocula Massici, 
 Nee partem solido demere de die, 
 Spernit. 
 
 The nocturnal part of the prophetic picture is still more exactly copied 
 by Propertius, 
 
 Sic noctem patera, sic ducam carmine, donee 
 Injiciat radios in mea vina dies. 
 
 Illustrative parallels from modern poetry are needless though abundant. 
 
 V. 12. This verse completes the picture begun in v. 11, by adding riot- 
 ous mirth to drunkenness. To express this idea, music is joined with wine 
 as the source of their social enjoyment, but the last clause shows that it is 
 not mere gayety, nor even the excess of it, that is here intended to be prom- 
 inently set forth, but the folly and wickedness of merriment at certain times 
 and under certain circumstances, especially amidst impending judgments. 
 The general idea of music is expressed by naming several instruments be- 
 longing to the three great classes of stringed, wind, and pulsatile. The 
 precise form and use of each cannot be ascertained, and is of no importance 
 to the meaning of the sentence. And the harp and the viol, the tabret 
 
72 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 (tambourine or small drum) and the pipe (or flute), and wine (compose) 
 their feasts ; and the work of Jehovah they will not look at (or regard), and 
 the operation of his hands they have not seen, and do not see. — The Targum 
 supplies a preposition before the first nouns and makes feasts the subject of 
 the sentence : c With harp and viol, tabret and pipe, and wine, are their 
 feasts.' The Septuagint and Peshito, ' with harp, etc., they drink their 
 wine/ The Vulgate supplies the preposition before feasts, and makes the 
 other nouns the subject — ' Harp and viol, &ic, are in your feasts.' Gesenius 
 gives the same sense, but supposes crpntsiJTa to be used adverbially as in Ara- 
 bic. Cocceius, Ewald, Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Henderson, make 
 it the nominative after the substantive verb understood. c Harp and viol, 
 tabret and pipe, and wine, are their feasts,' in these consist their social enter- 
 tainments. Umbreit and Knobel separate the last two words from what 
 precedes and read, c there is harp and viol, tabret and pipe, and wine is their 
 drink.' The general sense is not at all affected by these questions of con- 
 struction. According to Ewald (Heb. Gr. <§> 379), with whom Hitzig and 
 Umbreit agree, on^niso is not a plural, but the form which nb derivatives 
 take, even in the singular, before certain suffixes. The work of Jehovah 
 here alluded to is not that of creation (Umbreit) nor the law (Abarbenel) 
 nor the design and use of providential favours (Calvin), but his dealings with 
 the people in the way of judgment. Compare ch. 10: 12. 22: 11. 28: 21. 
 Hab. 1:5. 3:2. Ps. 64 : 9, and especially Ps. 28 : 5, from which the ex- 
 pressions here used seem to be taken. 
 
 V. 13. Here again the sin is directly followed by its condign punishment, 
 drunkenness and disregard of providential warnings by captivity, hunger, 
 thirst, and general mortality, vs. 13, 14. But instead of the language of 
 direct prediction (as in vs. 9, 1 0) the Prophet here employs that of descrip- 
 tion. Therefore (for the reasons given in the two preceding verses) my 
 people has gone into exile (or captivity) for want of knowledge (a wilful 
 ignorance of God's providential work and operation), and their glory (lite- 
 rally his, referring to the singular noun people) are men of hunger (i. e. fam- 
 ished), and their multitude dry (parched) with thirst. J. D. Michaelis under- 
 stands captivity as a figurative term for misery, as in Job 42 : 10. Ps. 14 : 7. 
 But the context seems to require the literal interpretation. — Luther, Gesenius, 
 and Hendewerk take nba as a future, which is not to be assumed without 
 
 T T ' 
 
 necessity. Most recent writers evade the difficulty by rendering it in the 
 present tense. The only natural construction is the old one (Sept. Vulg. 
 Calv. Vitr. Barnes) which gives the preterite its proper meaning, and either 
 supposes the future to be here, as often elsewhere, spoken of as if already 
 past (J. H. Michaelis), or understands the verse as referring to judgments 
 which had been already suffered, not at at one time merely, but on various 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 73 
 
 occasions, as if he had said ' this is the true cause of the captivity, the hunger 
 and the thirst, to which Israel has so often been subjected. ' The allusion 
 cannot be to the deportation of the ten tribes, who are never called God's 
 people. — Because he knoweth not, they know not, and 1 knew not, are phra- 
 ses sometimes used where we say unawares or suddenly (e. g. Ps. 35 : 8. 
 Sol. Song 6: 12. Job 9:5), Luther so understands. nsv^sra here, in which 
 he is followed by J. D. Mich. Ros. Ges. Ew. Hendew. Henders. Hitz. 
 Umbr. But as this phrase is not so used elsewhere, and in Hos. 4 : 6 means 
 for ivant of knowledge, as the cause of ruin, this exact and ancient version 
 is correctly retained by Lowth, DeWette, Maurer and Knobel. — By Trias 
 and itf&n some understand the same class of persons, viz. the rich and noble 
 (Vitr. Ges. Ew.). Others suppose an antithesis between the nobility and the 
 populace (Luther, Lowth, Umbreit). Either of these verbal explanations is 
 consistent with the import of the threatening as explained already ; but the 
 most probable interpretation seems to be that of Knobel, who supposes the 
 multitude or mass of the inhabitants, without regard to rank, to be called the 
 flower or glory of the country, as Goldsmith calls the peasantry " a nation's 
 pride." For ■«« men, J. D. Michaelis and Lowth read *tvq dead, on the 
 authority of the Septuagint, Targum, Peshito, and Luther. Hitzig and Ewald 
 read *$q or fits: exhausted, after the analogy of Deut. 32 : 24. But the 
 common reading yields a perfectly good sense, not however that of nobles in 
 hunger (Vitr. nobiles fame) but simply that of hungry men, or starvelings 
 as Henderson expresses it. 
 
 V. 14. As the effect of the preceding judgments, the Prophet now 
 describes a general mortality, under the figure of the grave, as a ravenous 
 monster, gaping to devour the thoughtless revellers. Here, as in v. 13, he 
 seems to be speaking of events already past. Therefore (because famine 
 and captivity have thus prevailed) the grave has enlarged herself and opened 
 her mouth without measure, and down goes her pomp and her noise and her 
 crowd and he that rejoices in her. — It is equally correct, although not 
 perhaps so natural, to regard " ( 3"^? as a correlative of "ph in v. 13, both 
 relating to the sins described in v. 12, as the occasion of the strokes in ques- 
 tion. — The noun VixttJ is derived by Gesenius from a verb ^ati, which he 
 supposes to have been synonymous with Vsir to be hollow. Hence the noun 
 would mean an excavation and in particular a grave, which same sense 
 is deduced by the older writers from bxd to ask or crave (Prov. 30: 15, 
 16. Hab. 2:5). The sense of the term here corresponds almost exactly 
 to the poetical use of grave in English, as denoting one great receptacle, 
 to which the graves of individuals may be conceived as inlets. It is thus 
 that we speak of a voice from the grave, without referring to the burial- 
 place of any individual. The German Holle (originally Hohle, hollow) and 
 
"74 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 the old English Hell, correspond almost exactly to the Hebrew word ; but 
 the idea of a place of torment, which is included in their present meaning, is 
 derived from the peculiar use of adrjg (the nearest Greek equivalent) in the 
 book of Revelation, and belongs to the Hebrew word only by implication 
 and in certain connexions. It seems to be a needless violation of good taste 
 to introduce the Greek word Hades (Lowth), especially if treated as a femi- 
 nine noun (Barnes). For additional remarks upon the usage of the Hebrew 
 word, see ch. 1 4 : 9. — As the same phrase here used is applied by Habakkuk 
 (2 : 5) to Nebuchadnezzar, " who enlarged his desire as the grave, and was 
 like death, and could not be satisfied," most of the modern writers take ttSfiS 
 here in the sense of appetite, either strictly (Ewald) or as a figure for the 
 craving maw of a devouring monster (Gesenius). Grotius takes it's a as a 
 reflexive pronoun, for which there is no distinct form in Hebrew, and by the 
 grave's enlarging itself understands a poetical description of an extraordinary 
 number of dead bodies. — The English Version, following the Vulgate, con- 
 nects TT* with RS, which is forbidden by the accents and by the usage of the 
 verb and preposition. — As the suffix in wsfia must refer to biswj, the simplest 
 construction is that of Hitzig, who refers the other pronouns to the same 
 antecedent, her pomp (i. e. the grave's), her crowd, her noise, so called 
 because they were to have an end in her, as men doomed to die are called 
 men of death, 2 Sam. 19: 29. By tna \\% he understands the man exulting 
 over her, laughing at the grave and setting death at defiance (compare ch. 
 28 : 15). This construction is approved by Hendewerk, but rejected by the 
 other recent interpreters for the old one, which refers the pronouns to 
 Jerusalem or Zion understood. — The words rendered pomp, crowd, and 
 noise, are as variously explained as those in v. 13 ; but all agree that they 
 refer to the voluptuous revellers described in v. 12. 
 
 V. 15. To the description of the punishment the Prophet now adds that 
 of its design and ultimate effect, to wit, the humiliation of man and the 
 exaltation of God, vs. 15, 16. The former is here foretold in terms almost 
 identical with those of ch. 2 : 9. And man is brought low and man is cast 
 down and the eyes of the lofty (or haughty) are cast down. — Most of the 
 older writers render all the verbs of this verse in the future, but Junius, Coc- 
 ceius, and the moderns in the present. The Vav conversive probably denotes 
 nothing more than the dependence of the first two verbs on those of the 
 preceding verse, as expressive of a subsequent and consequent event. If so, 
 the sense, though not the form, of the original is well expressed by Luther, 
 so that every man is humbled, he. That the verse at least includes a refer- 
 ence to the future, is ^elear from the future form of the third verb ; and that 
 this is not in contrast with the past time of the first clause, may be inferred 
 from the resumption of the latter form in v. 16. In a case so dubious, the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 75 
 
 present form maybe preferred, as really including both the others, or at 
 least consistent with them. — On the use of i^x and d*ix, see ch. 2 : 9. Lu- 
 ther, who there supposes an antithesis between the terms, here translates 
 them both by every man. The only difference between the two interpreta- 
 tions, with respect to the import of the Prophet's declaration, is that in the 
 one case he distinctly mentions two great classes as the subjects of humilia- 
 tion, while in the other he confounds them all together. In either case the 
 sense is that the pride of man shall be brought low. " Let a man be ever 
 so high, death will bring him low ; ever so mean, death will bring him 
 lower." (Matthew Henry.) 
 
 V. 16. The same events which humble man exalt God, not by contrast 
 merely, but by the positive exhibition of his attributes. And Jehovah of 
 Hosts is exalted in judgment (in the exercise of justice), and the Mighty, the 
 Holy One, is sanctified (shown to be a Holy God) in righteousness. — Most 
 of the earlier and later writers follow the Vulgate in rendering niii^n ^>xri 
 simply the Holy God. But the accentuation seems to indicate a more 
 emphatic sense. The English version follows Calvin, and reads God who is 
 holy. Lowth follows Luther, God the Holy One. But as bx is itself a 
 significant title, it seems best to regard the two epithets as summing up the 
 natural and moral perfections of the Deity. So Vitringa (Deus ille fortis, 
 sanctus ille) and Junius (Deus sanctus fortissimus). — Hitzig gives irips a 
 reflexive meaning (sanctifies himself) which, although admissible, is needless 
 and not favoured by the parallelism. — In judgment and in righteousness are 
 used precisely in the same sense, ch. 1 : 27. With respect to the tense of 
 the verbs, see the foreo-oino; verse. 
 
 V. 17. Having paused, as it were, to show the ultimate effect of these 
 judgments, he now completes the description of the judgments themselves, 
 by predicting the conversion of the lands possessed by the ungodly Jews into 
 a vast pasture-ground, occupied only by the flocks of wandering shepherds 
 from the neighbouring deserts. And lambs shall feed as (in) their pasture, 
 and the wastes of the fat ones shall sojourners (temporary occupants) devour. 
 The explanation of this verse as a promise, that the lambs or righteous should 
 succeed to the possessions of the fat ones or wealthy sinners (Targ. Jar. 
 Kim. Calv. Jun. Cocc. Vitr.) is scarcely consistent with the context, which 
 contains an unbroken series of threatenings. The modern interpreters, who 
 follow Aben Ezra in making this a threatening likewise, apply it either figu- 
 ratively to the subjection of the Holy Land to the Gentiles (Gill) or the 
 entrance of the poor on the possessions of the rich (Hendewerk), or literally 
 to the desolation of the land itself (J. D. Mich. Lowth, &c). — Gesenius 
 refers the last clause to tillage, and supposes it to mean that strangers shall 
 
76 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 reap the crops of the forsaken lands ; but the common interpretation is more 
 natural, which makes both clauses have respect to pasturage. — Most writers 
 make D^a a synonyme of o**tt strangers ; but Cocceius treats it as an adjec- 
 tive agreeing with Batons, < and strange lambs shall devour/ &c. Hitzig 
 construes it still more strictly as a participle, ' and devour wandering the 
 wastes/ &c. But the verb should then be taken in its usual sense of 
 sojourning, residing for a time, in reference either to the shepherds or their 
 sheep. — The Vulgate explains Bf«m| nirnn to mean fat wastes, i. e. deserts 
 become fertile (deserta in ubertatem versa) ; the French version, deserts 
 where the flocks grew fat ; Clericus, still more strangely, the flocks them- 
 selves which fed in the desert, and should therefore be devoured by strangers, 
 while the lambs were led as usual to pasture by their Babylonian captors. 
 J. D. Michaelis takes HfaPJlJ in the sense of ruins, here put for that which 
 grows among them ; but the word no doubt means waste fields, as in Jer. 
 25: 11. Ezek. 25: 13. Hitzig supposes b" 1 ^ to denote fat sheep or rams, 
 as in the only other place where it occurs (Ps. 66 : 15) ; but most interpre- 
 ters regard it as a figure for the rich and prosperous, like ■piK-^itth Ps. 22 : 
 30 (compare twyiiatfia Ps. 78: 31). — The phrase 0^^ has been variously 
 explained to mean as it was said to them (Targ.), juxta ductum suum i. e. 
 without restraint (J. H. Mich. Lowth), according to their order i. e. their 
 usual order (Vulg.), as they are driven (Aben Ezra, J. D. Mich.). 
 But the modern interpreters take "fito here and Micah 2 : 12 in the sense of 
 pasture. — The conjectural emendation of the text by changing d'nji into fci^o 
 (Cappellus, Bauer) or d*hs (Durell, Seeker, Lowth, Ewald) is of course 
 superfluous. 
 
 V. 18. The series of woes is now resumed and continued without any 
 interruption, vs. 18-23. Even the description of the punishment, instead 
 of being added directly to that of the sin, as in vs. 9 and 13, is postponed 
 until the catalogue of sins is closed, and then subjoined in a general form, v. 
 24. This verse contains the third woe, having reference to presumptuous 
 sinners who defy God's judgments. They are here represented not as 
 drawn away by sin (James 1 : 14), but as laboriously drawing it to them by 
 soliciting temptation, drawing it out by obstinate persistency in evil and 
 contempt of divine threatenings. Woe to the drawers of iniquity (those 
 drawing, those who draw it) with cords of vanity, and sin (a parallel expres- 
 sion to iniquity) as (or as with) a cart-rope, i. e. a strong rope, implying 
 difficulty and exertion. — The interpretation which supposes iniquity and sin 
 to mean calamity and punishment (Menochius, Gesenius, Ewald, Hendewerk, 
 Henderson), although it seems to make the sentence clearer, impairs its 
 strength, and takes the words in an unusual and doubtful sense. Knobel 
 objects that men cannot be said to draw sin with cords of sin. But even 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 77 
 
 this figure is perfectly consistent both with reason and experience. Or 
 vanity may be taken in the sense of falsehood or sophistical reasoning by 
 which men persuade themselves to sin (Calv. Vitr. Cler.). The Targum, 
 followed by Jarchi, supposes an antithesis between the beginnings of sin and 
 its later stages, slight cords and cart-ropes. But this confounds the sin itself 
 with the instrument by which they draw it ; and the same objection lies 
 against the Syriac and Vulgate versions, which make drawing out, protract- 
 ing, the primary idea, and also against Houbigant's and Lowth's interpreta- 
 tion, which supposes an allusion to the process of rope-making. Luther's 
 idea that the verse relates to combination among wicked men, ' who bind 
 themselves together' to do mischief, is at variance with the usage of the 
 Hebrew verb. — The true interpretation of the verse, which supposes the act 
 described to be that of laboriously drawing sin to one's self, perhaps with 
 the accessory idea of drawing it out .by perseverance, is substantially given by 
 Kimchi, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Maurer, and Umbreit. — The vari- 
 ous readings, hOT3 for mnra (Bib. Soncin., 14 MSS.), 'tana for *Vana (1 MS., 
 Sept. Aq. Sym. Theod.), and nbis for fibs:? (Olshausen, Observ. Crit. p. 8., 
 Henderson ad loc), are all unnecessary and inferior to the common text. 
 
 V. 19. The degree of their presumption and depravity is now evinced 
 by a citation of their language with respect to God's threatened judgments, 
 an ironical expression of impatience to behold them, and an implied refusal 
 to believe without experience. The sentence is continued from the verse 
 preceding, and further describes the sinners there denounced, as the ones 
 saying (those who say), let him speed, let him hasten his work (his provi- 
 dential work, as in v. 12), that we may see, and let the counsel (providential 
 plan or purpose) of the Holy One of Israel (which, in the mouth of 
 these blasphemers, seems to be a taunting irony) draw nigh and come, and 
 we will know (i. e. according to the Hebrew idiom and the parallel expres- 
 sion) that we may know w*hat it is, or that it is a real purpose, and that he 
 is able to accomplish it. (Compare Jer. 17 : 15. Amos 5 : 18. 6 : 13. 
 Isai. 30: 10, 11. 28: 15. 2 Peter 3: 4.) — The intransitive construction of 
 the first clause, ' let him speed, let his work make haste ' (Hitzig, Ewald, 
 Umbreit), may be justified by usage, and makes the clauses more exactly 
 parallel ; but the other is preferred, by almost all interpreters, ancient and 
 modern. — Henderson explains this verse as " the only construction which 
 could be put upon the conduct of the wicked Jews ;" but the reference 
 seems to be to actual expression of the wish in words, and not in action 
 merely. — For the form ttaosn, see Gesenius, Heb. Gr. § 48. 3. 
 
 V. 20. The fourth woe is against those who subvert moral distinctions 
 and confound good and evil, an 'idea expressed first in literal terms and then 
 
78 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 by two obvious and intelligible figures* Woe unto the (persons) saying 
 (those who say) to evil good and to good evil, (who address them by these 
 titles or call them so), putting darkness for light and light for darkness, 
 putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. These are here combined, 
 not merely as natural opposites, but also as common figures for truth and 
 falsehood, right and wrong. See ch. 2 : 5. Prov. 2 : 13. Ec. 2 : 13. James 
 3:11. A kindred figure is employed by Juvenal (qui nigrum in Candida 
 vertunt. Sat. 3:3). Gesenius and Hitzig apply this verse particularly to 
 unrighteous judges, who are mentioned in v. 23 ; but a more general sense 
 is here required by the context. 
 
 V. 21. Here, as in the foregoing verse, one sin follows another without 
 any intervening description of punishment. This arrangement may imply a 
 very intimate connection between the sins thus brought into juxtaposition. 
 As presumptuous sin, such as vs. 18, 19 describe, implies a perversion of the 
 moral sense, such as v. 20 describes, so the latter may be said to presuppose 
 an undue reliance upon human reason, which is elsewhere contrasted with 
 the fear of God (Prov. 3:7), and is indeed incompatible with it. Woe unto 
 the wise in their eyes (i. e. their own eyes, which cannot be otherwise ex- 
 pressed in Hebrew) and before their own faces (in their own sight or estima- 
 tion) prudent, intelligent, a synonyme of wise. The sin reproved, as Calvin 
 well observes, is not mere frivolous self-conceit, but that delusive estimate of 
 human wisdom (fallax sapientiae spectrum) which may coexist with modesty 
 of manners and a high degree of real intellectual merit, but which must be 
 abjured, not only on account of its effects, but also as involving the worst 
 form of pride. 
 
 V. 22. The sixth woe, like the second, is directed against drunkards, 
 but with special reference to drunken judges, vs. 22, 23. The tone of this 
 verse is sarcastic, from its using term's which commonly express not only 
 strength but courage and heroic spirit, in application to exploits of drunken- 
 ness. There may indeed be a particular allusion to a species of fool-hardi- 
 ness and brutal ambition not uncommon in our own times, leading men to 
 show the vigour of their frames by mad excess, and to seek eminence in this 
 way no less eagerly than superior spirits seek true glory. Of such it may 
 indeed be said, their god is their belly and they glory in their shame. Woe 
 to the mighty men or heroes, (who are heroes only) to drink wine, and men 
 of strength to mingle strong drink, i. e. according to the usual interpreta- 
 tion, to mix wine with spices, thereby making it more stimulating and 
 exciting, a practice spoken of by Pliny and other ancient writers. (See 
 also Sol. Song 8 : 2.) Hitzig (with whom Hendewerk agrees on this point) 
 denies that this was an oriental usage, and understands the Prophet as refer- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 19 
 
 ling to the mixture of wine with water. But see Gesenius's Thesaurus, p. 
 808. In either case the mixing is here mentioned only as a customary act 
 in the offering or drinking ofliquors, just as making tea might be mentioned 
 as a common act of modern hospitality, whatever part of the preparatory 
 process the phrase may properly denote. 
 
 V. 23. The absence of the interjection shows that this is a continuation 
 of the woe begun in the preceding verse, and thus explains the Prophet's 
 recurrence to a sin which he had denounced already (vs. 11, 12) as pro- 
 ductive of general inconsideration, but which he now describes as leading to 
 injustice, and therefore as a vice peculiarly disgraceful in a magistrate. 
 The effect here ascribed to drunkenness is not merely that of incapacitating 
 judges for the discharge of their official functions, but that of tempting them 
 to make a trade of justice, with a view to the indulgence of this appetite. 
 Justifying (i. e. acquitting, clearing, a forensic term) the guilty (not simply 
 the wicked in a general sense, but the wrong-doer in a judicial sense) for 
 the sake (literally as the result) of a bribe, and the righteousness of the right- 
 eous (i. e. the right of the innocent or injured party, or his character as such) 
 they will take from him (i.e. they do and will do so still). The transition 
 from the plural to the singular in this clause, and from the participle to the 
 future, are familiar idioms of Hebrew syntax. The pronoun at the end may 
 be understood either collectively or distributively, from each of them, (See 
 Gesen. Heb. Gr. <§> 143. 4.) 
 
 V. 24. To the series of sins enumerated in the six preceding verses 
 there is now added a general description of their punishment. In the first 
 clause, the Prophet represents the divine visitation, with its sudden, rapid, 
 irresistible effect, by the familiar figure of chaff and dry grass sinking in the 
 flames. In the second clause he passes from simile to metaphor, and speaks 
 of the people as a tree whose root is rotten and its growth above ground 
 pulverized. In the third, he drops both figures, and in literal expressions 
 summarily states the cause of their destruction. Therefore (because of the 
 abounding of these sins) as a tongue of fire (i. e. a flame, so called from its 
 shape and motion, Acts 2 : 3. 1 Kings 18: 38) devours chaff (or stubble). 
 and as ignited grass falls away, their root shall be as rottenness, and their 
 blossom as fine dust shall go up (i. e. be taken up and scattered by the 
 wind). For they have rejected the law of Jehovah of Hosts, and the word 
 (the revealed will) of the Holy one of Israel they have treated with con- 
 tempt. — Montanus explains no-^ as a transitive verb (glumam debilitat), 
 and the English Version (followed by Lowth and August!) goes still further 
 by giving it the sense of consuming, which it never has. Calvin, followed 
 by Vitringa, makes it passive and renders !"cnb as an ablative (a flarama 
 
80 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 dissolvitur). Gesenius, in his version, gives the verb its usual intransitive or 
 neuter sense, but supplies a preposition before the noun, or takes it as a noun 
 of place (in der Flamme zusammensinkt). In his Lexicon, however, he 
 adopts the construction first proposed by Cocceius, which supposes the two 
 words to be in regimen, and to mean literally grass of flame i. e. flaming or 
 ignited grass. — J. D. Michaelis endeavours to identify the figures of the 
 first and second clause by reading ashes instead of rottenness ; but such 
 transitions are too common to excite surprise. — The Septuagint renders rn* 
 av&og, the Vulgate germen, and others variously bud, blossom, flower, etc. 
 It seems to be intended to express whatever could here be put in antithesis 
 to root, as in the proverbial phrase root and branch, denoting the whole tree, 
 above ground and below. — For the true sense of the last verb in this verse, 
 see ch. 1 : 4. Its use in this connexion is a strong proof that it cannot 
 mean provoke, although the Seventy so translate it even here. — The collo- 
 cation of the subject and the object in the first clause is unusual. See 
 Ewald's Heb. Gr. § 555. For the syntax of the infinitive and future in the 
 same clause, see Gesen. <§> 129. Rem. 2. 
 
 V. 25. Having declared in the foregoing verse what should be, he re- 
 calls to mind what has already been. As if he had said, God will visit you 
 for these things ; nay, he has done so already, but without reclaiming you 
 or satisfying his own justice, for which purpose further strokes are still re- 
 quired. The previous inflictions here referred to are described as a stroke 
 from Jehovah's outstretched hand, so violent as to shake the mountains, and 
 so destructive as to fill the streets with corpses. — Therefore (referring to 
 the last clause of v. 24) the anger of Jehovah has burned against his people 
 (literally in them i. e. in the very midst of them as a consuming fire), and he 
 stretched forth his hand against them (literally him, referring to the singular 
 noun people), and smote them, and the mountains trembled, and their carcass 
 put collectively for corpses) was like sweeping (refuse, filth) in the midst of 
 the streets. In all this (i. e. even after all this, or notwithstanding all this) 
 his anger has not turned back (abandoned its object, or regarded it as already 
 gained), and still his hand is stretched out (to inflict new judgments). — The 
 future form given to the verbs by Clericus is altogether arbitrary. Most of 
 the later writers follow Luther in translating them as presents. But if this 
 verse is not descriptive of the past, as distinguished from the present and the 
 future, the Hebrew language is incapable of making any such distinction. 
 This natural meaning of the language (which no modern version except 
 Ewald's fully expresses) is confirmed by the last clause, which evidently 
 introduces something posterior to what is here described. It is not neces- 
 sary to suppose, although it is most probable, that what is here described 
 had actually taken place before the Prophet wrote. In this, as in some 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 81 
 
 other cases, he may be supposed to take his stand between I nearer and a 
 more remote futurity, the former being then of comae described t. — 
 
 The trembling of the mountains is referred by Hendewerk to the earthquake 
 
 mentioned Amos 1 : 1. Zech. 14 : 5. Jarchi explains it of the fall of kii 
 and princes. Junius makes the Prophet say that if such strokes had fallen 
 upon mountains they ivould have trembled. — J. D. Michaelis supposes what 
 is said of the dead bodies to be applicable only to a pestilence. It is most 
 probable, however, that these strong expressions were intended simply to 
 convey the idea of violent commotion and a general mortality. There is no 
 need of referring what is said exclusively to evils suffered in the days of 
 Joash and Amaziah (Junius) or in those of Ahaz (Vitringa), since the 
 Prophet evidently means to say that all preceding judgments had been insuf- 
 ficient and that more were still required. — The act expressed by nd is not 
 so much that of turning away as that of turning back or ceasing to pursue. 
 (See Hengstenberg on Ps. 9 : 4. 18.) Saadias and Kimchi derive IHTiBQ 
 from noa to cut or tear, in which they are followed by Calvin (mutilum) 
 Junius (succisum), and the English version (torn). But all the ancient ver- 
 sions and most modern ones make 3 a preposition, and the best lexicographers 
 derive the noun from mo to sweep. — In the midst of the streets may be 
 taken strictly to denote in the middle (Calvin: in medio viarum), or more 
 indefinitely in, within. Vide supra, v. 8. 
 
 V. 26. The former stroke having been insufficient, a more effectual 
 one is now impending, in predicting which the Prophet does not confine him- 
 self to figurative language, but presents the approaching judgment in its pro- 
 per form, as the invasion and ultimate subjection of the country by a formida- 
 ble enemy, vs. 26-30. In this verse he describes the approach of these 
 invaders as invited by Jehovah, to express which idea he employs two figures 
 not uncommon in prophecy, that of a signal-pole or flag, and that of a hiss or 
 whistle, in obedience to which the last clause represents the enemy as rapidly 
 advancing. And he raises a signal to the nations from afar, and hisses (or 
 whistles) for him from the ends of the earth ; and behold in haste, swift, 
 he shall come. — Here, as in v. 25, the older writers understand the verbs as 
 futures, but the later ones as presents. The verbs in the last clause have 
 Vav prefixed, but its conversive power commonly depends upon a future verb 
 preceding, which is wanting here. These verbs appear to form a link be- 
 tween the past time of v. 25 and the unambiguous future at the end of this. 
 First, he smote them, but without effect. Then, he raises a signal and 
 whistles. Lastly, the enemy thus summoned will come swiftly. — The sin- 
 gular suffix in ft has been variously explained as referring to the king whose 
 subjects had been previously mentioned (Targ. Jon.), or to the army as a 
 whole, which had been just described as gentiles, heathen (Knobel, Hitzig.) or 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 to the ruling power under whose banners the other nations fought (Vitr. 
 Hendewerk), or simply to one of the nations previously mentioned (Ges. 
 Umbr.) — The nation meant has been also variously explained to be the 
 Romans (Theodoret : tovg 'Pcofiawvg dia tovtcov Jr/|«), the Babylonians 
 (Clericus), and the Assyrians (Ges. Ew. etc.) But this very disagreement, 
 or rather the indefinite expressions which occasion it, show that the terms of 
 the description were designed to be more comprehensive. The essential 
 idea is that the previous lighter judgments should be followed by another 
 more severe and efficacious, by invasion and subjection. The terms are most 
 emphatically applicable to the Romans. — The hissing or whistling, Hitzig 
 supposes to have reference to some mode of alluring birds (Hos. 11 : 11. 
 Zech. 10 : 8) ; but the common and more probable opinion is that it alludes 
 to the ancient mode of swarming bees, described at length by Cyril. (See 
 his words as given by Bochart, Hieroz. p. 506). — In the last clause a sub- 
 stantive meaning haste, and an adjective meaning light, are both used adverb- 
 ially in the sense of swiftly. 
 
 V. 27. The enemy, whose approach was just foretold, is now described 
 as not only prompt and rapid, but complete in his equipments, firm and 
 vigorous, ever wakeful, impeded neither by the accidents of the way nor by 
 defective preparation. There is no one faint (or exhausted) and there is no 
 one stumbling (or faltering) among them (literally in him). He (the enemy, 
 considered as an individual) sleeps not, and he slumbers not, and the girdle 
 of his loins is not opened (or loosed), and the latchet (string or band) of his 
 shoes (or sandals) is not broken. — The English version follows Calvin in 
 translating all the verbs as futures. The Vulgate supplies the present in the 
 first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is evidently one 
 description, the translation should be uniform ; and as the preterite and future 
 forms are intermingled, both seem to be here used for the present, which is 
 given by Luther and most of the late writers. — The last clause is understood 
 by Henderson and others as denoting that they do not disarm or undress 
 themselves for sleep. But as the last verb always denotes violent separation, 
 it is most probable that this whole clause relates to accidental interruptions 
 of the march. — The question raised by Hendewerk and Henderson as to 
 the kind of girdle here referred to, is of no exegetical importance, as it is 
 only joined with shoes to represent the dress in general. — In him may be 
 either put collectively for in them, or, as J. D. Michaelis supposes, may refer 
 to the army ; and Hendewerk accordingly has it slumbers not, etc. — The 
 distinction made by some between 6W and }V>^ (Cocceius : non dormitat, 
 multo minus dormit) is unnecessary here, where the verbs seem to be used as 
 mere poetical equivalents. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 81 
 
 V. 28. The description is continued, but with special reference to their 
 Vfeapons and their means of conveyance. For the former, hows and arrows 
 are here put ; and for the latter, horses and chariots (see ch. 2: 7). Whose 
 arrows are sharpened and all his bows bent (literally trod upon) ; the hoofs 
 of his horses like flint (or adamant) are reckoned, and his wheels like a 
 whirlwind, m rapidity and violence of motion. — Gesenius, Henderson, and 
 others, omit the relative at the beginning, and Junius renders it as a conjunc- 
 tion (quia). But it serves to make the connexion with the verse preceding 
 much more close and sensible. — As BWtf, like the Latin acutae, is a partici- 
 ple, the common version (sharp) does not fully express its meaning. Indeed 
 from what is said of the bows immediately afterwards, the prominent idea 
 would seem to be not that the arrows were sharp, but that they were already 
 sharpened, implying present readiness for use. — The bows being trod upon 
 has reference to the ancient mode of stringing, or rather of shooting, the bow 
 being large and made of metal or hard wood. Arrian says expressly, in 
 describing the use of the bow by the Indian infantry, " placing it on the 
 ground, and stepping on it with the left foot, so they shoot (ovta>$ exro^a'otw), 
 drawing the string back to a great distance." (See the original passage in 
 Henderson.) — -The passive verb ERfrj3 cannot be accurately rendered they 
 resemble (Ges. Hitz.), nor even they are to be counted (Aug. De Wette), but 
 means they are counted (Cocc. Ew.), the preterite form implying that they 
 had been tried and proved so. — The future form given to this whole verse 
 by Calvin and Junius, and to the last clause by Lowth and Barnes, greatly 
 impairs its unity and force as a description. 
 
 • 
 
 V. 29. By a sudden transition, the enemy are here represented as lions, 
 roaring, growling, seizing their prey, and carrying it off without resistance ; 
 a lively picture, especially to an oriental reader, of the boldness, fierceness, 
 quickness, and success of the attack here threatened. He has a roar like the 
 lioness, and he shall roar like the young lions, and shall growl, and seize 
 the prey, and secure it, none delivering (i. e. and none can rescue it). — 
 Cocceius, Vitringa, and the modern writers, use the present tense, as in the 
 foregoing verses, to preserve the unity of the description. But there the 
 preterite and future forms are mingled, whereas here the future is alone used, 
 unless the textual reading 3Kun be retained, and even then the Vav may be 
 regarded as conversive. Besides, this seems to be the turning point between 
 description and prediction. Having told what the enemy is, he now tells 
 what he will do. It seems best therefore to adopt the future form used by 
 the ancient versions, by Calvin, and by Luther, who is fond of the present, 
 and employs it in the two foregoing verses. — Most of the modern writers 
 follow Bochart in explaining ff*!$ to denote the lioness, which is the more 
 natural in this case from the mention of the young lions immediately after- 
 
84 ISAIAH, CHAP. V. 
 
 wards. The image, as Henderson suggests, may be that of a lioness attended 
 by her whelps, or rather by her young ones which are old enough to roar 
 and seek their prey (see Ez. 19: 2, 3. and Gesenius s. v.). — The meaning 
 of b^b^ is not 'he shall embrace 5 (Vulg. amplexabitur), nor 'he shall 
 gather spoil' (Calv. spolia corradet), nor 'he shall let it go' in sport before 
 devouring it (Luzzatto) ; but he shall carry it off safe, place it in safety, or 
 secure it (Ewald : tobt und nimmt den Raub und sichert ihn ohne Retter.) 
 
 V. 30. The roaring of the lion suggests the roaring of the sea, and thus 
 a beautiful transition is effected from the one figure to the other, in describing 
 the catastrophe of all these judgments. Israel is threatened by a raging sea, 
 and looking landward sees it growing dark there, until, after a brief fluctua- 
 tion, the darkness becomes total. And he (the enemy) shall roar against 
 him (Israel) in that day like the roaring of a sea. And he shall look to the 
 land, and behold darkness ! Anguish and light ! It is dark in the clouds 
 thereof (i. e. of the land, the skies above it). — The Vulgate, Peshito, and a 
 great majority of modern writers, disregard the Masoretic accents, and con- 
 nect ^a5n with it, and Tfa with !^". Knobel appears to be the first who 
 observed that this arrangement involves the necessity of vowel-changes also, 
 as we must then read 'is for is and liKJ for *&*. Those who adopt this 
 interpretation either read darkness of anguish (Vulg. Hitz. Knobel) or 
 darkness and anguish (Eng. Vs.), or darkness, anguish (Hendewerk). 
 Vitringa still construes THH separately, ' as for the light,' but the others con- 
 nect it with 7,i2?n directly, ' and the light is dark,' etc. The only objection 
 to the Masoretic interpretation (which, although retained by Cocceius, Ro- 
 senmiiller, Gesenius, and Maurer, is not the common one, as Hitzig repre- 
 sents), is the alleged incongruity of making light and anguish alternate 
 instead of light and darkness, a rhetorical nicety unworthy of attention where 
 there is at best but a choice of difficulties. Henderson says, indeed, that 
 it is " quite at variance with the spirit of the text, which requires a state of 
 profound darkness, without any relieving glimpses of light." But it is just 
 as easy to affirm that " the spirit of the text" requires the other construction, 
 which is moreover recommended by its antiquity, traditional authority, sim- 
 plicity, poetical beauty, and descriptive truth. — On the authority of the 
 Aldine and Complutensian text of the Septuagint, Lowth supposes an omis- 
 sion in the Hebrew, which he thus supplies, ' and these shall look to the 
 heaven upward and down to the earth.' But, as Barnes has well observed, 
 " there is no need of supposing the expression defective. The Prophet 
 speaks of the vast multitude that was coming up, as a sea. On that side 
 there was no safety. It was natural to speak of the other direction as the 
 land or shore, and to say that the people would look there for safety. But, 
 says he, there would be no safety there ; all would be darkness." Hitzig 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 85 
 
 supplies the supposed defect by putting •nix in antithesis to -px, ' one looks 
 to the earth and behold the darkness of distress, and to the light (i. e. the 
 sun or sky) etc.' But the introduction of the preposition is entirely arbi- 
 trary and extremely forced. — Kimchi and Junius explain rpfns to mean 
 its ruins, deriving it from r^S to destroy (Hos. 10: 2). Clericus, following 
 an Arabic analogy, translates it in conclavibus, which seems absurd. The 
 common derivation is from en* to distill (Deut. 32: 2. 33: 28), according to 
 which it means the clouds, either strictly, or as a description of the heavens 
 generally. Lowth and several of the later Germans give the particle a causal 
 sense, through or by reason of its clouds ; but the proper local sense of in its 
 clouds or ikies is retained by Geseaius, Ewald, and all the early writers. 
 The second verb is taken indefinitely by all the modern Germans except Ewald, 
 who translates it he looks, but as if by way of compensation, gives an indefi- 
 nite meaning to the suffix in t^s which he renders over or upon one (iiber 
 einem). — The use of the present tense, in rendering the first clause, by 
 Cocceius and the later Germans, is hardly consistent with the phrase in 
 that day, and destroys the fine antithesis between the future Bhs* and 
 the preterite *^3n describing the expected obscuration as already past. — 
 Clericus appears to be alone in referring asa to the enemy (solo adspectu 
 terram Israeliticam terrebit !). The sense of the last clause, according to 
 the Masoretic interpretation, is well expressed by Gesenius, ' (bald) Angst, 
 (bald) Licht/ and more paraphrastic ally by an old French version, * il 
 regardera vers la terre, mais voici il y aura des tenebres, il y aura affliction 
 avec la lumiere, il y aura des tenebres au ciel audessus d'elle ' 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 This chapter contains a vision and a prophecy of awful import. At an 
 early period of his ministry, the Prophet sees the Lord enthroned in the 
 temple and adored by the Seraphim, at whose voice the house is shaken, 
 and the Prophet, smitten with a sense of his own corruption and unworthi- 
 ness to speak for God or praise him, is relieved by the application of fire 
 from the altar to his lips, and an assurance of forgiveness, after which, in 
 answer to the voice of God inquiring for a messenger, he offers himself and 
 is accepted, but with an assurance that his labours will tend only to aggra- 
 vate the guilt and condemnation of the people, who are threatened with 
 judicial blindness, and, as its necessary consequence, removal from the deso- 
 lated country ; and the prophecy closes with a promise and a threatening 
 
86 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 both in one, to wit, that the remnant which survives the threatened judg- 
 ments shall experience a repetition of the stroke, but that a remnant after all 
 shall continue to exist and to experience God's mercy. 
 
 The chapter naturally falls into two parts, the vision, vs. 1-8, and the 
 message or prediction, vs. 9-13. The precise relation between these two 
 parts has been a subject of dispute. The question is, whether the vision 
 is an introduction to the message, or the message an appendage to the 
 vision. Those who take the former view suppose that in order to prepare 
 the Prophet for a discouraging and painful revelation, he was favoured with 
 a new view of the divine majesty and of his own unworthiness, relieved by 
 an assurance of forgiveness, and encouraged by a special designation to the 
 self-denying work which was before him. Those who assume the other 
 ground proceed upon the supposition, that the chapter contains an account 
 of the Prophet's original induction into office, and that the message at the 
 close was added to prepare him for its disappointments, or perhaps to try 
 his faith. 
 
 Either of these two views may be maintained without absurdity and 
 without materially affecting the details of the interpretation. The second is 
 not only held by Jewish writers, but by the majority of Christian interpreters 
 in modern times. The objection to it, founded on the place which the chapter 
 holds in the collection, is met by some with the assertion, that the prophe- 
 cies are placed without regard to chronological order. But as this is a 
 gratuitous assumption, and as the order is at least prima facie evidence of 
 date, some of the latest writers (Ewald for example) hold that the date of 
 composition was Jong posterior to that of the event, and one writer (Hitzig) 
 goes so far as to assume, that this is the latest of Isaiah's writings, and was 
 intended to exhibit, in the form of an ex post facto prophecy, the actual 
 result of his official experience. This extravagant hypothesis needs no refu- 
 tation, and neither that of Ewald, nor the common one, which makes this 
 the first of Isaiah's writings, should be assumed without necessity, that is, 
 without something in the chapter itself forbidding us to refer it to any other 
 date than the beginning of Isaiah's ministry. But the chapter contains 
 nothing which would not have been appropriate at any period of that minis- 
 try, and some of its expressions seem to favour, if they do not require, the 
 hypothesis of previous experience in the office. The idea of so solemn an 
 inauguration is affecting and impressive, but seems hardly sufficient to out- 
 weigh the presumption arising from the order of the prophecies in favour of 
 the other supposition, which requires no facts to be assumed without autho- 
 rity, and although less striking, is at least as safe. 
 
 V. 1. In the year that king Uzziah died (B. C. 758), I saw the Lord 
 sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and his sJcirts (the train of his royal 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 87 
 
 robe) filling the palace, or, taking the last word in its more specific B60 
 the temple, so called tfl being the palace of the great King. " No man 
 hath seen God at any time" (John 1 : 18), and God himself hath said, 
 "There shall no man sec dm and live'' (Ex. 34: 20). Yet we read not 
 only that " the pure in heart shall see God" (Matt. 5: 8), but that Jacob 
 said, " I have seen God face to face" (Gen. 32 : 30). It is therefore plain 
 that the phrase to " see God " is employed in different senses, and that 
 although his essence is and must be invisible, he may be seen in the mani- 
 festation of his glory or in human form. The first of these senses is given 
 here by the Targum and Grotius, the last by Clericus, with more probability, 
 as the act of sitting on a throne implies a human form, and Ezekiel like- 
 wise in prophetic vision saw, " upon the likeness of a throne, an appear- 
 ance as the likeness of a man above upon it" (Ez. 1 : 26). It has been a 
 general opinion in all ages of the church, that in every such manifestation it 
 was God the Son who thus revealed himself. In John 12 : 41, it is said to 
 have been Christ's glory that Isaiah saw and spoke of, while Paul cites vs. 
 9 and 10 (Acts 28: 25, 26) as the language of the Holy Ghost. It seems 
 needless to inquire whether the Prophet saw this sight with his bodily eyes, 
 or in a dream, or in an ecstasy, since the effect upon his own mind must 
 have been the same in either case. It is also a question of no moment 
 whether he beheld the throne erected in the Holy Place, or in the Holy of 
 Holies, or in heaven, or, as Jarchi imagines, reaching from earth to heaven. 
 The scene of the vision is evidently taken from the temple at Jerusalem, 
 but not confined to its exact dimensions and arrangements. It has been 
 disputed whether what is here recorded took place before or after the death 
 of Uzziah. Those who regard this as the first of Isaiah's prophecies are 
 forced to assume that it belongs to the reign of Uzziah. It is also urged in 
 
 o o o 
 
 favour of this opinion, that the time after his death would have been de- 
 scribed as the first year of Jotham. The design, however, may have been 
 to fix, not the reign in which he saw the vision, but the nearest remarkable 
 event. Besides, the first year of Jotham would have been ambiguous, 
 because his reign is reckoned from two different epochs, the natural death 
 of his father, and his civil death, when smitten with the leprosy, after which 
 he resided in a separate house, and the government was administered by 
 Jotham as prince-regent, who was therefore virtually king before he was 
 such formally, and is accordingly described in the very same context as 
 having reigned sixteen and twenty years (2 Kings 15: 30, 33). It does 
 not follow, however, that by Uzziah's death the Prophet here intends his 
 leprosy, as the Targum and some of the Rabbins suppose, but merely that 
 the mention of Uzziah is no proof that the vision was seen before he died. — 
 Abarbenel and Rosenmuller refer the epithets high and lofty to the Lord, 
 as in ch. 57: 15, and Calvin understands by the train the edging of the 
 
88 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 cloth which covered the throne. But the common explanation is in either 
 case more natural. — The conjunction before ^"ix is not to be connected 
 with rt*h understood (Hendewerk), or rendered also (English Version), but 
 explained as an example of a common Hebrew idiom which prefixes this 
 particle to the apodosis of a sentence, especially when the first clause con- 
 tains a specification of time. It is here substantially equivalent to then, 
 and is so rendered by Junius and Tremellius, Gesenius, Henderson, and 
 others. 
 
 V. 2. He sees the Lord not only enthroned but attended by his minis- 
 ters. Seraphim, burning spirits, standing above it, the throne, or above him 
 that sat upon it. Six wings, six wings, to one, i. e. to each. With two he 
 covers his face, as a sign of reverence towards God, and with two he covers 
 his feet, for the same purpose, or to conceal himself from mortal view, and 
 with two he flics, to execute God's will. The Hebrew word seraphim is 
 retained by the Septuagint, Peshito, and Vulgate, but by the Targum para- 
 phrased as holy ministers. It is rightly explained by Kimchi and Abulwalid 
 as meaning angels of fire, from ftfnte to burn, the name being descriptive 
 either of their essence, or, as Clericus supposes, of their ardent love, or, ac- 
 cording to Grotius, of God's wrath which they execute. Lightfoot supposes 
 a particular allusion to the burning of the temple, which is needless and un- 
 natural. This reference to heat as well as light, to something terrible as 
 well as splendid, does away with Gesenius's objection that the root means to 
 burn, not to shine, and also with his own derivation of the noun from the 
 Arabic obw& noble, because angels are the nobility of heaven, and Michael 
 is called one of the chief princes (Dan. 10: 13). Still less attention is due 
 to the notion that the word is connected in its origin with Serapis (Hitzig) 
 and signifies serpents (Umbreit), sphinxes (Knobel), mixed forms like the 
 cherubim (Ewald), or the cherubim themselves (Hendewerk). The word 
 occurs elsewhere only as the name of the fiery serpents of the wilderness 
 (Num. 21: 6, 8. Deut. 8: 15), described by Isaiah (14: 29. 30: 6) as 
 flying serpents. The transfer of the name to beings so dissimilar rests on 
 their possession of two common attributes. Both are described as winged 
 and both as burning. — Umbreit considers standing as synonymous with serv- 
 ing, because servants are often said in the Old Testament to stand before 
 their masters. But it is better to retain the proper meaning, not as imply- 
 ing necessarily that they rested on the earth or any other solid surface, but 
 that they were stationary, even in the air. This will remove all objection 
 to the version above him, which may also be explained as describing the rela- 
 tive position of persons in a standing and sitting posture. There is no need 
 therefore of the rendering above it, which is given in our Bible, nor of taking 
 the compound preposition in the unusual sense of near (Grotius, Henderson), 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 89 
 
 or near above (Junius), around (Sept. Ges. Ew.), or around above 
 (Tnrg. Cocc. Arg. Urn.). — The repetition of the phrase six wings sup- 
 plies the place of a distributive pronoun (Ges. § 118. 5). The version 
 fix pairs of wings rests on an entire misconception of the Hebrew dual, 
 which is never & periphrasis of the number two, but is simply a peculiar 
 plural form belonging to nouns which denote things that naturally 
 exist in pairs. Hence the numeral prefixed always denotes the number, not 
 of pairs, but of individual objects. (See Ewald's Heb. Gr. <§> 365.) — The 
 future form of the verbs denotes continued and habitual action. According 
 to Origen there were only two seraphs, and these were the Son and Holy 
 Spirit, who are here described as covering, not their own face and feet, but 
 the face and feet of the Father, to imply that although they are his revealers, 
 they conceal the beginning and the end of his eternity. Jerome denounces 
 this ingenious whim as impious, but retains the same construction (faciem 
 ejus, pedes ejus.) The Chaldee paraphrase is, ' with two he covered his 
 face, lest he should see ; with two he covered his body, lest he should be 
 seen ; and with two he served.' The covering of the feet may, however, 
 according to oriental usage, be regarded as a reverential act, equivalent in 
 import to the hiding of the face. 
 
 V. 3. He now describes the seraphim as praising God in an alternate or 
 responsive doxology. And this cried to this, i. e. one to another, and said, 
 Holy, Holy, Holy (is) Jehovah of Hosts, the fulness of the whole earth, 
 that which fills the whole earth, is his glory ! — It was commonly agreed 
 among the Fathers, that only two seraphim are mentioned here, and this 
 opinion is maintained by Hendewerk. It cannot be proved, however, from 
 the words this to this, which are elsewhere used in reference to a greater 
 number. (See Ex. 14: 20. 36: 10. Jer. 46: 16.) Clericus explains 
 th)is to this as relating not to the cry but the position of those crying, alter 
 ad alterum conversus. Rosenmuller understands the trine repetition as im- 
 plying that the words were uttered first by one choir, then by another, and 
 lastly by the two together, which is a very artificial hypothesis. The allu- 
 sion to the trinity in this rgiadyiov is the more probable because different 
 parts of the chapter are referred in the New Testament to the three persons 
 of the Godhead. Calvin and Cocceius admit that the doctrine of the trinity 
 cannot be proved from this expression, and that a like repetition is used else- 
 where simply for the sake of emphasis. See for example Jer. 7:4. 22 : 9. 
 Ezek. 21 : 27. But according to J. H. Michaelis, even there the idea of 
 trinity in unity was meant to be suggested (cum unitate conjuncta tripli- 
 citas.) Holy is here understood by most interpreters as simply denoting 
 moral purity, which is certainly the prominent idea. Most probably, however, 
 it denotes the whole divine perfection, that which separates or distinguishes 
 
90 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 between God and his creatures. " I am God and not man, the Holy One in 
 the midst of thee." Hos. 11: 9. On the etymology and usage of this 
 word, see Hengstenberg on Ps. 22: 4, and 29: 9. Grotius strangely restricts 
 its import by referring it in this case to God's righteousness in dealing with the 
 king and people. Umbreit supposes the idea of a separate or personal God, 
 as opposed to the pantheistic notion, to be included in the meaning of the 
 term. Grotius and Junius understand by "pttrrbs all the land, Luther and 
 Hendewerk, all lands ; the last of which, although inaccurate in form, is 
 really synonymous with all the earth, and the former is forbidden by the 
 strength of the expressions in the text and context. Clericus makes glory 
 not the subject but the predicate : the fulness of the earth, all that the earth 
 contains, is thy glory, or promotes it. But the common construction is sus- 
 tained by the analogy of ch. 8 : 8, where fulness of the earth is the predi- 
 cate, and that of the prayer and prediction in Ps. 72: 19 (let the whole 
 earth be filled with his glory), and Num. 14 : 21 (all the earth shall be filled 
 with the glory of Jehovah). The words may have reference not only to 
 the present but the future, implying that the judgments about to be denoun- 
 ced against the Jews, should be connected with the general diffusion of 
 God's glory. There may also be allusion to the cloud which filled |he 
 temple, as if he had said, the presence of God shall no longer be restricted 
 to one place, but the whole earth shall be full of it. By the glory of God 
 J. H. Michaelis understands his essence (Wesen) or God himself. But the 
 idea of special manifestation seems to be not only expressed but prominent. 
 The same writer renders rnxas «TJ-n, here and elsewhere, God of gods, 
 Clericus as usual makes it mean God of armies or battles. The Hebrew 
 word is retained by the Septuagint, Luther, Augusti and Umbreit. The use 
 of the preterite at the beginning of the verse is probably euphonic. The 
 Vav has no conversive influence, because not preceded by a future verb. 
 (Nordh. <§> 219.) 
 
 V. 4. The effect of this doxology, and of the whole supernatural ap- 
 pearance, is described. Then stirred, or shook, the bases of the thresholds 
 at the voice that cried, or at the voice of the one crying, and the house is 
 filled with smoke. The words D">B&n niES< are explained to mean the lintel 
 or upper part of the door-frame, by the Septuagint, Luther, and J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis. The Vulgate gives the second word the sense of hinges (super- 
 liminaria cardinum). It is now commonly admitted to mean thresholds, and 
 the other word foundations. The common version, posts, is also given by 
 Clericus and Vitringa. The door may be particularly spoken of, because 
 the prophet was looking through it from the court without into the interior. 
 The participle crying may agree with voice directly, voce clamante (Junius 
 and Tremellius), or with seraph understood. Clericus makes it a collective, 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 91 
 
 at the voice of those dying, in which he is followed by Gesenius and others ; 
 but Hendewerk supposes the singular form to intimate that only one cried 
 at a time. Coco-ins ind .1. II. Michaelis understand it to mean every one 
 that cried. By smoke Knobcl and others understand a cloud or vapour 
 showing the presence of Jehovah. Most interpreters, however, understand 
 it in its proper sense of smoke, as the natural attendant of the fire which 
 blazed about the throne of God, or of that which burned upon the altar, 
 as in Lev. 16: 13 the mercy-seat is said to be covered with a "cloud 
 of incense." In either case it was intended to produce a solemn awe in the 
 beholder. The reflexive sense, it filled itself, given to the last verb by 
 Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Umbreit, is not so natural as the simple 
 passive, it was filled or it became full. 
 
 V. 5. The Prophet now describes himself as filled with awe, not only 
 by the presence of Jehovah, but also by a deep impression of his own sin- 
 fulness, especially considered as unfitting him to praise God, or to be his 
 messenger, and therefore represented as residing in the organs of speech. 
 And I said, when I saw and heard these things, then I said. Woe is me, 
 woe to me, or alas for me, a phrase expressing lamentation and alarm, for I 
 am undone, or destroyed, for a man impure of lips, as to the lips, am I, and 
 in the midst of a people impure of lips, of impure lips, I am dwelling, and 
 am therefore undone, for the King, Jehovah of Hosts, my eyes have seen. The 
 allusion is not merely to the ancient and prevalent belief that no one could 
 see God and live (Gen. 32: 30. Judg. 6: 22-24. 13: 22. Ex. 4: 10, 12. 
 33 : 20. 1 Sam. 6 : 19), but to the aggravation of the danger arising from 
 the moral contrast between God and the beholder. — According to an old 
 interpretation, ^sna is a statement of the reason why he was alarmed, to 
 wit, because he had kept silence, quia tacui (Vulgate), either when he 
 heard the praises of the seraphim, or when it was his duty to have spoken 
 in God's name. The last sense is preferred by Grotius, the first by Lowth 
 (I am struck dumb), and with some modification by J. D. Michaelis (that I 
 must be dumb). This sense is also given to the verb by Aquila, Symma- 
 chus, Theodotion, the Peshito, and in some copies of the Septuagint, the 
 common text of which has xaravtwynai, I am smitten with compunction. 
 Most other writers, ancient and modern, understand the word as meaning 
 lam ruined or destroyed. It is possible, however, as suggested by Vitringa, 
 that an allusion was intended to the meaning of the verb in its ground-form, 
 in order to suggest that his guilty silence or unfitness to speak was the cause 
 of the destruction which he felt to be impending. Above sixty manuscripts 
 and several editions read ''r.E'W, which, as Henderson observes, is probably 
 a mere orthographical variation, not affecting the sense. The lips are men- 
 tioned as the seat of his depravity, because its particular effect, then present 
 
92 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 to his mind, was incapacity to speak for God or in his praise. That it does 
 not refer to official unfaithfulness in his prophetic office, is apparent from the 
 application of the same words to the people. The preterite form of the 
 verb implies that the deed was already done and the effect already certain. 
 The substitution of the present, by Luther and many of the late writers, 
 weakens the expression. 
 
 V. 6. He now proceeds to describe the way in which he was relieved 
 from this distress by a symbolical assurance of forgiveness. And there flew 
 (or then flew) to me one of the seraphim, and in his hand a live coal (or a 
 hot stone) with tongs he took it from off (or from upon) the altar of in- 
 cense, according to Hendewerk and others, but according to Grotius, that of 
 burnt-offering, which stood without the temple in the court where the Pro- 
 phet is supposed to have been stationed. Both these interpretations take 
 for granted the necessity of adhering to the precise situation and dimensions 
 of the earthly temple, whereas this seems merely to have furnished the 
 scenery of the majestic vision. Knobel understands by the altar the golden 
 altar seen by John in heaven, Rev. 8: 3. 9: 13. All that is necessary to 
 the understanding of the vision is, that the scene presented was a temple and 
 included an altar. The precise position of the altar or of the Prophet is not 
 only unimportant, but forms no part of the picture as here set before us. 
 As J-ie?:? 1 ! elsewhere means a pavement, and its verbal root to pave, and as 
 the Arabs call by the same name the heated stones which they employ in 
 cooking, most modern writers have adopted Jerome's explanation of the word, 
 as meaning a hot stone taken from the altar, which was only a consecrated 
 hearth or fireplace. The old interpretation coal is retained by Hendewerk, 
 who denies that stones were ever used upon the altar. In the last clause 
 either the personal or relative pronoun may be supplied, he toolc it or which 
 he took ; but the former (which is given by Hendewerk, De Wette, and 
 Umbreit) seems to agree better with the order of the words in Hebrew. The 
 word translated tongs is elsewhere used to signify the snuffers of the golden 
 candlestick, and tongs are not named among the furniture of the altars ; but 
 such an implement seems to be indispensable, and the Hebrew word may be 
 applied to any thing in the nature of a forceps. — Hitzig and others, who 
 regard the seraphim as serpents, sphinxes, or mixed forms, are under the 
 necessity of explaining hand to mean forefoot or the like. Nothing in the 
 whole passage implies any variation from the human form, except in the 
 addition of wings, which are expressly mentioned. 
 
 V. 7. And he caused it to touch (i. e. laid it on) my mouth, and said, 
 Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquity is gone, and thy sin shall be 
 atoned for (or forgiven). In the Chaldee Paraphrase the coal from off the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 altar is transformed into a word from the shechinah, which is put into the 
 Prophet's mouth, denoting his prophetic inspiration. So Jeremiah says : 
 " The Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth, and the Lord said 
 unto me, behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jer. 1:9). And 
 Daniel : " One like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips ; 
 then I opened my mouth and spake" (Dan. 10: 16). Hence the Rabbins 
 and Grotius understand the act of the seraph in the case before us as a 
 symbol of prophetic inspiration. But this leaves unexplained the additional 
 circumstance, not mentioned in the case of Jeremiah or Daniel, that the 
 Prophet's lips were not only touched, but touched with-fire. This is ex- 
 plained by Jerome as an emblem of the Holy Spirit, and by others as a 
 symbol of purification in general. But the mention of the altar and the 
 assurance of forgiveness, or rather of atonement, makes it far more natural 
 to take the application of fire as a symbol of expiation by sacrifice, although 
 it is not necessary to suppose, with J. D. Michaelis, that the Prophet 
 actually saw a victim burning on the altar. The fire is applied to the lips 
 for a twofold reason : first, to show that the particular impediment of which 
 the Prophet had complained was done away ; and secondly, to show that 
 the gift of inspiration is included, though it does not constitute the sole or 
 chief meaning of the symbol. The gift of prophecy could scarcely be 
 described as having taken away sin, although it might naturally accompany 
 the work of expiation. The preterite and future forms are here combined, 
 perhaps to intimate, first, that the pardon was already granted, and then 
 that it should still continue. This, at least, seems better than arbitrarily to 
 confound the two as presents. 
 
 V. 8. The assurance of forgiveness produces its usual effect of readiness 
 to do God's will. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall 
 1 send, and who will go for us ? And I said, Here am I (literally, behold me, 
 or, lo I am) send me. The form of expression in the first clause may imply 
 that the speaker was now invisible, perhaps concealed by the smoke which 
 filled the house. According to Jerome, the question here recorded was not 
 addressed to Isaiah himself, because it was intended to elicit a spontaneous 
 offer upon his part. ' Non dicit Dominus quern ire praecipiat, sed proponit 
 audientibus optionem, ut voluntas praemium consequatur.' The same idea 
 is suggested by J. H. Michaelis and Umbreit. For us is regarded by Vi- 
 tringa as emphatic, ' who will go for us, and not for himself, or any other 
 object ?' But the phrase is probably equivalent to saying, ' who will be our 
 messenger ?' This is the version actually given by Luther, J. D. Michaelis, 
 and Gesenius. Most of the other German writers follow the Vulgate ver- 
 sion, quis nobis ibit 1 The plural form, us instead of me, is explained by 
 Gesenius, Barnes, and Knobel, as a mere pluralis majestaticus, such as 
 
94 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 kings and princes use at this day. Hitzig denies the existence of that idiom 
 among the orientals, either ancient or modern, and undertakes to give a 
 metaphysical solution, by saying that the speaker looks upon himself as both 
 the subject and object of address. Kimchi and Grotius represent the Lord 
 as speaking, not in his own name merely, but in that of his angelic council 
 (tanquam de sententia concilii angelorum), and the same view is taken by 
 Clericus and Rosenmiiller. The Peshito omits for us, while the Septuagint 
 supplies instead of it the words to this people, and the Targum, to teach — 
 1 whom shall I send to prophesy, and who will go to teach ?' Jerome's ex- 
 planation of the plural, as implying a plurality of persons in the speaker, is 
 approved by Calvin, who was doubtful with respect to the zgiadyiov in v. 3. 
 This explanation is the only one that accounts for the difference of number 
 in the verb and pronoun — c whom shall I send, and who will go for us V 
 Jerome compares itnvith the words of Christ, " Ego et Pater unurn sumus ; 
 unum ad naturam referimus, sumus ad personarum diversitatem." The phrase 
 tfcn is the usual idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by name, and common- 
 ly implies a readiness for service. J. D. Michaelis translates it I am ready. 
 A beautiful commentary upon this effect of pardoned sin is afforded in Da- 
 vid's penitential prayer, Psalm 51 : 12-15. 
 
 V. 9. The prophet now receives his commission, together with a solemn 
 declaration that his labours will be fruitless. This prediction is clothed in 
 the form of an exhortation or command addressed to the people themselves, 
 for the purpose of bringing it more palpably before them, and of aggravating 
 their insanity and wickedness in ruining themselves after such a warning. 
 And he said, Go and say to this people, Hear indeed, or hear on, but under- 
 stand not, and see indeed, or continue to see, but know not. In most pre- 
 dictions some obscurity of language is required to secure their full 'accom- 
 plishment. But here, where the blindness and infatuation of the people are 
 foretold, they are allowed an abundant opportunity of hindering its fulfilment 
 if they will. Not only is their insensibility described in the strongest terms, 
 implying extreme folly as well as extreme guilt, but, as if to provoke them 
 to an opposite course, they are exhorted, with a sort of solemn irony, to do 
 the very thing which would inevitably ruin them, but with an explicit in- 
 timation of that issue in the verse ensuing. This form of speech is by no 
 means foreign from the dialect of common life. As J. D. Michaelis well 
 observes, it is as if one man should say to another in whose good resolutions 
 and engagements he had no faith, c Go now and do the very opposite of all 
 that you have said.' A similar expression is employed by Christ himself 
 when he says to the Jews (Matt. 23: 32), Fill ye up then the measure of 
 your fathers. The Septuagint version renders the imperatives as futures, 
 and this version is twice quoted in the New Testament (Matt. 13 : 14. 
 
isaiaii, chap. vi. 95 
 
 Acts 28: 26), as giving correctly the essential meaning of tiie sentence as a 
 prophecy, though Stripped of its peculiar form as an ironical command. J. 
 H. Michaelis and GeSflDIUfl make even the original expression a strict pro- 
 phecy, by rendering the future forms as futures proper (nee tamen foteliigetb) 
 on the ground that bx is sometimes simply equivalent to xb, or that the sec- 
 ond of two imperatives sometimes expresses the result dependent on the act 
 denoted by the first. But even admitting these assertions, both of which 
 may be disputed, the predominant usage is so clear as to forbid any departure 
 from the proper sense of the imperatives without a strong necessity, which, 
 as we have seen, does not exist. Another mode of softening the apparent 
 harshness of the language is adopted by the Targum, which converts the 
 sentence into a description of the people, 'who hear indeed but understand 
 not, and see indeed but know not. ' Ewald and some older writers under- 
 stand this people as a phrase expressive of displeasure and contempt in- 
 tentionally substituted for the phrase my people, not only here but in several 
 other places. See for example Ex. 32: 9. Isai. 9: 16. 29: 13. Jer. 7: 
 16. The idiomatic repetition of the verbs hear and see js disregarded in 
 translation by Luther, Clericus, and De Wette, and copied, more or less 
 exactly, by the Septuagint (texof/ dxovosze, filtnovrtg filijptze), the Vulgate 
 (auditeaudientes/videte visionem), Calvin, Cocceius, and Vitringa. Neither 
 of these methods conveys the true force of the original expression, which is 
 clearly emphatic, and suggests the idea of distinctness, clearness (J. D. 
 Michaelis), or of mere external sight and hearing (Angusti), or of abundant 
 sight and hearing (J. H. Michaelis sufficient is sime), or of continued sight and 
 hearing (Junius indesinenter) , probably the last, which is adopted by Gese- 
 nius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Henderson, and Ewald. Maurer makes the pro- 
 minent idea that of repetition (iterum iterumque.) The idea of hearing and 
 seeing without perceiving may have been proverbial among the Jews as it 
 seems to have been among the Greeks from the examples given by Wetstein 
 in his note on Matt. 13: 13. Demosthenes expressly cites it as a. proverb 
 (nccnoiuict), oQwvtag fit) bonv xai anovovrag fit) axovnv, and the Prometheus 
 of iEschylus employs a like expression, in describing the primitive con- 
 dition of mankind, on which one of the Greek scholiasts observes, dion vovv 
 xal yooiTGiv ovx cfyoy. 
 
 V. 10. As the foregoing verse contains a prediction of the people's in- 
 sensibility, but under the form of a command or exhortation to themselves, 
 so this predicts the same event, as the result of Isaiah's labours, under the 
 form of a command to him. Make fat, gross, callous, the heart of this 
 people, i. e. their affections or their minds in general, and its ears make heavy, 
 dull or hard of hearing, and its eyes smear, close or blind, lest it see with its 
 eyes, and with its cars hear, and its heart understand, perceive or feel, and 
 
96 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 it turn to me, i. e. repent and be converted, and be healed, or literally and 
 one heal it, the indefinite construction being equivalent in meaning to a pas- 
 sive. The thing predicted is judicial blindness, as the natural result and 
 righteous retribution of the national depravity. This end would be promoted 
 by the very preaching of the truth, and therefore a command to preach was 
 in effect a command to blind and harden them. The act required of the 
 Prophet is here joined with its ultimate effect, while the intervening circum- 
 stances, namely, the people's sin and the withholding of God's grace, are 
 passed by in silence. But although not expressed, they are implied, in this 
 command to preach the people callous, blind, and deaf, as J. D. Michaelis 
 phrases it. The essential idea is their insensibility, considered as the fruit 
 of their own depravity, as the execution of God's righteous judgment, and 
 as the only visible result of Isaiah's labours. ' Deus sic praecipit judiciali- 
 ter, populus agit criminaliter, propheta autem ministerialiter ' (J. H. Mi- 
 chaelis). In giving Isaiah his commission, it was natural to make the last 
 of these ideas prominent, and hence the form of exhortation or command in 
 which the prophecy is here presented. Make them insensible, not by an 
 immediate act of power, nor by any direct influence whatever, but by doing 
 your duty, which their wickedness and God's righteous judgments will allow 
 to have no other effect. In this sense the Prophet might be said to preach 
 them callous. In other cases, where his personal agency no longer needed 
 to be set forth or alluded to, the verse is quoted, not as a command, but a 
 description of the people, or as a declaration of God's agency in making 
 them insensible. Thus in Matt. 13 : 15, and in Acts 28 : 26, the Septua- 
 gint version is retained, in which the people's own guilt is the prominent 
 idea — ' for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hear- 
 ing, and their eyes they have closed, lest,' etc. In John 12: 40, on the 
 other hand, the sentence takes a new form, in order to bring out distinctly 
 the idea of judicial blindness — ' he hath blinded their eyes and hardened 
 their heart, lest,' etc. Both these ideas are in fact included in the meaning 
 of the passage, though its form is different, in order to suit the occasion upon 
 which it was originally uttered. There is no need, therefore, of supposing, 
 with Cocceius, that the verbs in the first clause are infinitives with preterites 
 understood (impinguando impinguavit — aggravando aggravavit — oblinendo 
 oblivit), to which there is besides a philological objection (vide supra, ch. 5 : 
 5). The paraphrase in John no more proves that the verse must be directly 
 descriptive of God's agency, than that in Acts and Matthew proves that it 
 must be descriptive of the people's own agency, which sense is actually put 
 upon Cocceius's construction by Abarbenel, who first proposed it, and who 
 thinks that the verbs must either be reflexive — ' the heart of this people has 
 made itself fat, their ears have made themselves heavy, their eyes have shut 
 themselves,' — or must all agree with 1'ab — < the heart of this people has made 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 97 
 
 itself fat, it has made their ears heavy, it has closed their eyes.' That a 
 divine agency is really implied, though not expressed as Cocceius supposes, 
 is clear from the paraphrase in John 12:40, and creates no difficulty here 
 that is not common to a multitude of passages, so that nothing would be 
 gained by explaining it away in this one instance. ' Absque hoc testimo- 
 nio,' says Jerome, ■ manet eadem quaestio in ecclesiis, et aut cum ista sol- 
 ventur et ceterae? aut cum ceteris et haec indissolubilis erit.' — The same 
 considerations which have been presented render it unnecessary to suppose, 
 with Henderson and others, that the command to blind and harden is merely 
 a command to predict that the people will be blind and hard ; a mode of 
 explanation which may be justified in certain cases by the context or by 
 exegetical necessity, but which is here gratuitous and therefore inadmissi- 
 ble. — Gesenius, Augusti, and De Wette, understand by heart the seat of the 
 affections, and accordingly translate *p^ by feel; but the constant usage of 
 the latter in the sense of understanding or perceiving seems to require that 
 the former should be taken to denote the whole mind or rational soul. The 
 ancient versions take iaab as an ablative of instrument, in which they are 
 followed by Luther, the English Version (with their heart), Junius, Vitringa, 
 J. D. Michaelis, Lowth, Augusti, and Henderson. Calvin makes it the subject 
 of the verb (cor ejus intelligat), in which he is followed by Gesenius, Hitzig, 
 De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit. The last construction is more simple in itself, 
 but breaks the uniformity of the sentence, as the other verbs of this clause 
 all agree with people as their subject. — Clericus takes ss^ as a noun and 
 reads lest there be healing, and the same sense is put upon it as a verb by 
 Junius and Vitringa. The Septuagint and Vulgate substitute the first 
 for the third person, and I heal them. Cocceius refers the verb to God 
 directly, lest he heal them, in accordance with his explanation of the first 
 clause. Most of the modern writers assume an impersonal or indefinite con- 
 struction, which may either be resolved into a passive (Gesenius, De Wette, 
 Henderson), or retained in the translation (Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, 
 Ewald). Kimchi explains the healing mentioned to be pardon following 
 repentance. The representation of sin as a spiritual malady is frequent in 
 the Scriptures. Thus David prays (Ps. 41 : 4), c Heal my soul, for I have 
 sinned against thee.' Instead of heal, in the case before us, the Targum 
 and Peshito have forgive, which is substituted likewise in the quotation or 
 rather the allusion to this verse in Mark 4:12. 
 
 V. 11. And I said, How long, Lordl And he said, Until that cities 
 are desolate for want of an inhabitant, and houses for want of men, and 
 the land shall be desolated, a waste, or utterly desolate. The spiritual 
 death of the people should be followed by external desolation. Hitzig un- 
 derstands the Prophet to ask how long he must be the bearer of this thank- 
 
 7 
 
98 ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 
 
 less message ; but the common explanation is no doubt the true one, that he 
 asks how long the blindness of the people shall continue, and is told until it 
 ruins them and drives them from their county. Grotius supposes a par- 
 ticular allusion to Sennacherib's invasion, Clericus to that of Nebuchadnez- 
 zar ; but as the foregoing description is repeatedly applied in the New Testa- 
 ment to the Jews who were contemporary with our Saviour, the threatening 
 must be equally extensive, and equivalent to saying that'the land should be 
 completely wasted, not at one time but repeatedly. Kimchi, who also un- 
 derstands the verse as referring to the Babylonian conquest, finds a climax in 
 the language, which is much more appropriate however when applied to 
 successive periods and events. — The accumulation of particles fcx ^«5« 1* is 
 supposed by Henderson to indicate a long lapse of time ; but it seems to differ 
 from the simple form only as until differs from until that or until when. On 
 the meaning of "pRO, vide supra, ch. 5 : 9. 
 
 V. 12. This verse continues the answer to the prophet's question in the 
 verse preceding. And (until) Jehovah shall have put far off, (removed to a 
 distance) the men (or people of the country) and great (much or abundant) 
 shall be that which is left (of unoccupied forsaken ground) in the midst of the 
 land. This is little more than a repetition, in other words, of the declara- 
 tion in the verse preceding. The Septuagint and Vulgate make the last 
 clause not a threatening but a promise that those left in the land shall be 
 multiplied. Clericus and Lowth understand it to mean c there shall be many 
 a deserted woman in the land. ' Gesenius, ( many ruins.' Ewald, ' a great 
 vacancy or void (Leere).' Most other writers take JWrS as an abstract, 
 meaning desolation or desertion. But the simplest construction seems to 
 be that of Henderson and Knobel, who make it agree with the land itself, 
 and understand the clause as threatening that there shall be a great extent 
 of unoccupied forsaken land. The terms of this verse may be applied to all 
 the successive desolations of the country, not excepting that most extreme 
 and remarkable of all which exists at the present moment. 
 
 V. 13. The chapter closes with a repetition and extension of the threat- 
 ening, but in such a form as to involve a promise of the highest import. 
 While it is threatened that the stroke shall be repeated on the remnant that 
 survives its first infliction, it is promised that there shall be such a remnant 
 after every repetition to the last. And yet — even after the entire desolation 
 which had first been mentioned — in it — the desolated land — (there shall re- 
 main) a tenth or tithe — here put indefinitely for a small proportion — and 
 (even this tenth) shall return and be for a consuming — i. e. shall again be 
 consumed — but still not utterly, for — like the terebinth and like the oak — 
 the two most common forest-trees of Palestine — which in falling — in their 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VI. 99 
 
 fallen state, when felled — have substance or vitality in (hem — so a holy seed 
 shall be or is the substance — vital principle — of it — the tenth or remnant which 
 appeared to be destroyed. However frequently the people may seem to be 
 destroyed, there shall still be a surviving remnant, and however frequently 
 that very remnant may appear to perish, there shall still be a remnant of the 
 remnant left, and this indestructible residuum shall be the holy seed, the true 
 church, the XtSjifta noei ixXopp %uqitos (Rom. 11: 5). This prediction was 
 fulfilled, not once for all, but again and again ; not only in the vine-dressers 
 and husbandmen left by Nebuchadnezzar and afterwards destroyed in Egypt ; 
 not only in the remnant that survived the destruction of the city by the Ro- 
 mans, and increased until again destroyed by Adrian ; but in the present ex- 
 istence of the Jews as a peculiar people, notwithstanding the temptations to 
 amalgamate with others, notwithstanding persecutions and apparent extirpa- 
 tions ; a fact which can only be explained by the prediction that " all Israel 
 shall be saved." (Rom. 11 : 26.) As in many former instances, throughout 
 the history of the chosen people, under both dispensations, " even so, at this 
 present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace." The 
 reference of holy seed to Christ (as in Gal. 3: 16) restricts the verse to the 
 times before the advent, and is here forbidden by the application of the He- 
 brew phrase to Israel in general (Ezra 9: 2. Comp. Isaiah 4: 3. 65: 9), a 
 meaning which is here not changed but only limited, upon the principle that 
 " they are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom. 9 : 6)." As thus explained, 
 the threatening of the verse involves a promise. There is no need therefore 
 of attempting to convert it into a mere promise, by giving to ")?2 the active 
 sense of consuming or destroying enemies (De Dieu),or by making hifij sig- 
 nify return from exile (Calvin) and connecting Ssafc with what follows — ' be 
 destroyed like the terebinth and oak' i. e. only destroyed like them. The 
 passive sense of 'issb nr\*r\ is fixed by the analogy of Num. 24 : 22 and 
 Isaiah 44 : 15. The idiomatic use of the verb return, to qualify another 
 verb by denoting repetition is of constant occurrence and is assumed here 
 by almost all interpreters ancient and modern. Besides, the tenth left in 
 the land could hardly be described as returning to it. That "isa denotes 
 purification is a mere rabbinical conceit. *C2t , a has been variously explained 
 to mean the sap (Targum), root (De Wette), trunk (Gesenius,) germ 
 (Hitzig), etc. But the sense which seems to agree best with the connexion 
 and the etymology is that of substance or subsistence, understanding thereby 
 the vitality or that which is essential to the life and reproduction of the tree. 
 ha|ti occurs elsewhere only in 1 Chron. 26: 16, where it seems to be the 
 name of one of the temple-gates. Hence Aben Ezra supposes the prophet 
 to allude to two particular and well known trees at or near this gate, while 
 other Jewish waiters understand him as referring to the timber of the gate or 
 of the causeway leading to it (1 Kings 10: 5.) The same interpretation is 
 
100 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 adopted by Junius, and Cocceius explains the word in either case as an ap- 
 pellative meaning causeway. But with these exceptions, all interpreters ap- 
 pear to be agreed in making the word descriptive of something in the con- 
 dition of the trees, the spreading of their branches (Vulgate), the casting of 
 their leaves (Targum) or of their fruit (Septuagint), or the casting down or 
 felling of the tree itself, which last is commonly adopted. Instead of 03, re- 
 ferring to the trees, more than a hundred manuscripts read ns, referring to 
 the tenth or to the land. The suffix in the last word of the verse is referred 
 to the land or people by Ewald and Maurer, but with more probability by 
 others to the tenth, which is the nearest antecedent and affords a better sense. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Here begins a series of connected prophecies (ch. VII-XII), belonging 
 to the reign of Ahaz, and relating in general to the same great subjects, the 
 deliverance of Judah from Syria and Israel, its subsequent subjection to 
 Assyria and other foreign powers, the final destruction of its enemies, the 
 advent of Messiah, and the nature of his kingdom. This series admits of 
 different divisions, but it is commonly agreed that one distinct portion is 
 contained in the seventh chapter. Hendewerk and Henderson suppose it 
 to include two independent prophecies (vs. 1-9 and 10-25), and Ewald 
 separates the same two parts as distinct portions of the same prophecy. 
 The common division is more natural, however, which supposes vs. 1-16 
 to contain a promise of deliverance from Syria and Israel, and vs. 17-25 a 
 threatening of worse evils to be brought upon Judah by the Assyrians in 
 whom they trusted. 
 
 The chapter begins with a brief historical statement of the invasion of 
 Judah by Rezin and Pekah, and of the fear which it excited, to relieve 
 which Isaiah is commissioned to meet Ahaz in a public place, and to assure 
 him that there is nothing more to fear from the invading powers, that their 
 evil design cannot be accomplished, that one of them is soon to perish, 
 and that in the mean time both are to remain without enlargement, vs. 1-9. 
 
 Seeing the king to be incredulous, the Prophet invites him to assure 
 himself by choosing any sign or pledge of the event, which he refuses to do, 
 under the pretext of confidence in God, but is charged with unbelief by the 
 Prophet, who nevertheless renews the promise of deliverance in a symbolical 
 form, and in connexion with a prophecy of the miraculous conception and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 101 
 
 .nativity of Christ, both us a pledge of the event, and as a measure of the 
 time in which it is to take place, vs. 10-16. 
 
 To this assurance of immediate deliverance, he adds a threatening of ulte- 
 rior evils, to arise from the Assyrian protection which the king preferred to that 
 of God, to wit, the loss of independence, the successive domination of foreign 
 powers, the harassing and predatory occupation of the land by strangers, 
 the removal of its people, the neglect of tillage, and the transformation of 
 its choicest vineyards, fields, and gardens, into wastes or pastures, vs. 17-25. 
 
 V. 1. Rezin, the king of Damascene Syria or Aram, from whom Uriah 
 had taken Elath, a port on the Red Sea, and restored it to Judah (2 Kings 
 14 : 22), appears to have formed an alliance with Pekah, the murderer and 
 successor of Pekahiah king of Israel (2 Kings 15 : 27), during- the reign of 
 Jotham (ib. v. 37), but to have deferred the actual invasion of Judah until 
 that king's death and the accession of his feeble son, in the first year of 
 whose reign it probably took place, with most encouraging success, as the 
 army of Ahaz was entirely destroyed, and 200,000 persons taken captive, 
 who were afterwards sent back at the instance of the Prophet Oded 
 (2 Chron. 28: 5-15). But notwithstanding this success, they were unable 
 to effect their main design, the conquest of Jerusalem, whether repelled by 
 the natural strength and artificial defences of the place itself, or interrupted 
 in the siege by the actual or dreaded invasion of their own dominions by the 
 king of Assyria (2 Kings 16 : 7-9). It seems to be at a point of time between 
 their first successes and their final retreat, that the Prophet's narrative begins. 
 And it was — happened, came to pass — in the days of Ahaz, son of Jotham, 
 son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin kivg of Aram — or Syria — and 
 Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to — or against — Jerusalem, 
 to war against it ; and he icas not able to war against it. As tear is both 
 a verb and noun in English, it may be used to represent the Hebrew verb 
 and noun in this sentence. Some give a different meaning to the two, 
 making one mean to fight and the other to conquer (Vulgate) or take (Hen- 
 derson) ; but this distinction is implied, not expressed, and the simple 
 meaning of the words is that he (put by a common license for they, or 
 meaning each of them, or referring to Rezin as the principal confederate) 
 could not do what he attempted. There is no need of taking Vz* in the 
 absolute sense of prevailing (Vitringa), which w r ould require a different 
 construction. It is sufficient to supply the idea of success in either case ; 
 they wished of course to war successfully against it, which they could not 
 do. Gesenius sets the first part of this chapter down as the production of 
 another hand, because it speaks of Isaiah in the third person, and because 
 the first verse nearly coincides with 2 Kings 16:5. But as that may just 
 as well have been derived from this — a supposition favoured by the change 
 
102 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 of hb* into JiJtoj — and as the use of the third person is common among ancient 
 writers, sacred and profane, Isaiah himself not excepted (ch. 20, 37, 38), there 
 is no need even of supposing with Vitringa, that the last clause was added 
 at a later period, by the sacred scribes, or with Hengstenberg and Ewald, 
 that the verse contains a general summary, in which the issue of the war is 
 stated by anticipation. It is not improbable, indeed, that this whole pro- 
 phecy was written some time after it was first delivered ; but even this 
 supposition is not necessary for the removal of the alleged difficulty, which 
 arises wholly from assuming, that this verse and the next relate to the 
 beginning of the enterprise, when Rezin and Pekah first invaded Judah, 
 whereas, they relate to the attack upon Jerusalem, after the country had 
 been ravaged, and the disappointment with which they are threatened below 
 is the disappointment of their grand design upon the royal city, which was 
 the more alarming in consequence of what they had already effected. This 
 view of the matter brings the two accounts in Kings and Chronicles into 
 perfect harmony, without supposing what is here described to be either the 
 first (Grotius, Usher,) or second (Jerome, Theddoret, Jarchi, Vitringa, 
 Rosenmuller,) of two different invasions, or that although they relate to the 
 same event (Lightfoot)> the account in Chronicles is chargeable with igno- 
 rant exaggeration (Gesenius). Another view of the matter, which also 
 makes the two * accounts refer to one event, is that of Hengstenberg, who 
 supposes the victory of Pekah described in Chronicles to have been the 
 consequence of the unbelief of Ahaz, and his refusal to accept the divine 
 promise. But the promise, instead of being retracted, is renewed, and the 
 other supposition, that Pekah's victory preceded what is here recorded, 
 seems to agree better with the terror of Ahaz, and with the comparison in 
 v. 3. Either hypothesis, however, may be entertained, without materially 
 affecting the details of the interpretation. The invaders are said to have 
 come up to Jerusalem, not merely as a military phrase (Vitringa), nor with 
 exclusive reference to its natural position (Knobel), its political pre-eminence 
 (Henderson), or its moral elevation (C. B. Michaelis), but with allusion, 
 more or less distinct, to all the senses in which the holy city was above all 
 others. On the construction of Jerusalem directly with the verb of motion, 
 see Gesenius, § 116. L. 
 
 V. 2. And it was told the house of David — the court, the royal family, 
 of Judah — saying, Syria resteth — or is resting — upon Ephraim : and his 
 heart — i. e. the king's, as the chief and representative of the house of Da- 
 vid — and the heart of his people shook, like the shaking of the trees of a 
 jvood before a wind. This is commonly applied to the effect produced by 
 <the first news of the coalition between Rezin and Pekah or the junction of 
 their forces. The oldest writers understand the news to be that Syria is 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 confederate or joined with Ephraim (Septua^gint, Targum, Peshito, Vul- 
 gate, Calvin, English Version, etc). Some, however, read, in violation of 
 the accents, r.'r: , and translate thus — Syria is marching or leading his 
 forces towards Ephraim (J. D. Michaelis) or with Ephraim (Henderson). 
 Others, Syria relies upon — or is supported by — Ephraim (Lowth, Barnes). 
 Others, Syria influences or controls Ephraim (Vitringa). But most in- 
 terpreters, especially the latest, Syria is encamped upon (the territory of) 
 Ephraim, or, as Steudel understands it, near (the city of) Ephraim. It 
 is equally natural, and more consistent with the history, to understand the 
 words as ha*ving reference to a later date, i. e. either the time of the advance 
 upon Jerusalem, or that of the retreat of the invaders, laden with the spoil 
 of Judah, and with two hundred thousand captives. In the one case, Syria, 
 i. e. the Syrian army, may be said to rest upon (the army of) Ephraim, in 
 the modern military sense, with reference to their relative position on the 
 field of battle ; in the other, Syria may be described as literally resting or 
 reposing in the territory of Ephraim, on its homeward march, and as thereby 
 filling Ahaz with the apprehension of a fresh attack. Although neither of 
 these explanations may seem altogether natural, they are really as much so 
 as any of the others which have been proposed, and in a case where we 
 have at best a choice of difficulties, these may claim the preference as tend- 
 ing to harmonize the prophecy with history as given both in Kings and 
 Chronicles. We read in 2 Kings 16 : 7-9, that Ahaz applied to Tiglath- 
 pileser, king of Assyria, to help him against Syria and Israel, which he did. 
 At what precise period of the war this alliance was formed, it is not easy to 
 determine ; but there seems to be no doubt that Ahaz, at the time here 
 mentioned, was relying upon some human aid in preference to God. — 
 The construction of the feminine verb nna with the masculine ens is to be 
 explained, not by supplying rittba (Jarchi) or rm (Rosenmiiller) before 
 the latter, but by the idiomatic usage which connects the names of coun- 
 tries, where they stand for the inhabitants, with verbs of this form, as in 
 Job 1 : 15, 1 Sam. 17: 21, and 2 Sam. 8: 6, where this very name is so 
 construed. 
 
 V. 3. From this alarm Isaiah is sent to free the king. And Jehovah 
 said to Isaiah son of Amoz, Go out to meet Ahaz, thou and Shearjashuh thy 
 son, to the end of the conduit of the upper pool, to the highway of the ful- 
 ler's field. The mention of these now obscure localities, although it detracts 
 nothing from the general clearness of the passage, is an incidental proof of 
 authenticity, which no later writer would or could have forged. The upper 
 pool, which has been placed by different writers upon almost every side of 
 Jerusalem, is identified by Robinson and Smith with a large tank at the 
 head of the Valley of Hinnom, about seven hundred yards west-north-west 
 
.104 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 from the Jaffa gate. It is fyll in the rainy season, and its waters are then 
 conducted by a small rude aqueduct to the vicinity of the gate just men- 
 tioned, and so to the Pool of Hezekiah within the walls. This aqueduct is 
 probably the conduit mentioned in the text, and the end of this conduit the 
 point where it enters the city, as appears from the fact, that when Rabsha- 
 keh afterwards conferred with the ministers of Hezekiah at this same spot, he 
 was heard by the people on the city wall (ch. 36 : 2, 12). From the same 
 passage it may be inferred that this was a frequented spot, which some sup- 
 pose to be the reason that Isaiah was directed to it, while others understand 
 the direction as implying that Ahaz was about to fortify the city, or rather 
 to cut off a supply of water from the invaders, as Hezekiah afterwards did 
 when besieged by Sennacherib (2 Chr. 32 : 4) ; an example often followed 
 afterwards, particularly in the sieges of Jerusalem by Pompey, Titus, and 
 Godfrey of Bouillon. The Prophet is therefore commanded to go out, not 
 merely from his house, but from the city, to meet Ahaz, which does not im- 
 ply that the king was seeking him, or coming to him, but merely specifies 
 the object which he was to seek himself. For the various opinions with 
 respect to the position of the Upper Pool — so called in relation to the Lower 
 Pool, mentioned in chap. 22 : 9, and situated lower down in the same valley, 
 south of the Jaffa Gate — see Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and Hitzig on this 
 passage, Winer's Realworterbuch s. v. Teiche, and Robinson's Palestine, 
 vol. i. pp. 352, 483. The Fuller's Field was of course without the city, 
 and the highway or causeway mentioned may have led either to it or along 
 it, so as to divide it from the aqueduct. — The command to take his son with 
 him might be regarded merely as an incidental circumstance, but for the fact 
 that the name Shear-jashub is significant, and as we may suppose it to have 
 been already known, and the people were familiar with the practice of con- 
 veying instruction in this form, the very sight of the child would perhaps 
 suggest a prophecy, or recall one previously uttered, or at least prepare the 
 mind for one to come ; and accordingly we find in ch. 10 : 21 this very 
 phrase employed, not as a name, but in its proper sense, a remnant shall 
 return. Cocceius assigns two other reasons for the presence of the child — 
 that he might early" learn the duties of a prophet — and th^t the sight of him 
 might prove to all who heard the ensuing prophecy, that the mother men- 
 tioned in v. 14 could not be the Prophet's wife. But this precaution would 
 have answered little purpose against modern license of conjecture ; for Gese- 
 nius does not scruple to assume a second marriage. 
 
 V. 4. The assurance, by which Ahaz is encouraged, is that the danger 
 is over, that the fire is nearly quenched, that the enemies, who lately 
 seemed like flaming firebrands of war, are now mere smoking ends of fire- 
 brands ; he is therefore exhorted to be quiet and confide in the divine pro- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 105 
 
 tection. And thou shall say to him, Be cautious and be quiet— or take C 
 to be quiet — fear not, nor let thy heart he soft, before — or on account of — 
 these two smoking tails of firebrands, in the heat of the anger of R< 
 and Syria and the son of Remaliah. The comparison of Rezin and Pekah 
 to the tails or .ends of firebrands, instead of firebrands themselves, is not a 
 mere expression of contempt, as most interpreters suppose, nor a mere inti- 
 mation of their approaching fate, as Barnes and Henderson explain it, but a 
 distinct allusion to the evil which they had already done, and which should 
 never be repeated. If the emphasis were only in the use of the word tails, 
 the tail of any thing else would have been equally appropriate. The smok- 
 ing remnant of a firebrand implies a previous flame, if not a conflagration. 
 This confirms the conclusion before drawn, that Judah had already been 
 ravaged, and that the narratives in Kings and Chronicles are perfectly con- 
 sistent and relate to the same subject. The older versions construe the 
 demonstrative with firebrands — ' the tails of these two smoking firebrands ;' 
 the moderns more correctly with tails — c these two tails or ends of smoking 
 firebrands.' — The last clause of the verse is not to be construed with BTtttft — 
 ' smoking in the anger of Rezin etc.' but with the verbs preceding — ' fear 
 not, nor let thy heart be faint in the anger etc.' The reason implied in 
 the connexion is that the hot fire of their anger was now turned to smoke 
 and almost quenched. — The distinct mention of Rezin and Syria, while 
 Pekah is simply termed the son of Remaliah, is supposed by some to be 
 intended to express contempt for the latter, though the difference may after 
 all be accidental, or have only a rhythmical design. The patronymic, like 
 our English surname, can be used contemptuously only when it indicates 
 ignoble origin, in which sense it may be applied to Pekah, who was a 
 usurper, as the enemies of apoleon Nalways chose to call him Buonaparte, 
 because the name betrayed an origin both foreign and obscure. 
 
 V. 5. Because Syria has devised, meditated, purposed, evil against 
 thee, also Ephraim and RemaliaJvs son, saying. Hendewerk, and most 
 of the early writers, connect this with what goes before, as a further explana- 
 tion of the king's terror — ' fear not, nor let thy heart be faint, because Syria 
 etc' But Gesenius, Hitzig, Henderson, Ewald and Umbreit, make it the 
 beginning of a sentence, the apodosis of* which is contained in v. 7 — c be- 
 cause (or although) Syria has devised etc. therefore (or nevertheless) thus 
 saith the Lord etc' The two constructions may be blended by regarding 
 this .verse and the next as a link or connecting clause between the exhorta- 
 tion in v. 4 and the promise in v. 7. ' Fear not because Syria and Israel 
 thus threaten, for on that very account the Lord declares etc' Here again 
 Syria appears as the prime agent and controlling power, although Ephraim 
 is added in the second clause. The suppression of Pekah's proper name in 
 
106 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 this clause, and of Rezin's altogether in the first, has given rise to various 
 far-fetched explanations, though it seems in fact to show, that the use of 
 names in the whole passage is rather euphonic or rhythmical than significant. 
 
 V. 6. The invaders themselves are now introduced as holding counsel 
 or addressing one another, not at the present moment, but at the* time when 
 their plan was first concerted. We will go up, or let us go up, into Judah, 
 or against it, although this is rather implied than expressed, and vex (i. e. 
 harass or distress) it, and make a breach in it (thereby subduing it) to our- 
 selves, and let us make a Icing in the midst of it, to wit, the son of Tabedl 
 or Tabeel, as the name is written out of pause, Ezra 4 : 7. The feminine 
 suffixes probably refer, not to Judah (Henderson) but to Jerusalem (Gese- 
 nius, Rosenmiiller), although the same terms are applied to the whole 
 country elsewhere (2 Chron. 21 : 17). The reference to Jerusalem is re- 
 quired by the history, according to which they did succeed in their attack 
 upon the kingdom, but were foiled in their main design of conquering the 
 royal city. The entrance into Judah was proposed only as a means to this 
 end, and it is the failure of this end that is predicted in the next verse. 
 The reference to the city is also recommended by the special reference to 
 the capital cities of Syria and Ephraim in vs. 8, 9. H|S*»p« is explained to 
 mean let us arouse her by the Vulgate (suscitemus earn), Luther (aufwecken), 
 Calvin and others, which supposes the verb to be derived from ypft (yp.i) 
 to awaJcen. Others, deriving it from yxp r to cut off, explain it to mean let us 
 dismember or divide it (Vitringa, Augusti), or subvert, destroy it (Peshito, 
 J. D. Michaelis, Schroeder, Henderson). The simplest etymology, and that 
 most commonly adopted, derives it from "pp to be distressed or terrified, and 
 in the Hiphil to alarm (Hitzig), or to distress, with special reference to the 
 hardships of a siege (Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Cocceius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, 
 Ewald etc.). Oppress (Barnes) is too indefinite. The other verb has also 
 been variously explained, as meaning let us level it (from fisps a plain), let 
 us tear it away (Vulgate : avellamus ad nos), let us divide or rend it (Luther, 
 Cocceius, Alting, J. W. Michaelis, Vitringa, Barnes). It is now commonly 
 agreed, however, that it means to make a breach or opening (Calvin : faire 
 bresche ou ouverture, Hendewerk, Henderson), and thereby take or conquer 
 (Ewald, Knobel). The creation *of tributary kings by conquerors is men- 
 tioned elsewhere in the sacred history (e. g. 2 Kings 23 : 34. 24 : 17.) 
 Son of Tabeal, like Son of Remaliah, is commonly explained as a contemp- 
 tuous expression, implying obscurity or mean extraction. But such an ex- 
 pression would hardly have been put into the mouths of his patrons, unless, we 
 suppose that they selected him expressly on account of his ignoble origin or 
 insignificance, which is a very improbable assumption. They would be far 
 more likely to bestow the crown on some prince either of Ephraim or Syria, 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 101 
 
 which some suppose to be implied in the Syriac form of the name, equivalent 
 to the Hebrew Tobijdh (Neh. 2 : 15), and analogous to Tabrimmon, from 
 whom Benbadad king of Syria was descended (1 Kings 15: 18). So in Ezra 
 4 : 7, Tabcel is Darned as one of those who wrote to the king in the Syrian 
 (Aramean) tongue* This whole speculation, though ingenious, and illustra- 
 ted by Gesenius with a profusion of etymological learning (Cbmm. vol. 1. 
 p. 281, note), is probably fanciful and certainly of no exegetical importance, 
 which last is also true of Calvin's suggestion that the Son of Tabeal may 
 have been a disaffected Jew. There is something curious in the Jewish expla- 
 nation of the name by that form of the cabbala called Albam (because it puts 
 a for /, b for to, and so forth), as identical with absn (i. q. tr»Mn.) A more 
 important observation is, that this familiar reference en passant to the names 
 of persons now forgotten, as if fam liar to contemporary readers, is a strong 
 incidental proof of authenticity. 
 
 V. 7. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, it shall not stand — or it shall not 
 arise — and it shall not be, or come to pass. This, as was said before, is 
 taken by Gesenius and others as the conclusion of a sentence beginning in 
 v. 5, but may just as naturally # be explained as the commencement of a 
 • new one. The feminine verbs may be referred to counsel (nss) under- 
 stood or taken indefinitely, which is a common Hebrew construction. (Vide 
 supra, ch. 1 : 6.) As c*ip'means both to rise and stand, the idea .here ex- 
 pressed may be either that the thing proposed shall not- even come into 
 existence (Hitzig), or that it shall not continue or be permanent (Gesenius, 
 Hengstenberg, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit). The general sense is clear, 
 viz. that their design should be defeated. The name rrm , being here pre- 
 ceded by isHk, takes the vowels of B^ffest. The accumulation of divine 
 names is, as usual, emphatic, and seems here intended to afford a pledge of 
 the event, derived from the supremacy and power of the Being who 
 predicts it. 
 
 Vs. 8, 9. The plans of the enemy cannot be accomplished, because 
 God has decreed that while the kingdoms of Syria and Israel continue to 
 exist, they shall remain without enlargement, or at least without the addition 
 of Jerusalem or Judah to their territories. It shall not stand or come to 
 pass, because the head (or capital) of Aram is Damascus (and shall be so still) , 
 and the head (chief or sovereign) of Damascus is Rezin (and shall be so 
 still — and as for the other power there is as little cause of fear) for in yet sixty 
 and five years (in sixty-five years more) shall Ephraim be broken from a 
 people (i. e. from being a people, so as not to be a people — and even in the 
 mean time, it shall not be enlarged by the addition of Judah) for the head 
 (or capital) of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head (chief or sovereign) of 
 
103 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 Samaria is Remaliah's son. If you will not believe (it is) because you 
 
 are not to be established. Here again Syria is the prominent object, and 
 
 Ephraim subjoined, as if by an afterthought. The order of ideas is that 
 
 Syria shall remain as it is, and as for Ephraim it is soon to be destroyed, but 
 
 while it does last, it shall remain as it is likewise ; Pekah shall never reign 
 
 . © 
 
 in any other 'capital, nor Samaria be the capital of any other kingdom. To 
 this natural expression of the thought corresponds the rhythmical arrange- 
 ment of the sentences, the first clause of the eighth verse answering exactly 
 to the first clause of the ninth, while the two last clauses, though dissimilar 
 complete the measure. 
 
 For the head of Syria is Damascus — 
 And the head of Damascus Rezin — 
 
 And in sixty-five years more etc. 
 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria — 
 And the head of Samaria Remaliah's son — 
 If ye will not believe etc. 
 
 Whether this be poetry or not, its structure is as regular as that of any other 
 period of equal length in the writings of Isaiah. As to the substance of these 
 verses, the similar clauses have already be«n explained, as a prediction that 
 the two invading powers should remain without enlargement. The first of 
 the uneven clauses, i. e. the last of v. 8, adds to this prediction, that Ephraim, 
 or the kingdom of the ten tribes, shall cease to exist within a prescribed pe- 
 riod, which period is so defined as to include the three successive strokes by 
 which that power was annihilated — first, the invasion of Tiglath-pileset, two 
 or three years after the date of this prediction (2 Kings, 15 : 29. 16 : 9) — 
 then, the conquest of Samaria, and the deportation of the ten tribes, by Shal- 
 meneser, about the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kings 17: 6) — and finally, the 
 introduction of another race by Esar-haddon in the reign of Manasseh (2 
 Kings 17: 24. Ezra 4:2. 2 Chron. 33: 11). Within sixty-five years 
 all these events were to occur, and Ephraim, in all these senses, was to cease 
 to be a people. It seems then that the language of this clause has been 
 carefully selected, so as to include the three events which might be repre- 
 sented as destructive of Ephraim, while in form it balances the last clause 
 of the next verse, and is therefore essential to the rhythmical completeness 
 of the passage. And yet this very clause has been rejected as a gloss, not 
 only by Houbigant, and others of that school, but by Gesenius, Hitzig, 
 Maurer and Knobel, expressly on the ground that it violates the truth of 
 history and the parallelism of the sentence. In urging the latter reason 
 none of these critics seems to have observed that the omission of the clause 
 would leave the verses unequal; while the puerile suggestion that the similar 
 clauses ought to come together, would apply to any case in Greek, Latin, or 
 modern poetry, where two balanced verses are divided by a line of different 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 109 
 
 :h or termination, as in t h«* St dixit iV/a/cr or Cow per's Ode to Friendship. 
 Such an objection to the clause is especially surprising on the part of those 
 who insist upon subjecting even Hebrew prose to the principles, if not the 
 rules, of Greek and Latin prosody. — As to the more serious historical objec- 
 tion, it is applicable only to the theory of Usher, Lowth, Hengstenberg, and 
 Henderson, that the conquest of Israel by Tiglath-pileser and Shalmen- 
 eser are excluded from the prophecy, and that it has relation solely to 
 what took place under Esar-haddon ; whereas all three are included. If a 
 historian should say that in one and twenty years from the beginning of 
 the nineteenth century, the Emperor Napoleon had ceased to be, he could 
 not be charged with the error of reckoning to the time of his death, instead of ■ 
 his first or second abdication, because all these would be really included, 
 and the larger term chosen only for the purpose of embracing every sense in 
 which the Emperor ceased to be. .So in the case before us, the invasion by 
 Tiglath-pileser, and the deportation by Shalmeneser are included, but the 
 term of sixty-five years is assigned, because with it expired every possible 
 pretension of the ten tribes to be reckoned as a state or nation, though the 
 real downfall of the government had happened many years before. Nor is 
 it improbable that if the shorter periods of three or twenty years had been 
 named, the same class of critics would have made the exclusion of the wind- 
 ing up under Esar-haddon a ground of similar objection to the clause. 
 The propriety of including this event is clear from the repeated mention of 
 Israel as a people still subsisting until it took place (2 Kings 23 : 19, 20. 
 2 Chr. 34: 6, 7. 35: 18), and from the fact that Esar-haddon placed his 
 colonists in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel (2 Kings 
 27 : 24), thereby completing their destruction as a people. The same 
 considerations furnish an answer to the objection that the time fixed for the 
 overthrow r of Ephraim is too remote to allay the fears of Ahaz ; not to mention 
 that this was only one design of the prediction, and that the encouragement 
 was meant to be afforded by what follows, and which seems to have been 
 added for the very purpose, as if he had said, ' Ephraim is to last but sixty- 
 five years at most, and even while it does last th&hezd etc' That the order 
 of the numerals, sixty and Jive instead offve and sixty is no proof of later 
 origin (Gesenius), may be inferred from the occurrence of the same colloca- 
 tion at least three times in Genesis (4: 24. 18: 28. 46: 15.) The 
 llcged inconsistency between this clause and v. 16 rests on a gratuitous 
 sumption that the desolation threatened there and the destruction here 
 e perfectly identical. To allege that Ti*> is elsewhere used to denote the 
 ecise time of an event (Gen. 40: 13, 19. Jos. 1 : 11. 3: 2. Jer. 28: 
 , 11), is only to allege that a general expression admits of a specific ap- 
 lication. The Hebrew phrase corresponds exactly to the English phrase 
 in sixty-five years more, and like it may either be applied to something 
 
110 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 happening at the end of that period, or to something happening at any time 
 within it, or to both, which is really its application here. To the objection, 
 that the precise date of the immigration under Esar-haddon is a matter of 
 conjecture, the answer is, that since this event and the sixty-fifth year from 
 the date of the prediction, both fall within the reign of Manasseh, the suppo- 
 sition that they coincide is less improbable than the supposition that they do 
 not. To reject the clause on such a ground is to assume that whatever is not 
 proved (or rather twice proved) must be false, however probable. Enough 
 has now been said, not only to vindicate the clause as genuine, but to preclude 
 the necessity of computing the sixty-five years from any other period than the 
 date of the prediction, as for instance from the death of Jeroboam II. with 
 Cocceius, or from the leprosy of Uzziah with the Rabbins, both which hypoth- 
 eses, if necessary, might be plausibly defended. It also supersedes the necessity 
 of emendation in the text. Grotius and Cappellus drop the plural termination 
 of D^iUttJ and thus convert it into six. But even if Isaiah could have written 
 six and Jive instead of eleven, the latter number would be too small, as Cap- 
 pellus in his computation overlooks an interregnum which the best chronol- 
 ogers assume between Pekah and Hoshea. See Gesenius in loc. Vitringa 
 supposes warn d-hew to have arisen out of warn %©tB (a common abbreviation 
 in Hebrew manuscripts), and this out of warn '■> xaw, six, ten, and Jive, the 
 exact number of years between the prophecy and Shalmaneser's conquest, 
 viz. sixteen of Ahaz and five of Hezekiah, which he therefore supposes to be 
 separately stated. But even if letters were used for ciphers in Isaiah's time, 
 which is highly improbable, it is still more improbable that both modes of 
 notation would have been mixed up in a single number. Gesenius sneers at 
 Vitringa's thanking God for the discovery of this emendation ; but it is more 
 than matched by two of later date and German origin. Steudel proposes to 
 read SibaS (for rutfi) in the sense of repeatedly, and to supply days after sixty- 
 Jive ! Hendewerk more boldly reads nsti too'rn trtfta mrin ivhile the robbers 
 and the murderer are a sleep (i. e. asleep) ! This he thinks so schon und 
 herrlich, and the light which it sheds so ganz wunderbar, that he ev*en 
 prefers it to Hensler's proposition to read six or Jive (i. q. five or six,) i. e. 
 a few. Luzzatto gives this latter sense to the common text, which he ex- 
 plains as a round number, or rather as two round numbers, sixty being used 
 in the Talmud indefinitely for a large number, and Jive even in Scripture for 
 a small one. Ewald seems willing to admit that sixty-Jive itself is here put 
 as a period somewhat shorter than the term of human life, but rejects the 
 clause as a quotation from an older prophecy, transferred from the margin to 
 the text of Isaiah. Besides these emendations of the text, the view which 
 has been taken of the prophecy enables us to dispense with various forced 
 constructions of the first clause — such as Aben Ezra's — ( it shall not come 
 to pass (with respect to you) but (with respect to) the head of Syria (which 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. Ill 
 
 is) Damascus etc' Or this — 'though the bead of Syria is Damascus (a g* 
 city), and the bead of Damascus is Rezin (a great prince), yet in sixty-five 
 years etc.* Hitzig reverses this, and makes it an expression of contempt — 
 'for the head of Syria is (only) Damascus, and the head of Damascus (only) 
 Rezin (a smoking fee-brand.)' — The last clause of the verse has also been 
 variously construed. J. D. Michaelis supposes a threatening or indignant 
 pause in the midst of it — ' If ye will not believe — for (I see that) ye will not 
 believe.' Grotius makes it interrogative — ' will ye not believe, unless ye 
 are confirmed' or assured by a sign ? The construction now most commonly 
 adopted makes n s a particle of asseveration (Rosenmiiller, Henderson) or 
 even of swearing (Maurer), or supposes it to introduce the apodosis and to be 
 equivalent to then (Gesenius). Luther's version of the clause, thus understood, 
 has been much admired, as a successful imitation of the paronomasia in He- 
 brew : Glaubet ihr nicht, so bleibct ihr nicht. This explanation of the 
 clause is strongly favoured by the analogy of 2 Chron. 20 : 20 ; but another 
 equally natural is the one already given in translation — ' if ye do not believe 
 (it is) because ye are not to be established.' For other constructions and 
 conjectural emendations of the several clauses, see Gesenius and Rosen- 
 muller on the passage. 
 
 V. 10. And he (i. e. God, by the mouth of Isaiah) added to speak 
 unto Ahaz, saying — which, according to usage, may either mean that he 
 spoke again, on a different occasion, or that he spoke further, on the same 
 occasion, which last is the meaning here. This verse, it is true, is supposed 
 to commence a new division of the prophecy by Ewald, and an entirely 
 distinct prediction by Hendewerk, who connects it with the close of the 
 fifth chapter, and by Henderson, who regards all that follows as having 
 reference to the invasion of Judah by Assyria. A sufficient refutation of 
 the two last hypotheses is involved in the admission made by both these 
 writers, that the offer of a sign has reference to nothing in the context, but 
 to something not recorded ; whereas it was naturally called forth by the in- 
 credulity which some suppose to have been betrayed by the king's 
 silence (Hengstenberg) or his looks (Rosenmiiller), and which is certainly 
 referred to in the last clause of v. 9. 
 
 V. 11. Ask for thee (i. e. for thy own satisfaction) a sign from Jehovah 
 thy God (literally from with him, i. e. from his presence and his power) — 
 ask deep or high above — or make deep thy request or make it high — i. e. 
 ask it either above or below. A sign is not necessarily a miracle, nor 
 necessarily a prophecy, but a sensible pledge of the truth of something else, 
 whether present, past, or future ; sometimes consisting in a miracle (Isai. 38 : 
 8. Judg. 6 : 37. Ex. 4 : 8), but sometimes in a mere prediction (Ex. 3:12. 
 
112 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII 
 
 1 Sam. 2 : 34. 2 Kings 19 : 29), and sometimes only in a symbol, espe- 
 cially a symbolical name or action (Isai. 38: 18. 20: 3. Ezek. 4:8). 
 The sign here offered is a proof of Isaiah's divine legation, which Ahaz 
 seemed to doubt. He is allowed to choose, not only the place of its 
 exhibition (Pluschke), but the sign itself. The offer is a general one, inclu- 
 ding all the kinds of signs which have, been mentioned, though the only one 
 which would have answered the purpose of accrediting the Prophet, was a 
 present miracle, as in the case of Moses (Ex. 4: 30). Aquila, Symmachus, 
 and Theodotion, seem to have read h|fetvj to the grave or lower world ([id&v- 
 rov £tg adrjv), which is adopted by Jerome, Michaelis, Lowth, and also by 
 Ewald but without a change of text, as he supposes rtxtt) to be simply a 
 euphonic variation for h^kflj intended to assimilate it to H^Q^. Thus under- 
 stood, the word may refer to the opening of the earth or the raising of the 
 dead, in opposition to a miracle in heaven. But as heaven is not particularly 
 mentioned, there is no need of departing from the old explanation of «"ibxu3 
 as a paragogic imperative (comp. Dan. 9: 19. B. 41 : 5), signifying ask 
 thou. The two preceding verbs may then be taken also as imperatives, go 
 deep, ask, i. e. in asking, or as infinitives equivalent to adyerbs, ask deep, ask 
 high ;, or the construction may be simplified still further by explaining nbstei 
 as a noun equivalent to «"&ati and governed directly by the two verbs as im- 
 peratives — make deep (thy) request, make (it) high. There may either 
 be a reference to the distinction between signs in heaven and signs on earth 
 (Matt. 16: 1), which Jerome illustrates by the 'case of the Egyptian 
 plagues, or the words may be more indefinitely understood as meaning any 
 where, up or down, above or below (Calvin). The phrase thy God is 
 emphatic and intended to remind Ahaz of his official relation to Jehovah, 
 and as it were to afford him a last opportunity of profiting by the connexion. 
 
 V. 12. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt Jehovah. 
 Some regard this as a contemptuous irony, implying a belief that God would 
 not be able to perform his promise (Grotius, Gesenius etc.) or a disbelief 
 in the existence of a personal God (Umbreit.) We have no reason to doubt, 
 however, that Ahaz believed in the existence of Jehovah, at least as one 
 among many gods, as a local and national if not a supreme deity. It is better, 
 therefore, to understand the words as a hypocritical excuse for not obeying 
 the command, with obvious allusion to the prohibition in Deut. 6 : 6, which 
 is of course inapplicable to the case of one who is exhorted to choose. His 
 refusal probably arose not from speculative doubts or politic considerations, 
 but from the state of his affections, his aversion to the service of Jehovah 
 and his predilection for that of other gods, perhaps combined with a belief 
 that in this case human aid would be sufficient and a divine interposition 
 superfluous ; to which may be added a specific expectation of assistance 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 113 
 
 from Assyria, for which he bad perhaps already sued (2 Kings 16: 7-9). 
 To tempt God is not to try him in the way of trusting him (lloheisel), nor 
 simply to call in question his power, knowledge, or veracity (Gesenius, Hit- 
 zig), hut to put him practically to the test. The character of Ahaz is illus- 
 trated by a comparison of this refusal with the thankful acceptance of such 
 signs by others, and especially by his own son Hezekiah, to whom, as 
 Jerome observes, signs both in heaven and on earth were granted. 
 
 a 
 
 V. 13. At first Ahaz seemed to doubt only the authority and divine 
 legation of the Prophet ; but his refusal to accept the offered attestation was 
 an insult to God himself, and is therefore indignantly rebuked by the Pro- 
 phet. And he said, hear, I pray you, oh house of David ! is it too little 
 for you (is it not enough for you) to ivcary men (i. e. to try men's patience) 
 that you (must) weary (or try the patience of) my God 1 The meaning is 
 not merely that it is worse to weary God than man (Chrysostom), or that 
 it was not man but God whom they were wearying (Jerome) ; but that 
 having first wearied man i. e. the Prophet by disputing his commission, they 
 were now wearying God, by refusing the offered attestation, rviabn is not 
 to regard as weak or impotent (Kimchi), but to try or exhaust the patience 
 of another. The plural form of the address does not imply that the Prophet 
 turned away from Ahaz to others (Jerome), but that members of his family 
 and court were, in the Prophet's view, already implicated in his unbelief. 
 
 V. 14. The* king having refused to ask a sign, the Prophet gives him 
 one, by renewing the promise of deliverance (vs. 8, 9) and connecting it 
 with the birth of a child, whose significant name is made a symbol of the 
 divine interposition, and his progress a measure of the subsequent events. 
 Instead of saying that God would be present to deliver them, he says the 
 child shall be called Immanuel (God-with-us) ; instead of mentioning a term 
 of years, he says, before the child is able to distinguish good from evil ; 
 instead of saying that until that time the land shall lie waste, he represents 
 the child as eating curds and honey, spontaneous products, here put in oppo- 
 sition to the fruits of cultivation. At the same time, the form of expression 
 is descriptive. Instead of saying simply that the child shall experience all 
 this, he represents its birth and infancy as actually passing in his sight ; he 
 sees the child brought forth and named Immanuel ; he sees the child eating 
 curds and honey till a certain age. Therefore (because you have refused 
 to choose) the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold! the virgin 
 pregnant and bringing forth a son, and she calls his name Immanuel (God 
 with us) — curds and honey shall he eat (because the land lies waste) until he 
 shall know (Jiow) to reject the evil and to choose the good (but no longer) ; 
 for before the child shall know (hoiv) to reject the evil and to choose the 
 
 8 
 
114 ISAIAH. CHAP. VII. 
 
 good, the land, of whose two Icings thou art afraid (i. e. Syria and Israel), 
 shall le forsaken (i. e. desolate), which of course implies the previous deliv- 
 erance of Judah. — All interpreters appear to be agreed that these three 
 verses contain a threatening of destruction to the enemies of Judah, if not a 
 direct promise of deliverance, and that this event is connected, in some way, 
 with the birth of a child, as the sign or pledge of its certain occurrence. 
 But what child is meant, or who is the Immanuel here predicted ? The 
 various answers* to .this question may be all reduced to three fundamental 
 hypotheses, each of which admits of several minor variations. 
 
 I. The first hypothesis is that the only birth and infancy referred to in 
 these verses are the birth and infancy of a child born (or supposed to be born), 
 in the ordinary course of nature, and in the days of Isaiah himself. The 
 unessential variations, of which this hypothesis is susceptible, have reference 
 chiefly to the question what particular child is intended. It The Jews of 
 old supposed it to be Hezekiah ; but this was exploded by Jerome's sugges- 
 tion, that he was already at least nine years old, since his father reigned but 
 sixteen years, and he succeeded him at twenty-five (2 Kings 16 : 2, 18 : 2). 
 2. Kimchi and Abarbenel suppose Immanuel to be a younger son of Ahaz, 
 by a second marriage. 3. Isenbiehl, Bauer, Cube, Steudel, and Hitzig, un- 
 derstand by ft*2wi, a woman who was present, and at whom the Prophet 
 pointed. 4. J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler, Ammon, under- 
 stand the Prophet to predict not a real but an ideal birth, as if he had said, 
 should one now a virgin conceive and bear a son, she might call his name 
 Immanuel, etc. 5. Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Faber, Pluschke*, Gesenius, Mau- 
 rer, Hendewerk, Knobel, suppose him to be speaking of his own wife, and 
 the birth of his own son ; and as Shearjashub was already born, Gesenius 
 assumes a second marriage of the Prophet, and supposes two events to be 
 predicted : first, the deliverance of Judah at the birth of the child, and then 
 the desolation of Syria and Israel before he should be able to distinguish 
 good and evil. To this last supposition, it is justly objected by Hengsten- 
 berg that it assumes too great an interval between the deliverance of Judah 
 and the desolation of the other countries, as well as between the former and 
 the resumption of agricultural employments. It is besides unnecessary, as 
 the interposition denoted by the name Immanuel need not be restricted to 
 the time of the child's birth, and as the desolation of Syria and Israel is said 
 to take place before, but not immediately before the child's attaining to a 
 certain age ; to which it may be added that the age itself is left somewhat 
 indefinite. But besides these objections to Gesenius's assumption of a two- 
 fold prophecy, his whole hypothesis, with all the others which have been 
 enumerated, except perhaps the fourth, may be justly charged with gratui- 
 tously assuming facts of which we have no evidence, and which are not ne- 
 cessary to the interpretation of the passage ; such as the second marriage of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 115 
 
 Ahaz, or that of Isaiah, or the presence of a pregnant woman, or the Pro- 
 phet's pointing at her. A further ohjection to all the variations of this first 
 hypothesis is, that although they may afford a sign, in one of the senses of 
 that term, to wit, that of an emblem or symbol, they do not afford such a 
 sign as the context would lead us to expect. Ahaz had been offered the 
 privilege of choosing any sign whatever, in heaven or on earth. Had he ac- 
 tually chosen one, it would no doubt have been something out of the ordi- 
 nary course of nature, as in the case of Gideon (Judges 6 : 37-40) and 
 Hezekiah (Isai. 38: 7, 8). On his refusal to choose, a sign is given him 
 unasked, and although it does not necessarily follow that it was precisely 
 such as he would have selected — since the object was no longer simply to 
 remove his doubts, but to verify the promise and to mark the event when it 
 occurred as something which had been predicted — yet it. seems very impro- 
 bable that after such an offer, the sign bestowed would be merely a thin or of 
 every-day occurrence, or at most the application of a symbolical name. 
 This presumption is strengthened by the solemnity with which the Prophet 
 speaks of the predicted birth, not as a usual and natural event, but as some- 
 thing which excites his own astonishment, as he beholds it in prophetic 
 vision. This may prove nothing by itself, but is significant when taken in 
 connexion with the other reasons. The same thing may be said of the 
 address to Immanuel, in ch. 8 : 8, and the allusion to the name in v. 11, 
 which, although they may admit of explanation in consistency with this 
 first hypothesis, agree much better with the supposition that the prophecy 
 relates to something more than a natural and ordinary birth. A still stronger 
 reason for the same conclusion is afforded by the parallel passage in ch. 9 : 
 5, 6, occurring in the same connected series of prophecies. There, as 
 here, the birth of a child is given as a pledge of safety and deliverance, but 
 with the important addition of a full description, which, as we shall see be- 
 low, is wholly inapplicable to any ordinary human child, however high in 
 rank or full of promise. If led by these remarkable coincidences to exam- 
 ine more attentively the terms of the prophecy itself, we find the mother of 
 the promised child described, not as a woman or as any particular woman 
 merely, but as fi^sn a term which has been variously derived from db* to 
 conceal, and from jJLc. to grow up, but which, in the six places where it 
 occurs elsewhere, is twice applied to young unmarried females certainly 
 (Gen. 24 : 43, Ex. 2 : 8), and twice most probably (Ps. 68 : 25, Sol. S. 1 : 
 3), while in the two remaining cases (Sol. S. 1 : 8, Prov. 30: 19) this ap- 
 plication is at least as probable as any other. It would therefore naturally 
 suggest the idea of a virgin, or at least of an unmarried woman. It is said 
 indeed, that if this had been intended, the word hfettta would have been em- 
 ployed ; but even that word is not invariably used in its strict sense (see 
 Deut. 22: 19, Joel 1 : 8), so that there would still have been room for the 
 
116 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 same cavils, and perhaps for the assertion that the idea of a virgin could not 
 be expressed except by a periphrasis. It is enough for us to know that a 
 virgin or unmarried woman is designated here as distinctly as she could be 
 by a single word. But why should this description be connected with a 
 fact which seems to render it inapplicable, that of parturition ? That the 
 word means simply a young woman, whether married or unmarried, a virgin 
 or a mother, is a subterfuge invented by the later Greek translators who, as 
 Justin Martyr tells us, read veang, instead of the old version Tidgfterog, which 
 had its rise before the prophecy became a subject of dispute between the 
 Jews and Christians. That the word denotes one who is a virgin or unmar- 
 ried now, without implying that she is to remain so, is certainly conceiva- 
 ble ; but, as was said before, its use in this connexion, especially when added 
 to the other reasons previously mentioned, makes it, to say the least, ex- 
 tremely probable that the event foretold is something more than a birth in 
 the ordinary course of nature. So too, the name lmmanuel, although it 
 might be used to signify God's providential presence merely (Ps. 46 : 8, 12, 
 89 : 25, Josh. 1 : 5, Jer. 1 : 8, Isai. 43 : 2), has a latitude and pregnancy 
 of meaning which can scarcely be fortuitous, and which, combined with all 
 the rest, makes the conclusion almost unavoidable, that it was here intended 
 to express a personal as well as a providential presence. If to this we add 
 the early promise of salvation through the seed of the woman (Gen. 3 : 15), 
 rendered more definite by later revelations, and that remarkable expression 
 of Isaiah's contemporary prophet Micah (5: 2), until the time that she 
 which travaileth hath brought forth, immediately following the promise of 
 a ruler, to be born in Bethlehem, but whose goings forth have been of old, 
 from everlasting — the balance of probabilities, as furnished by the Old Tes- 
 tament exclusively, preponderates decidedly in favour of the supposition, 
 that Isaiah's words had reference to a miraculous conception and nativity. 
 When we read, therefore, in the gospel of Matthew, that Jesus Christ was 
 actually born of a virgin, and that all the circumstances of his birth came to 
 pass that this very prophecy might be fulfilled, it has less the appearance of 
 an unexpected application, than of a conclusion rendered necessary, by a 
 series of antecedent facts and reasons, the last link in a long chain of intima- 
 tions more or less explicit. The same considerations seem to show that the 
 prophecy is not merely transferred or accommodated to another subject by 
 the evangelist, which is moreover clear from the emphatic form of the cita- 
 tion (jovto oXov yiyovev iva TtXtjQmd-rj x. t. A.), making it impossible to prove 
 the existence of any quotation, in the proper sense, if this be not one, and 
 from the want of any similarity between the two events, viz. a natural and 
 miraculous conception, upon which a mere illustrative accommodation of the 
 words could have been founded. The idea, insidiously suggested by J. D. 
 Michaelis, that the first two chapters of Matthew may be spurious, is so far 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 117 
 
 from deriving any countenance from this application of the prophecy, that 
 on the contrary its wonderful agreement with the scattered but harmonious 
 intimations of the Old Testament, too numerous and too detached to be for- 
 tuitous, affords a strong though incidental proof that these very chapters are 
 genuine and authentic. The rejection of Matthew's authority in toto, as an 
 interpreter of the prediction, is not only inconsistent with the proofs of his 
 inspiration drawn from other quarters, but leaves unexplained the remarka- 
 ble coincidence between his interpretation and the original form of expres- 
 sion, the context, and the parallel passages. That these should all conspire 
 to recommend an ignorant or random explanation of the prophecy, is mora 
 incredible, than that the explanation should be true, and the words of Isaiah 
 a prediction of something more than the birth of a real or ideal child, in the 
 ordinary course of nature, and in the days of the Prophet himself. The 
 question, however, still arises, how the birth of Christ, if here predicted, is 
 to be connected with the promise made to Ahaz, as a sign of the event, or 
 as a measure of the time of its fulfilment ? 
 
 II. The second hypothesis removes this difficulty by supposing that the 
 prophecy relates to two distinct births and two different children. Of this 
 general theory there 1 are two important modifications. 1. The first supposes 
 one child to be mentioned in v. 14„and another in v. 16. As to v. 15, 
 some connect it with the one before and some with the one after it. Thus 
 Junius understands v. 14 to refer to Christ, but vs. 15, 16 to Shearjashub ; 
 Usher applies vs. 14, 15 to Christ, and v. 16 to Shearjashub ; Calvin vs. 
 14, 15 to Christ, but v. 16 to a child, i. e., any child indefinitely. They 
 all agree that the prophecy contains two promises : first, that Christ 
 should be born of a virgin, and then, that Judah should be delivered before 
 Shearjashub (or before any child born within a certain time) could distin- 
 guish good from evil. To such of these interpretations as refer v. 15 to the 
 infancy of Christ, it may be objected that they put a sense upon that verse 
 which its expressions will not bear, and which is inconsistent with the use 
 of the same terms in v. 22. It will be seen below that the eating of curds 
 and honey is predicted as a sign of general desolation, or at least of inter- 
 rupted tillage. Another objection which applies to all the forms of this in- 
 terpretation is the sudden change of subject, in the fifteenth or sixteenth 
 verse, from Immanuel to Shearjashub, or to any child indefinitely. Nothing 
 but extreme exegetical necessity could justify the reference of vs. 15, 16, to» 
 any person not referred to in v. 14. 2. This difficulty is avoided in the 
 second modification of the general hypothesis that the passage (as a whole) 
 refers to two distinct births and to different children, by assuming that both 
 are mentioned in the fourteenth verse itself. This is the supposition of a 
 double sense, though some refuse to recognize it by that name. The essence 
 of the theory is this, that while v. 14, in its obvious and primary sense, 
 
118 ISAIAH, CHAk VII. 
 
 relates to the birth of a child in the ordinary course of nature, its terms are 
 so selected as to be descriptive, in a higher sense, of the miraculous nativity 
 of Christ. This theory is mentioned by Jerome as the opinion of a certain 
 Judaizing Christian, whom he does not name (quidam de nostris judaizans), 
 and by Calvin, as a compromise between the orthodox and Jewish expositions, 
 but has since had many eminent and able advocates. The minor variations of 
 this general hypothesis have reference chiefly to the particular child intended 
 by the prophecy in its lower sense, whether a son of Isaiah himself, as 
 Grotius, Clericus, and Barnes suppose, or any child born within a certain 
 time, as Lowth, with more probability, assumes. The advantage of these 
 interpretations is that they seem to account for the remarkable expressions 
 which the prophet uses, as if to intimate a deeper meaning than the primary 
 and obvious one, and at the same time answer the conditions, both of the 
 context in Isaiah, and of the application in Matthew, giving a sign analo- 
 gous to others given before and after by this very prophet (ch. 7 : 3, 8: 2), 
 and at the same time furnishing believers with a striking prophecy of the 
 Messiah. The objections to it are its complexity, and what seems to be the 
 arbitrary nature of the assumption upon which it rests. It seems to be a 
 feeling common to learned and unlearned readers, that although a double 
 sense is not impossible, and must in certain cases be assumed, it is unrea- 
 sonable to assume it, when any other explanation is admissible. The 
 improbability in this case is iucreased by the want of similarity be- 
 tween the two events, supposed to be predicted in the very same words, the 
 one miraculous, the other not only natural but common and of every day 
 occurrence. That two such occurrences should be described in the same 
 words, simply because they were both signs or pledges of a promise, though 
 not impossible, can only be made probable by strong corroborating proofs, 
 especially if any simpler mode of exposition be at all admissible. Another 
 objection, which lies equally against this hypothesis and the one first men- 
 tioned is, that in its primary and lower sense it does not afford such a sign 
 as the context and the parallel passages would lead us to expect, unless we 
 suppose that the higher secondary sense was fully understood at the time of 
 the prediction, and in that case, though the birth of the Messiah from a 
 virgin would be doubtless a sufficient sign, it would, for that very reason, 
 seem to make the lower one superfluous. Dathe's courageous supposition, 
 that the primary reference is to a miraculous conception and birth in the 
 days of Isaiah, only aggravates the difficulty which it would diminish, 
 though it certainly escapes the force of some of the objections to the suppo- 
 sition of a double sense, to wit, those founded on the inadequacy of the sign 
 and the dissimilarity of the events. None of these reasons seem however to 
 be decisive against the supposition of a double sense, as commonly under- 
 stood, unless there be some other way in which its complexity and arbi- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 110 
 
 trary character m;iy be avoided, and at the same time the connexion be- 
 tween the birth of th' 1 .Messiah and the deliverance of Judah satisfactorily 
 explained. 
 
 III. The third general hypothesis proposes to effect this by applying all 
 three verses directly and exclusively to the Messiah, as the only child whose 
 birth is there predicted, and his growth made the measure of the subsequent 
 events. The minor variations of this general hypothesis relate to the time 
 when these events were to occur, and to the sense in which the growth of the 
 Messiah is adopted as the measure of them. 1. The simplest form in which 
 this theory has been applied, is that exhibited by J. H. Michaelis and others, 
 who suppose the prediction to relate to the real, time of Christ's appearance, 
 and the thing foretold to be the desolation which should take place before 
 the Saviour reached a certain age. To this it is an obvious objection that 
 it makes the event predicted too remote to answer the conditions of the con- 
 text, or the purpose of the prophecy itself. A similar objection has indeed 
 been urged by the Rabbins and others, to a prophecy of Christ's birth as a 
 sign of the promise made to Ahaz. But the cases are entirely dissimilar. 
 The promise of immediate deliverance might be confirmed by an appeal to 
 an event long posterior, if the one necessarily implied the other, as included 
 in it, or as a necessary previous condition. Thus the promise that Israel 
 should worship God at Sinai, was a sign to Moses, that they should first be 
 delivered from Egypt (Ex. 3 : 12), and the promise that the tillage interrupted 
 by Sennacherib's invasion should be resumed, was a sign to Hezekiah, that 
 the invasion was itself to cease (Is. 37 : 30). In like manner, the assur- 
 ance that Christ was to be bora in Judah, of its royal family, might be a 
 sign to Ahaz, that the kingdom should not perish in his day ; and so far was 
 the remoteness of the sign in this case from making it absurd or inappro- 
 priate, that the further off it was, the stronger the promise of continuance to 
 Judah, which it guaranteed. Especially is this the case if we suppose it to 
 have been a familiar doctrine of the ancient church, that the Messiah was 
 to come, and that for his sake Israel existed as a nation. But according to 
 the theory now in question, not only is the sign remote, but. also the thing 
 signified ; not only the pledge of the event, but the event itself. The Pro- 
 phet's contemporaries might have been encouraged to expect deliverance 
 from present danger by the promise of Christ's coming, but a promise of 
 deliverance before the end of seven hundred years could afford no encour- 
 agement at all. That this objection to the theory in question has been felt 
 by some of its most able advocates, may be inferred from several facts. One 
 is that J. H. Michaelis is obliged to insert the words long since (dudum 
 deserta erit), and yet to leave the promise wholly indefinite. Another is 
 that Henderson departs from the ancient and almost universal explanation of 
 the passage as a promise, and converts it into a threatening, not only against 
 
120 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 Israel, but against Judah ; both of which kingdoms were to lose their kings 
 before the twelfth year of our Saviour, when Archelaus was banished from 
 Judea. A third is that Cocceius, though one of the most accurate philolo- 
 gists of his own or any other age, and only too decided in his exegetical 
 judgments, hesitates between the interpretation now in question and the un- 
 grammatical and arbitrary reference of v. 16 to a different child. At all 
 events, it may be safely assumed that the application of these three verses 
 to the time of Christ's actual appearance has no claim to be received, if 
 there is any other form of the same general hypothesis, by which the con- 
 nexion of the promise with the context can be made more natural. 2. This 
 end Vitringa has attempted to secure, by supposing the language to be hy- 
 pothetical, or that the Prophet, while he views the birth of Christ as a 
 remote event, makes it the measure of events at hand — q. d. before the 
 Messiah, if he were born now, could know how to distinguish good from evil, 
 etc. The only objection to this ingenious explanation is that the condi- 
 tional expression on which all depends, if he were born now, is precisely 
 that which is omitted, and of which the text contains no intimation. And 
 that the Prophet, without such intimation, would make this use of an event 
 which he distinctly saw to be remote, though not incredible, ought surely 
 not to be assumed without necessity. 3. Another modification of the hypo- 
 thesis which refers the three verses all to the Messiah, is that proposed by 
 Rosenmuller, in the second and subsequent editions of his Scholia, and sub- 
 stantially renewed by Ewald, viz. that Tsaiah really expected the Messiah 
 to be born at once, and therefore naturally made the progress of his infancy 
 the measure of a proximate futurity. Neither of these writers supposes any 
 reference to Christ, both regarding the prediction as a visionary anticipation. 
 But Hengstenberg has clearly shown that such a positive belief and ex- 
 pectation, on Isaiah's part, is not only inconsistent with other prophecies, 
 but with the sequel of this, in which a series of calamitous events is described 
 as intervening between the approaching deliverance and the nativity of the 
 Messiah. To the merely negative assumption that the time of the advent 
 formed net part of this particular revelation, he thinks there is not the same 
 objection. A. Accordingly, his own interpretation of the passage is, that 
 the birth of the Messiah being presented to the Prophet in connexion with 
 the proximate deliverance of which it was the sign or pledge, without regard 
 to chronological relations, and seen by him in prophetic ecstasy as actually 
 present, he naturally makes the one the measure of the other. As if he had 
 said, I see the virgin bringing forth a son, and calling his namelmmanuel ; I 
 see him living in the midst of desolation till a certain age ; but before that 
 time arrives, 1 see the land of our invaders lying desolate. The only objection 
 to this ingenious improvement on Vitringa's ingenious exposition, is that it 
 rests upon a certain theory as to the nature of prophetic inspiration or of the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 121 
 
 mental state in which the prophets received and ottered their communi- 
 tions, which, however probable, is not at present generally current with be- 
 lievers in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, nor perhaps maintained by 
 Hengstenberg himself. 
 
 In expounding this difficult and interesting passage, it has been consid- 
 ered more important to present a tolerably full view of the different opinions, 
 arranged according to the principles on which they rest, than to assert the 
 exclusive truth of any one interpretation as to all its parts. In summing up 
 the whole, however, it may be confidently stated, that the first hypothesis is 
 false ; that the first modifications of the second and third are untenable ; 
 and that the choice lies between the supposition of a double sense and that 
 of a reference to Christ exclusively, but in connexion with the promise of 
 immediate deliverance to Ahaz. The two particular interpretations which 
 appear to me most plausible and least beset with difficulties, are those of 
 Lowth and Vitringa, with which last Hengstenberg's is essentially identical. 
 Either the Prophet, while he foretells the birth of Christ, foretells that of 
 another child, during whose infancy the promised deliverance shall be expe- 
 rienced ; or else he makes the infancy of Christ himself, whether foreseen as 
 still remote or not, the sign and measure of that same deliverance. While 
 some diversity of judgment ought to be expected and allowed, in relation to 
 this secondary question, there is no ground, grammatical, historical, or 
 logical, for doubt as to the main point, that the church in all ages has been 
 right in regarding this passage as a signal and explicit prediction of the 
 miraculous conception and nativity of Jesus Christ. 
 
 As to the form of the expression, it will only be necessary further to 
 remark that Mi is not a verb or participle (Vitringa, Rosenmiiller), but a 
 feminine adjective, signifying pregnant, and here connected with an active 
 participle, to denote that the object is described as present to the Pro- 
 phet's view. Behold, the virgin, pregnant and bringing forth a son, and 
 she calls his name Immanuel. The future form adopted by the Septua- 
 gint (Jhi, rt'l*ETai) is retained in the New Testament, because the words 
 are there considered simply as a prophecy ; but in order to exhibit the 
 full force which they have in their original connexion, the present form 
 must be restored. The form of the sentence is evidently copied from 
 the angel's address to Hagar (Gen. 16: 11), and so closely that the verb 
 nx^(5 remains unchanged ; not, however, as the second person feminine 
 (though all the other Greek versions have xafo'oeig, and Junius likewise, 
 who supplies o virgo to remove the ambiguity), but as the third person 
 feminine, analogous to N$» (Lev. 25: 21), rxb£? (Ps. 118: 23), rxsn 
 (Gen. 33 : 1 1). The form rMttjj itself occurs (Deut. 31 : 29, Jer. 44 : 23)} 
 but in another sense (See Nordheimer, § 422.) Calvin, with a strange 
 lapse of memory, alleges that in Scripture mothers never name their 
 
122 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 children, and that a departure from the constant usage here is a pro- 
 phetic intimation that the child would have no human father. The error 
 of fact is easily corrected by referring to the exercise of this prerogative 
 by Eve, Leah, Rachel, Hannah, and others (Gen. 4: 1-25. 19: 
 37. 29: 32-35. 30: 6-24. 1 Sam. 1 : 20. 1 Chron. 4: 9. 7: 16.) 
 That the same act is frequently ascribed to the father, needs of course 
 no proof. In the case before us, it is so far from being an important 
 question, who was to impose the name, that it matters very little whether 
 it was ever imposed at all ; or rather, it is certain that the name is merely 
 descriptive or symbolical, and that its actual use in real life was no more 
 necessary to the fulfilment of the prophecy, than that the Messiah should 
 be commonly known by the titles of Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince of 
 Peace (Isai. 9 : 6), or the Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 23 : 6). Hence 
 in Matthew 1 : 23, the singular fttWg, is changed into the plural xaXeoovai, 
 they shall call, i. e. they indefinitely, as in our familiar phrase they say, cor- 
 responding to the French on dit and the German man sagt, which last 
 construction is adopted by Augusti in his version of this sentence (man 
 wird nennen seinen Namen). With equal adherence to the spirit, and 
 equal departure from the letter of the prophecy, the Peshito and Vulgate 
 give the verb a passive form, his name shall be called. As to the meaning 
 of the name itself, its higher sense is evident from Matthew's application, 
 notwithstanding Hitzig's paradoxical denial, and its lower sense from the 
 usage of analogous expressions in Ps. 46: 8, 12. 89: 25. Josh. 1 : 5. Jer. 
 I : 8. Isai. 43 : 2. 
 
 V. 15. This verse and the next have already been translated in con- 
 nexion with the fourteenth, upon which connexion their interpretation must 
 depend. It will here be necessary only to explain one or two points more 
 distinctly. Butter (or curds) and honey shall he eat, until he knows (how) to 
 reject the evil and to choose the good. The simple sense of the prediction 
 is that the desolation of Judah, caused by the invasion of Rezin and Pekah, 
 should be only temporary. This idea is symbolically expressed by making 
 the new-born child subsist during his infancy on curds and honey, instead of 
 the ordinary food of an agricultural population. This is clearly the meaning 
 of the same expression in v. 22, as we shall see below ; it cannot therefore 
 here denote the real humanity of the person mentioned (Calvin, Vitringa, 
 Henderson, etc.), which is besides sufficiently implied in his being born of a 
 human mother, and could not be asserted here without interrupting the con- 
 nexion between the fourteenth and sixteenth verses. It cannot denote his 
 poverty or low condition (Calovius),or that of the family of David (Alting), 
 because no such idea is suggested by the words. It cannot, on the other 
 hand, denote abundance or prosperity in general (Grotius, Cocceius, Junius, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 123 
 
 etc.), because such a diet is no proof of that condition, and because, according 
 to v. 22, the words are descriptive only of such abundance as arises from 
 a sparse population and neglected tillage. That this desolation should be 
 temporary, is expressed by representing it as coextensive with the early 
 childhood of the person mentioned, in?*^ is explained by Jarchi, Lowth, 
 Hitzig, Henderson, and Ewald, to mean when he lenows ; by most other 
 'writers, till or before he knoivs (LXX nnh i) yv&vai). The Vulgate, Luther, 
 Junius, and Clericus refer it, not to time at all, but to the design or effect of 
 his eating curds and honey, that he may know. It is clear however, from the 
 next verse, that this one must contain a specification of time, however vague. 
 The difference between the versions when and till, and also in relation to 
 the age described — which J. D. Michaelis puts as high as twenty-one, 
 Ewald from ten to twenty, Henderson at twelve, but Kimchi and most 
 others at about three years — is not so important as it might at first sight 
 seem, because the description was probably intended to be somewhat indefi- 
 nite. The essential idea is that the desolation should not last until a child 
 then born could reach maturity, and probably not longer than his first few 
 years. Clericus supposes good and evil to mean pleasant and unpleasant 
 food, as in 1 Sam. 19: 35; but the same words elsewhere constantly relate 
 to moral distinctions and the power to perceive them (Gen. 3 : 5. Deut. 1 : 
 39. 1 Kings 3 : 9. Jonah 4 : 2). Nothing short of the strongest exegetical 
 necessity could justify the reference of this verse to Shearjashub (Junius, 
 Usher), or to any other subject than the one referred to in the verse pre- 
 ceding, namely, Immanuel, the child whose birth the Prophet there describes 
 as just at hand, and whose infancy he here describes as passed in the midst 
 of surrounding desolation. To the explanation of this verse as having refer- 
 ence to Isaiah's own son or a son of Ahaz on the one hand, or to the time 
 of our Saviour's actual appearance on the other, sufficient objections have 
 already been adduced in the interpretation of the fourteenth verse. 
 
 V. 16. The desolation shall be temporary — for before the child shall 
 know (how) to reject the evil and to choose the good, the land, ofivhose two 
 kings thou art afraid (or by whose two kings thou art distressed), shall be 
 forsaken, i. e. left by its inhabitants and given up to desolation, in which 
 sense the same verb is used elsewhere by Isaiah (ch. 17 : 2. 27 : 10. 62: 
 12. Comp. 6 : 12). Instead of taking -"sn thus absolutely, most of the 
 older writers, and a few of later date, connect it with "^B^, and y% 
 with "rtfJI. The land which thou abhorrest (or for which thou fearest) 
 shall be forsaken by both its kings — i. e. Judah shall be forsaken by Rezin 
 and Pekah, whom Steudel supposes to be called its kings de facto — or 
 Syria and Israel shall be deprived of Rezin and Pekah — or Canaan (in- 
 cluding Israel and Judah) shall lose both its kings. This last is the inter- 
 
124 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 pretation given by Henderson, who also reads the land which thou destroyest. 
 Cleric us takes stjpjg absolutely, in the sense of being desolate, but translates 
 the rest, which thou abhorrest on account of its two Icings. To some of 
 these constructions it may be objected that they make the land and not the 
 kings the object of abhorrence, and to all, that they construe yp r directly 
 with *13$^, which is contrary to usage, and disjoin it from h j?3^, by which it 
 is followed in at least two other places (Ex. 3 : 12. Num. 22 : 3) ; to which' 
 may be added that according to the Hebrew idiom, this construction is the 
 only one that could be used to signify before (or on account of) ivhose two 
 kings thou art in terror. This construction, which is given by Castalio and 
 DeDieu, is adopted by Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, 
 Gesenius, Ewald, and most other modern writers, who are also agreed that 
 the land here meant is Syria and Israel, spoken of as one because confederate 
 against Judah. The wasting of these kingdoms and the deportation of their 
 people by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15: 29. 16: 9) is here predicted, 
 which of course implies the previous deliverance of Judah and the brief 
 duration of its own calamity, so that this verse assigns a reason for the repre- 
 sentation in the one preceding. There is no need, therefore, of imposing upon 
 *3, at the beginning of the verse, the sense of nay (Piscator), indeed (Cal- 
 vin), although (Alting), or but (Umbreit), or any other than its usual and 
 proper one of/or, because. Nor is it necessary to regard the fifteenth verse- 
 as a parenthesis, with Cocceius and Rosenmiiller ; much less to reject it as a 
 gloss, with Hitzig, and as breaking the connexion between the name Im- 
 manuel in v. 14, and the explanation of it in v. 16. The true connexion of 
 the verses has been well explained by Maurer and Knobel to be this, that 
 Judah shall lie waste for a short time, and only for a short time, for before 
 that short time is expired, its invaders shall themselves be invaded and de- 
 stroyed. This view of the connexion is sufficient to evince, that the refer- 
 ence of this verse to Shearjashub (Lowth) or to any child indefinitely 
 (Calvin) is as unnecessary as it is ungrammatical. A child is born — he 
 learns to distinguish good and evil — but before the child is able to distin- 
 guish good and evil, something happens. If these three clauses, thus suc- 
 ceeding one another, do not speak of the same child, it is impossible for lan- 
 guage to be so employed as to identify the subject without actually saying 
 that it is the same. 
 
 V. 17. Again addressing Ahaz, he assures him that although he shall 
 escape the present danger, God will inflict worse evils on himself and his 
 successors, by means of those very allies whose assistance he is now seek- 
 ing. Jehovah will bring upon thee — not merely as an individual, but as a 
 king — and on thy people — and on thy father's house — or family — the royal 
 line of Judah — days which have not come since the departure of Ephraim 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 1-r, 
 
 from Judah, to wit, the Icing of Assyria. It is possible to construe the 
 sentence so as to make it refer to the retreat of the invaders — Jehovah will 
 bring upon thee days which have not come (never come before), from the 
 day that Ephraim departs from Judah, i. e. as soon as this invasion ceases, 
 worse times shall begin. This construction, which is permitted, if not fa- 
 voured, by the Masoretic accents, has the advantage of giving to bzrz its 
 strict sense, as implying the removal of a burden or infliction (see Exod. 
 10 : 28, and Gesenius s. v.) rather than a mere revolt or schism, and also that 
 of making the expression stronger {days which have not come at all, or never 
 come) and at the same time less indefinite by specifying when the days 
 were to begin. But as the absolute use of the phrase which have not come 
 is rather harsh and unusual, and as the compound forms ci*rb and vqp& are 
 elsewhere used only in relation to the past (Judg. 19: 30. 2 Sam. 7 : 6. 
 2 Kings 19: 25. Mai. 3 : 7), although the simple forms trttt and ^sna some- 
 times denote the future (Exod. 12: 15. Lev. 22: 27. Ez. 38: 8), it is safer 
 to adhere to the unanimous decision of all versions and interpreters, so 
 far as I can trace it, and understand the verse as declaring the days threat- 
 ened to be worse than any which had come upon Judah since the revolt of 
 the ten tribes, here called Ephraim, from the largest and most powerful 
 tribe, that to which Jeroboam belonged, and within which the chief towns 
 of the kingdom were situated. This declaration seems at first sight incon- 
 sistent with the fact, demonstrable from sacred history, that the injuries sus- 
 tained by Judah, during the interval here specified, from other foreign 
 powers, as for example from the Egyptians in the reign of Rehoboam 
 (2 Chron. 12 : 2-9), from the Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Jeho- 
 ram (2 Chron. 21 : 16, 17), from the Syrians in the reign of Joash 
 (2 Chron. 24 : 23, 24), not to mention the less successful attacks of the 
 Ethiopians in the reign of Asa (2 Chron. 14 : 8-15), and of Moab and Am- 
 nion in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20 : 1-30), or the frequent incur- 
 sions of the ten tribes, must have greatly overbalanced the invasion of Sen- 
 nacherib, by far the most alarming visitation of Judah by the armies of 
 Assyria. This apparent discrepancy is not to be explained by regarding 
 the prophecy before us, with Gesenius, as a mere threat (blosses Droh- 
 wort), nor by alleging that the days here threatened are not described as 
 worse than any former days, but only as different from them. Even 
 granting that the prophecy implies not merely change of condition, but 
 a change for the worse, it may be justified in either of two ways. Ac- 
 cording to Cocceius, Vitringa, Henderson, and others, the king of As- 
 syria may here include the kings of Babylon, to whom the title is applied 
 in 2 Kings 23 : 29, if not in Neh. 9 : 32, as it is to the kings of Persia 
 in Ezra 6 : 22, considered as successors to the Assyrian power, in ac- 
 cordance with which usage, Herodotus calls Babylon a city of Assyria. 
 
126 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 But even this supposition, although highly probable, is not here neces- 
 sary. Let it be observed that the days here threatened were to be worse, 
 not simply with respect to individual suffering or temporary difficulties of 
 the state itself, but to the loss of its independence, its transition to a 
 servile state, from which it was never permanently freed, the domination 
 of Assyria being soon succeeded by that of Egypt, and this by that of 
 Babylon, Persia, Syria, and Rome, the last ending only in the downfall 
 of the state, and that general dispersion of the people which continues to 
 this day. The revolt of Hezekiah and even longer intervals of liberty in later 
 times, are mere interruptions of the customary and prevailing bondage. 
 Of this critical change it surely might be said, even though it were to 
 cost not a single drop of blood, nor the personal freedom of a single captive, 
 that the Lord was about to bring upon Judah days which had not been 
 witnessed from the time of Ephraim's apostasy, or according to the other 
 construction of the text, at any time whatever ; since none of the evils 
 suffered, from Solomon to Ahaz, had destroyed the independence of Judah, 
 not even the Egyptian domination in the reign of Rehoboam, which only 
 lasted Ions enough to teach the Jews the difference between God's service 
 and the service of the kingdoms of the countries (2 Chron. 12: 8). This 
 view of the matter is abundantly sufficient to reconcile the prophecy with 
 history, whether Assyria be understood to mean the kingdom properly so 
 called, or to include the empires which succeeded it ; and whether the 
 threatening be referred exclusively to Ahaz and his times, as Gesenius and 
 Rosenmuller say it must be, or to him and his successors jointly, which 
 appears to be the true sense of thy people and thy father's house, as distin- 
 guished from himself and his own house ; but even on the other supposition, 
 as the change of times, i. e. the transition from an independent to a servile 
 state, took place before the death of Ahaz, the expressions used are per- 
 fectly consistent with the facts. It is implied, of course, in this inter- 
 pretation, that Sennacherib's invasion was not the beginning of the 
 days here threatened, which is rather to be sought in the alliance between 
 •Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser, ivho came unto him, and distressed him, and 
 strengthened him not (2 Chron. 28: 19, 20), but exacted repeated contri- 
 butions from him as a vassal ; which degrading and oppressive intercourse 
 continued till his death, as appears from the statement (2 Kings 18: 7) 
 that Hezekiah rebelled against the Tcing of Assyria, and served him not, 
 clearly implying that he did at first, as he offered to do afterwards, on Sen- 
 nacherib's approach, with confession of his fault, a renewal of his tribute, 
 and a repetition of his father's sacrilege (2 Kings 18 : 13 T 16). That during 
 the whole term of this foreign ascendency, Judah was infested by Assyrian 
 intruders, and by frequent visitations for the purpose of extorting their unwil- 
 ling tribute, till at last the revolt of Hezekiah, no longer able to endure the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 127 
 
 burden, led to a formal occupation of the country, is not only probable 
 in itself, but seems to be implied in the subsequent context (vs. 18-20.) 
 The abrupt eommencement of this verse, without a connecting particle, led 
 Alting to regard it as the apodosis of the sentence beginning with v. 16 — 
 'before the child shall know etc. and before the land shall be forsaken, 
 Jehovah will bring upon thee, etc' But besides the unusual length and 
 involution of the sentence, and the arbitrary repetition of before with and, it 
 cannot be explained, on this hypothesis, to what desolation v. 1G alludes, as 
 the overthrow of Israel preceded the invasion of Judah by Assyria. The 
 abrupt commencement of the sentence is regarded by Maurer as a proof 
 that the remainder of the chapter is of later date ; by Hitzig as marking the 
 commencement of the prophecy itself, what precedes being introductory to 
 it. Vitringa supposes that the Prophet paused, as if unwilling to proceed ; 
 Houbigant, as usual, amends the text by inserting vav ; while Lowth and 
 others follow the Septuagint by supplying but. According to Hendewerk, 
 however, the adversative particle is out of place, as he denies that what 
 now follows is a threatening appended to a previous promise, and regards it 
 as an amplification of the threatening in v. 15 ; but that relates to the Syrian 
 invasion, this to the Assyrian domination. Aiting's translation of sp&p by 
 against thee, though it does not change the general sense, destroys its figu- 
 rative dress, in which there is an obvious allusion to the bringing of water 
 or the like upon a person, so as to destroy him. Compare Joshua 23 : 15 
 and 24 : 7. — The last words of this verse (pmtk -jba rx) have been rejected 
 as a gloss by Houbigant, Seeker, Lowth, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Mau- 
 rer, Hendewerk, Umbreit, and Knobel, on the ground that they contain an 
 inelegant anticipation of what follows, and an explanation of what goes 
 before, at once superfluous and incorrect, since Egypt as well as Assyria 
 is mentioned afterwards. That Assyria might be naturally named alone, 
 as first in time and in importance, is admitted by Eichhorn, who rejects the 
 clause on other grounds ; and Maurer, who does the same, speaks with 
 contempt of the objection founded on the days being explained to mean the 
 king (id nihil est). As for the rhetorical objection that the words are too 
 prosaic, it is founded on the modern notion that the prophets were mere 
 poets. The objections to the explanation which the clause contains, as 
 superfluous and incorrect, may cancel one another, as both cannot well be 
 true. Gesenius thinks the supposition of a gloss the more probable because 
 he has detected several others in this prophecy ; while Ewald, on the other 
 hand, retains the words as genuine, because they recur below in v. 20 and 
 in ch. 8 : 7. The external evidence is all in favour of the clause. There 
 is no need of making rx a preposition meaning by, though, or from, as Je- 
 rome, Luther, Grotius, and Clericus do; nor is it necessary to regard the 
 words as in apposition to dw , since they are rather a second object to the 
 
128 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 verb R*a* , which may be considered as repeated before ra , as Hengstenberg 
 suggests — he shall bring upon thee days etc. (he shall bring upon thee) the 
 king of Assyria. 
 
 V. 18. The evil times just threatened are here more explicitly described 
 as arising from the presence and oppression of foreigners, especially Assyri- 
 ans and Egyptians, whose number and vexatious impositions are expressed 
 by comparing them to swarms of noxious and annoying insects, pouring into 
 the country by divine command. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that 
 day (in the days just threatened) that Jehovah will hiss (or whistle) to (or 
 for) the fly which (is) in the end (or edge) of the rivers of Egypt, and to 
 (or for) the bee which is in Assyria. The fly is peculiarly appropriate to 
 Egypt, where the marshy grounds produce it in abundance, and there may 
 be a reference, as Barnes supposes, to the plague of flies in Exodus. Knobel 
 and others think there may be also an allusion to the abounding of bees in 
 Assyria ; but the Prophet probably intended only to combine two familiar 
 and annoying kinds of insects, and not to describe the distinctive qualities of 
 the two nations, the fierceness and boldness of the Assyrians, the filth (Ba- 
 sil), cowardice (Jerome), or buzzing speech (Cyril) of the Egyptians. The 
 end of the streams of Egypt is referred by some to the adjacent countries 
 (Junius, Piscator) ; but it evidently means something belonging to Egypt 
 itself, viz. the arms of the Delta (Vitringa, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis, Rosen- 
 miiller, Hendewerk, Henderson), or the remotest streams (Gesenius, Maurer, 
 Ewald), implying that the flies should come from the very extremities, or 
 from the whole land (Barnes). By making n*p denote the lateral extremity 
 or edge, and rendering it brink or border, as the common version does in 
 Josh. 3: 8. Ex. 16 : 35, an equally good sense is obtained, viz. that the flies 
 shall come from the banks of the streams, where they are most abundant. — 
 The hiss or whistle, denoting God's control over these enemies of Judah, has 
 the same sense as in ch. 5 : 26. Assyria and Egypt are not here named 
 indefinitely (Hendewerk), but as the two great rival powers who disturbed 
 the peace of Western Asia, and to whom the land of Israel was both a 
 place and subject of contention. The bee cannot of itself denote an army 
 (Barnes), nor is the reference exclusively to actual invasion, but to the an- 
 noying and oppressive occupation of the country by civil and military agents 
 of these foreign powers. It was not merely attacked but infested, by the 
 flies and bees of Egypt and Assyria. Fly is understood as a generic term 
 including gnats, mosquitoes etc. by Henderson, and bee as including wasps 
 and hornets by Hitzig and Umbreit. 
 
 V. 19. Carrying out the figures of the preceding verse, the Prophet, 
 instead of simply saying that the land shall be infested by foreigners, repre- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 129 
 
 sents it as completely filled with bees and flies, who are described as settling 
 upon all the places commonly frequented by such insects. And they cc 
 and rest (or settle) all of them in the desolate (or precipitous) valleys, and 
 in the clefts of rocks, and in all thorn-hedges, and in all pastures. Accord- 
 ing to dericos, the places mentioned are those suited for the encampment 
 of troops ; but this supposes a different meaning of the words translated 
 desolate valleys and thom-hedges. The exclusive reference to invading 
 armies is assumed by other writers also; but although this may have been 
 the prominent idea, the words seem naturally to express the general notion 
 of a country overrun, infested, filled with foreigners and enemies, not only 
 by military occupation but in other ways. The opinion of Kimchi and 
 Forerius, that the sites of towns are here described, overlooks the beautiful 
 allusion to the habits of the insects mentioned. The same objection lies in 
 part against the supposition of an antithesis between deserted and frequented 
 places (Cocceius), or between worthless and valuable products, ' thorns and 
 shrubbery of pleasure' (Barnes), which rests moreover upon etymologies 
 now commonly abandoned. Grotius suggests that these four terms have 
 reference to the two kinds of insects alternately, the first and third denoting 
 customary haunts of flies, the second and fourth of bees. The version above 
 given is the one adopted by the latest writers (Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, 
 Hendew r erk, Henderson, Umbreit, Knobel). For a great variety of older 
 explanations see Rosenmiiller on the passage and Gesenius's Thesaurus s. v. 
 
 V. 20. Had the Prophet, as Hendewerk suggests, represented the inva- 
 ders as locusts, he would probably have gone on to describe them as devouring 
 the land ; but having chosen bees and flies as the emblem, he proceeds to 
 express the idea of their spoliations by a different figure, that of a body 
 closely shorn or shaven by a razor under the control of God and in his ser- 
 vice. In that day (the same day mentioned in v. 19) rvill the Lord shave, 
 with a razor hired in the parts beyond the river (Euphrates), (that is to 
 say) with the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet (i. e. of 
 both extremities, or of the whole body), and also the beard will it (the 
 razor) take away. The words 11W *ftsa are rejected by Gesenius, Maurer, 
 Umbreit, Knobel, for the same reason, or rather with as little reason, as in 
 v. 17. They are retained by Hendewerk and Ewald. Aben Ezra and 
 Abarbenel follow the Targum and Peshito in making the king of Assyria 
 the subject of the operation here described, and suppose the destroying 
 angel to be called a hired razor, i. e. one of the best temper and condition. 
 Theodoret also understands the king of Assyria to be here described as 
 shaved, but by the Medes and Persians as a razor. These constructions 
 wholly disregard the preposition before T^n, or take it in the sense of Ml — 
 * will shave in the king of Assyria, the head,' etc. Some understand 
 
 9 
 
130 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 ■ttt) *$asa as an additional description of the razor — 'with a hired razor, 
 with those beyond the river, with the king of Assyria.' But as i*ja*a and 
 "ia§a are never used in reference to persons, the former no doubt here de- 
 notes the place of hiring — ' a razor hired in the parts beyond the river.' If 
 so, IW!?feJ cannot be a noun (novacula conductionis), but must be taken as 
 a verbal adjective, equivalent to a passive participle, of which this is a com- 
 mon form in Chaldee. There is no need of changing the division of the 
 words, so as to read IT^ato ITOfc, since the article before the noun may be 
 omitted by poetic license, and nsn is construed as a feminine with rtBbft. 
 Instead of hired (pefiiad-cQfievq)), the Alexandrian MS. of the Septuagint 
 reads drunken (fiefxs&va^tvcp), which is also the version of Aquila, Sym- 
 machus, and Theodotion ; and accordingly J. D. Michaelis would read 
 hyati, understanding by a drunken razor one employed as a drunkard 
 would employ it, i. e. recklessly and rashly. The same reading seems to be 
 implied in the common text of the Peshito, though Ephrem Syrus gives the 
 Syriac adjective the sense of sharp. According to the common reading, which 
 is no doubt genuine, the king of Assyria is called a hired razor, not because 
 men use what is hired more unsparingly than if it were their own (Calvin) — 
 nor simply because he was allured or hired by the hope of conquest (Je- 
 rome, Grotius, J. D. Michaelis, etc.) — nor simply because Ahaz had 
 already hired him (Junius, Piscator, Glassius, etc.) — but for the last two 
 reasons put together, that as Ahaz had profaned and robbed God's house to 
 hire a foreign razor, with which Israel and Syria might be shaven, so God 
 would make use of that self-same razor to shave Judah, i. e. to remove its 
 population, or its wealth, or both. The rabbinical interpretation of *i3>tt> 
 D^Jfi is a poor conceit, the adoption of which by Gesenius, if indicative of 
 nothing worse, says but little for the taste and the ' aesthetic feeling ' 
 which so often sits in judgment on the language of the Prophet. The true 
 sense is no doubt the one expressed by Ewald (von oben bis unten), and 
 before him by Clericus, who justly says of the rabbinical expounders of the 
 phrase c rem turpiculam de suo Prophetae admetiri videntur.' The sepa- 
 rate mention of the beard may have reference to the oriental fondness for it 
 and associations of dishonour with the loss of it. The specific explanation 
 of the beard as meaning the ministers of religion (Vitringa), Sennacherib 
 (Vatablus), etc., and a like explanation of the other terms, are not only 
 arbitrary and capricious, but destructive of a beautiful and simple metaphor, 
 which represents the spoiling of Judah by foreign invaders and intruders as 
 the shaving of the hair from a whole body. The same remark applies to 
 Hendewerk's suggestion, that the parts of a country are often represented by 
 those of a human body, and that the hair of the head may possibly denote 
 the wooded hills of Palestine. Lowth supplies Vav before "WTJ ; but the latter 
 may be poetically used for the Euphrates, even without the article (Jer. 2 : 
 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. Til. 131 
 
 18). Barnes explains nssn in a passive sense; but this requires -,-:. 
 well as nrn, to be taken as a feminine noun contrary to usage, a concur- 
 rence of anomalies by no means probable. Henderson makes neon a 
 stronger expression than nV|"J, and translates it shall scrape off, which is 
 given by Gesenius as the primary sense, but that of causing to cease or 
 removing is the one best sustained by usage. The Targum paraphrases ":;r 
 as denoting various kinds of weapons used in war, and the Vulgate almost 
 seems to make the razor itself the object to be shaved. 
 
 Vs. 21, 22. In consequence of these spoliations, the condition of the 
 country will be wholly changed. The population left shall not be agri- 
 cultural but pastoral. Instead of living on the fruits of the soil, they shall 
 subsist upon spontaneous products, such as milk and honey, which shall be 
 abundant only because the people will be few and the uncultivated grounds 
 extensive. And it shall be in that day (that) a man shall save (or keep) alive 
 a young cow and two sheep ; and it shall be (that) from the abundance of the 
 making (yielding or production) of milk, he shall eat butter (or curds or cheese 
 or cream) ; for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the midst of 
 (or within) the land. There is no need of assuming a conditional construc- 
 tion — f q. d. if one should keep ' — as J. H. Michaelis, Maurer, and DeWette 
 do — since this idea is sufficiently implied in an exact translation. £"n 
 does not necessarily mean every man, implying that the poorest of the people 
 should have so much cattle (Gesenius), or that the richest should have no 
 more (Calvin), but simply one indefinitely (Hitzig, Ewald). The Piel of 
 tvjn nowhere else signifies to " keep, own, feed " (Barnes), nor to hold, pos- 
 sess (Gesenius, Ewald, etc.). Its primary meaning is to give life originally 
 (Job 33 : 4), or to restore it after death (1 Sam. 2:6); whence by a 
 natural transition it is used to denote the preservation of one's life in danger 
 (Ps. 30 : 4) ; so that unless we depart from its proper meaning here, it 
 must denote not merely the keeping or raising of the cow and sheep, but 
 their being saved from a greater number, and preserved with difficulty, not 
 for want of pasture, which was more than ever plentiful, but from the pres- 
 ence of invaders and enemies. Thus understood, the word throws light 
 upon the state of the country, as described in the context. Hendewerk 
 thinks it not improbable that by a cow and tivo sheep we are to understand a 
 herd of cows and two flocks of sheep, because so small a number would not 
 yield abundance of milk. But the abundance is of course to be relatively 
 understood, with respect to the small number of persons to be fed, and is there- 
 fore an additional and necessary stroke in the prophetic picture — few cattle 
 left, and yet those few sufficient to afford milk in abundance to the few inhab- 
 itants. This abundance is expressed still more strongly by describing them 
 as eating not the milk itself, but that which is produced from it, and which 
 
132 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 of course must bear a small proportion to the whole ; and as this is the essen- 
 tial idea meant to be conveyed by mentioning the HX«n 3 it matters little 
 whether it be understood to mean butter (Septuagint, etc.), cheese (Hende- 
 werk), cream (Hitzig, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel), or curds 
 (Gesenius, etc.), though the last seems to agree best with what we know 
 of oriental usages. It is here mentioned neither as a delicacy nor as 
 plain and ordinary food, but as a kind of diet independent of the cultivation 
 of the earth, and therefore implying a neglect of tillage and a pastoral mode 
 >of life, as well as an unusual extent of pasturage, which may have reference, 
 as Barnes suggests, not only to the milk but to the honey. The rabbinical 
 interpretation of these verses, as a promise of abundance in the reign of 
 Hezekiah after Sennacherib's retreat (2 Chron. 3*2 : 27-29), and the adap- 
 tation of the same exposition to the time of Christ (Grotius, Cocceius, etc.), 
 appear to have arisen from confounding what is here said of butter and 
 honey, with a frequent description of the promised land as flowing with milk 
 and honey. But not to insist upon the circumstance, that this is a literal 
 and that a metaphorical description, and that even in the latter the idea of 
 abundance is conveyed by the flowing of the land with milk and honey, 
 which is not here mentioned ; let it be observed that even the abundance 
 thus asserted of the promised land is not fertility, but the abundance of 
 spontaneous products, not dependent upon tillage ; and that after Israel 
 was possessed of Canaan and had become an agricultural people, the 
 natural emblem of abundance would no longer be milk and honey, but corn 
 and wine, or flesh and fruits, so that the prospect of subsisting on the first 
 two, if it did not suggest the idea of personal privation, would suggest that 
 of general desolation, or at least that of interrupted or suspended cultivation. 
 Thus Boswell, in the journal of his tour with Dr. Johnson to the Hebrides, 
 observes of the inhabitants of one of the poor islands, that " they lived all 
 the spring without meal, upon milk and curds and whey alone." This 
 verse, then, is descriptive of abundance only as connected with a paucity of 
 people and a general neglect of tillage. It was designed indeed to be 
 directly expressive neither of abundance nor of poverty (Barnes), but of a 
 change in the condition of the country and of the remaining people, which 
 is further described in the ensuing context. The older interpreters were 
 probably misled by the peculiar mode in which a threatening is here uttered 
 in the tone of a promise, or as Knobel expresses it, the words sound prom- 
 ising (klingen verheissend) but contain a threat. The same thing had been 
 observed before by Henderson, and most of the recent writers are agreed in 
 giving to the twenty-second verse its true sense as a prophecy of desolation. 
 This of course determines that of the fifteenth, to which Hendewerk sup- 
 poses Isaiah to refer directly, as if he had said, ' this is what I meant by 
 saying that the child should eat curds and honey, for curds and honey shall 
 every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.' 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. L33 
 
 V. 23. Having described the desolation of the country Indirectly, by 
 Ikying what the food of the Inhabitants should he, the Prophet now de- 
 scribes it more directly, hy predicting the growth of thorns and briers, 
 in spots which had been sedulously cultivated, for example the most valu- 
 able vineyards. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day (that) every 
 place, where there shall be a thousand vines at (or for) a thousand silver- 
 lings (pieces or shekels of silver), shall be for (or become) thorns and 
 briers, or shall be (given up) to the thorn and to the brier. Kimchi reverses 
 the prediction, so as to make it mean that every place now full of thorns 
 and briers shall hereafter abound in valuable vines, which is, of course, an 
 impossible construction. Calvin supposes the thousand silverlings or 
 shekels to be mentioned as a very low price, and understands the verse 
 to mean that every place planted with a thousand vines should, in these 
 days of desolation, be sold for only so much, on account of the thorns and 
 briers which had overrun them. All other writers seem to confine the 
 threatening to the thorns and briers, and to regard S)03 Cjbata as a part of 
 the description of a valuable vineyard, though they differ on the question 
 whether this was the price for which the vineyard might be sold, or its an- 
 nual rent, as in Sol. Song 8:11, where, however, it is said to be the price 
 of the fruit, and the number of vines is not mentioned. The vines of the 
 Johannisberg are valued at a ducat each, according to J. D. Michaelis, 
 who thinks, however, that, allowance being made for the change in the 
 value of money, the price mentioned in the text was probably a high one, 
 even for a valuable vineyard. Henderson computes that it was nearly 
 one-half more than the price at which the vineyards of Mount Lebanon were 
 sold in 1811, according to Burckhardt, namely a piastre for each vine. — 
 The substantive verb with b may signify either to belong to (Hitzig, Ewald), 
 to be given up to (Umbreit), or to become (DeWette, Knobel), which last 
 is its most usual meaning. The irregular repetition of the verb is occa- 
 sioned by the length of the parenthetical clause. The construction of the 
 sentence is entirely changed in Henderson's version — in every place, etc. 
 there shall be briers and thorns. 
 
 V. 24. So complete shall be the desolation of these once favoured spots 
 that men shall pass through them armed as they would through a wilderness. 
 With arrows and with bow shall one (or shall a man) go thither, because 
 thorns and briers shall the whole land be. The essential idea, as the last 
 clause shows, is that of general desolation ; there is no need, therefore, of 
 supposing that the bows and arrows have exclusive reference to protection 
 against enemies (Kimchi) or beasts (Jarchi) or robbers (Clericus), or to 
 hunting (Calvin), as neither is particularly mentioned, and as it would be 
 natural to carry weapons into such a region both for protection and the 
 
134 ISAIAH, CHAP. VII. 
 
 chase (Lowth, Gesenius). It is no objection to the mention of the latter, 
 that the people had just been represented as subsisting upon milk and 
 honey, since these two methods of subsistence often coexist, as belonging to 
 the same state of society, and both imply a general neglect of tillage. The 
 exact sense of the last clause is not that the land shall become thorns and 
 briers (English version), as in v. 24, but that it shall actually be thorns 
 and briers. 
 
 V. 25. Not only the fields, not only the vineyards, shall be overrun 
 with thorns and briers, but the very hills, now laboriously cultivated with 
 the hand, shall be given up to like desolation. And all the hills (i.e. even 
 all the hills) which are digged with the hoe (because inaccessible to the 
 plough) — thou shalt not go (even) there, for fear of briers and thorns, and 
 (being thus uncultivated) they shall be for a sending-place of cattle and a 
 trampling-j)lace of sheep (i. e. a place where cattle may be sent to pasture, 
 and which may be trodden down by sheep). The reference is probably to 
 the hills of Judea, anciently cultivated to the very top, by means of 
 terraces that still exist, for an account of which by eye-witnesses, see 
 Keith's Land of Israel, chapter xn., and Robinson's Palestine, vol. II. p. 
 187. Thus understood, the verse merely strengthens the foregoing descrip- 
 tion, by declaring that even the most carefully cultivated portions of the 
 land should not escape the threatened desolation. It is not necessary, 
 therefore, to give "pari in v. 24 the arbitrary sense of lowlands as distin- 
 guished from the mountains mentioned here (Henderson) ; much less to 
 understand ep-irj itself as meaning mounds or hillocks formed by the hoe 
 (Forerius). It is equally gratuitous, and therefore inadmissible, to take 
 thorns and briers in a different sense from that which they have in the pre- 
 ceding verses, e. g. in that of a thorn hedge, implying that the vineyard 
 should no longer be enclosed (Grotius, Cocceius, Vitringa), an arbitrary 
 change which cannot be justified by Matthew Henry's epigrammatic obser- 
 vation, that the thorns, instead of growing where they would be useful, 
 should spring up in abundance where they were not wanted. With this 
 explanation of thorns and briers is connected an erroneous construction of 
 #Sir\ as a verb in the third person, agreeing with ra^? as its subject — ' the 
 fear of thorns and briers shall not come thither' — i. e. there shall be no 
 hinderance to their growth (Ewald), or no regard to them (Junius) or no thorn 
 hedges (Grotius). Kimchi and Abarbenel connect this same construction 
 with the natural and proper sense of thorns and briers, and thus convert the 
 verse into a promise that in the mountains there should be no fear of deso- 
 lation ; while Cyril and Calvin make it a threatening in the form of a 
 promise (like v. 22), by explaining it to mean that even if the hills where 
 the remaining inhabitants take refuge should be tilled, and thus escape the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 135 
 
 fear of thorns and briers, it would only be because the rest of the country 
 should be desolate. The simplest and most satisfactory construction is the 
 one now commonly adopted, which takes »isn as the second person used 
 indefinitely (thou for any owe), and TW* as a noun used adverbially to 
 denote for fear of which is more agreeable to Hebrew usage than to sup- 
 pose an ellipsis of the preposition yo (Rosenmiiller). Thus understood, the 
 verse continues and completes the description of the general desolation, as 
 manifested first by the people's living upon milk and honey, then by the 
 growth of thorns and briers in the choicest vineyards and the terraced hills, 
 and by the conversion of these carefully tilled spots into dangerous solitudes, 
 hunting-grounds, and pastures. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The prediction of the overthrow of Syria and Israel is now renewed in 
 the form of a symbolical name, to be inscribed on a tablet and attested by 
 two witnesses, and afterwards applied to the Prophet's new-born son, whose 
 progress as an infant is made the measure of the event, vs. 1—4. It is then 
 foretold that the judgment denounced upon Syria and Israel should extend 
 to Judah, as a punishment for distrust of God and reliance upon human 
 aid, in consequence of which the kingdom should be imminently threatened 
 with destruction, yet delivered for the sake of Immanuel, by whom the 
 strength and wisdom of all enemies should be alike defeated, vs. 5—1 0. The 
 Messiah himself is then introduced as speaking, warning the prophet and the 
 true believers neither to share in the apprehensions nor to fear the reproach- 
 es of the people, but to let Jehovah be an object of exclusive fear and reve- 
 rence to them, as he would be an occasion of destruction to the unbelievers, 
 from whom the true sense of this revelation was to be concealed, and re- 
 stricted to his followers, who, together with the prophet and the Son of God 
 himself, should be for signs and wonders to the multitude, while waiting for 
 the manifestation of his presence, and refusing to consult any other oracle ex- 
 cept the word of God, an authority despised by none but those doomed to 
 the darkness of despair, which is described as settling down upon them, 
 with a sudden intimation, at the close, of a change for the better, especially 
 in reference to that part of the country which had been most afflicted and 
 despised, vs. 11-23. 
 
 The Hebrew and English text differ here in the division of the chapters. 
 
136 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 A better arrangement than either would have been to continue the eighth 
 without interruption to the close of what is now the sixth (or seventh) verse 
 of the ninth chapter, where a new division of the prophecy begins. 
 
 V. 1. The prediction of the overthrow of Syria and Israel, contained 
 in ch. 7 : 8, 9, is here repeated, and as before in a symbolical form. In 
 order to excite immediate attention, and at the same time to verify the pro- 
 phecy, Isaiah is required to inscribe an enigmatical name on a large tablet 
 in a legible character, with a view to present exhibition and to subsequent 
 preservation. The name itself includes a prophecy of speedy spoliation. 
 And Jehovah said to me, take thee for for thyself) a great tablet (i. e. 
 great in proportion to the length of the inscription), and write upon it with 
 a man's pen (or stylus, i. e. in an ordinary and familiar hand), To Maher- 
 shalal-hash-baz (i, e. Haste-spoil-quick-prey). The name may also be 
 read as a sentence — Hasten spoil! Prey hastens. (So Cocceius : pro- 
 pera spolium, festinavit direptio.) Others take "iriE as an infinitive (either 
 used as such or instead of a preterite) on account of the b prefixed, which, 
 however, has no more connexion with tjiis than with the other words, 
 being joined to it merely as the first word in the sentence, just as the English 
 to might be prefixed to an inscription. Here, as in v. 3, Maher-shalal- 
 hash-baz is a name, and the exhibition of the tablet, in the temple (Barnes), 
 or the market-place (Ewald), or the prophet's house (Knobel), was intended 
 to suggest the question, who is meant ? It is therefore less correct to say 
 that the inscription is afterwards transferred to the child, than that the name 
 of the child is anticipated here. These four words are not merely the head- 
 ing or title of the writing (Barnes), but the writing itself. The modern lexi- 
 cographers explain 'fifyt not as a derivative of &$, to roll, and a synonyme 
 of rtoa, a volume, but as a derivative of rty t to polish, and as meaning a 
 tablet of metal, or, as Knobel supposes, of wood covered with wax. B'lR, 
 the stylus used in writing on such tablets. Human is here explained by 
 Hendewerk as meaning common or ordinary in opposition to divine, but 
 by others more probably in opposition to a mode of writing only known to 
 some, and not to men in general ; whether the allusion be to a sacred 
 character (Henderson), or simply to the letters used in books as distinguished 
 from those used in common life (Ewald). Both the kind of writing and 
 the size of the tablet (admitting larger characters), have reference to its 
 being legible, so that he may run that readeth it. (Hab. 2 : 2.) 
 
 V. 2. In order to preclude all suspicion of its having been uttered after 
 the event, the prophecy is not only recorded, but attested by two witnesses. 
 And I (Jehovah) will take to witness for me credible ivitnesses, to wit, 
 Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah. These were not to 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 181 
 
 be witnesses of tbe prophet's marriage (Luther, Grotius), hut of his bavi 
 written and exhibited the prophecy so long before the event. Uriah is pro- 
 bably the same who eomnired at the king's profanation of the temple (2 
 Kings, 16 : 10-16). The word b*MNta does not relate to their true charac- 
 ter or standing in the sight of God, but to their credit with the people, es- 
 pecially perhaps with the king, in which view, as well as on account of 
 his official rank, Uriah was a very suitable witness. The same considera- 
 tion makes it not improbable that the Zechariah mentioned here was the 
 father-in-law of Ahaz (2 Kings, 18: 2. 2 Chr. 29: 1), perhaps the same 
 that is mentioned as a Levite of the family of Asaph (2 Chr. 29 : 13). 
 The Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chron. 26 : 5, seems to have died before 
 Lzziah. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was put to death between the 
 porch and the altar (Matt. 23 : 35) long before this, in the reign of Joash 
 (2 Chr. 24: 20, 21). Zechariah the Prophet was the son of Berechiah, 
 but he lived after the Babylonish exile. The Rabbins and Lightfoot give 
 to c-^s the emphatic sense of martyrs ((MtQivQeg), witnesses for the truth, 
 and suppose Uriah to be the person who prophesied against Judah, and 
 was put to death by Jehoiakim, about 130 years after the date of this predic- 
 tion. But such an attestation would have been wholly irrelevant and useless. 
 The Vulgate takes the verb as a preterite (et adhibui mihi testes) and Ge- 
 senius, Maurer, Knobel, read accordingly ft^s&n with Vav conversive. The 
 Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it imperative (jiaoivoas fioi noi^aov), 
 and Hitzig accordingly reads STiW. Gesenius formerly preferred an indi- 
 rect or subjunctive construction, which is still retained by Henderson, and 
 that I should take as witnesses. The true construction is no doubt the ob- 
 vious one, and I will cite as witnesses (Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit) — God 
 being still the speaker, and the matter being one in which the prophet was 
 concerned only as his representative, so that the ascription of the act to God 
 himself is not only admissible but necessary. This construction also ac- 
 counts best for the paragogic form of the verb, as expressing strong deter- 
 mination or fixed purpose. 
 
 V. 3. The significant name, before inscribed upon the tablet, is now ap- 
 plied to the Prophet's new-born son, that the child, as well as the inscrip- 
 tion, might remind all who saw them of the prophecy. The execution of 
 the previous command is here, as in many other cases, tacitly included in 
 the record of the command itself. (Vide supra, ch. 7:4.) And I ap- 
 proached unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son, and Jeho- 
 vah said to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Calvin's suppo- 
 sition that this passed in vision is entirely gratuitous. This name, like Im- 
 manucl, may be understood as simply descriptive or symbolical, but its 
 actual imposition is inferred by most interpreters from verse 18, where the 
 
138 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 » 
 Prophet speaks of himself and his children as signs and wonders in Israel, 
 with reference, as they suppose, to the names Shear-jashub and Maher- 
 shalal-hash-baz. The four ancient versions all translate the name, and all, 
 except the Targum, with some variation from the rendering in v. 1. Most 
 of the later German writers adopt Luther's version, Raubebald Eilebeute, but 
 instead of the first word Ewald has Schnellraub. The pluperfect construc- 
 tion, I had approached, etc., given by Junius, Gesenius, and others, is not 
 only needless but, according to Ewald, Maurer and Hitzig, ungrammatical. 
 The strange opinion of Tertullian, Basil, Cyril and Jerome, that the Pro- 
 phetess is the Virgin Mary, and that this verse is the language of the Holy 
 Spirit, though adopted by (Ecolampadius and others, is rejected even by 
 Thomas Aquinas. The Prophetess is probably so called, not because she 
 was inspired (Grotius), or because she was to give the name Immanuel 
 (Hendewerk), or because she bore a part in this prophetical transaction 
 (Calvin), but because she was a prophet's wife, as queen usually means a 
 royal consort, not a queen suo jure. A remarkable series of prophetic 
 names, imposed upon three children, is recorded in the first chapter of 
 Hosea. 
 
 V. 4. It is not merely by its name that the child is connected with the 
 prophecy. The date of the event is determined by a reference to the in- 
 fant's growth, as in the case of Immanuel. For before the child shall know 
 (how) to cry my father and my mother, one (or they indefinitely) shall take 
 away the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of 
 Assyria, i. e. into his presence, to deliver it to him (Gesenius), or in trium- 
 phal procession (Calvin), or before him, i. e. before he marches homeward 
 himself (Hendewerk), or simply in his presence, that is by his command and 
 under his direction. The construction of atis^ is indefinite, so that there is 
 
 T • ' 
 
 no need of supplying hirr as the subject. The time fixed is that of the 
 child's capacity not to recognize its parents, or to talk, but to utter the 
 simple labial sounds by which in Hebrew as in many other languages 
 father and mother are expressed. The time denoted has been fixed by Vi- 
 tringa and Rosenmiiller at three years, by Junius and most later writers at one. 
 But this very difference of judgment seems to show that the description was 
 intended to be somewhat indefinite, equivalent perhaps to our familiar phrase 
 a year or two, within which time we have reason to believe that the event 
 occurred. Gesenius alleges that the prophecy in reference to Israel was not 
 fulfilled for eighteen years (2 Kings 17 : 6), to which Hengstenberg replies 
 that Samaria is here put for the kingdom and not for the capital city. But 
 even if the name be strictly understood, there is no reason to doubt that Sa- 
 maria was plundered by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15: 29) although not de- 
 stroyed, which idea is in fact not conveyed by the terms of the description. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 139 
 
 b?n properly means strength, bill is specifically applied to military strength 
 and to wealth, which last is the meaning here. The carrying away of its 
 wealth does not necessarily imply any thing more than such a spoiling of 
 the capital as might be expected in the course of a brief but successful inva- 
 sion. Barnes's construction of the second clause — * Damascus shall be 
 borne away as regards its riches ' — is inconsistent with the form of the 
 original. 
 
 V. 5. And Jehovah added to speak to me again (or further) saying. 
 Here, as in ch. 7 : 10, an interval of time may be assumed. Hendewerk 
 supposes that in the mean time the Assyrians had approached and the 
 invaders been compelled to withdraw from Judah. 
 
 V. 6. The Assyrian invasion is now represented as a punishment of 
 Judah for distrusting the divine protection and seeking that of the Assyrians 
 themselves. The immediate relief thus secured was to be followed by a 
 worse calamity produced by those in whom they now confided. Because 
 this people (Judah, so called in token of divine displeasure) hath forsaken 
 (or rejected with contempt) the waters of Shiloah (or Siloam, the only per- 
 ennial fountain of Jerusalem, here used as a symbol of the divine protection) 
 that go softly (or flow gently, unaccompanied by noise or danger), and 
 (because there is) joy with respect to Rezin and the son of Remaliah (i. e. 
 because the Jews are exulting in the retreat of their invaders, caused by the 
 approach of the Assyrians), therefore, etc., the apodosis of the sentence 
 being given in the next verse. Steudel supposes the invasion itself to be 
 represented by the waters of Siloam, and contrasted with a worse invasion 
 yet to come. Because they despised the gentle fountain, God would briiiLC 
 upon them a mighty river. But to this there are several objections. 1 . 
 The fountain of Siloam would hardly have been used as the emblem of a 
 foreign invasion merely because weak and unsuccessful. 2. The verb ex*:, 
 does not mean simply to despise, but to reject with contempt something 
 once esteemed or entitled to esteem, and is therefore inapplicable to an 
 invasion. 3. God himself had taught them to despise it (ch. 7 : 4), and 
 would not therefore have assigned their doing so as a reason for the punish- 
 ment to be inflicted. Calvin understands by the waters of Siloam the mild 
 and peaceful government of God, compared with the powerful military sway 
 of foreign monarchs. Because the Jews despised their own advantages, and 
 admired the conquests of Pekah and Rezin, therefore God would cause them 
 to experience the hardships of Assyrian domination. But the only feelings 
 which the Jews can be supposed to have experienced with respect to their 
 invaders, are fear at their approach, and joy at their departure. That they 
 rejoiced at their success, is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by the his- 
 
140 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 tory. The same objection lies, with almost equal force, against the suppo 
 sition of Gesenius, Maurer, Ewald, and Knobel, that this sympathy with 
 the invaders is not asserted of the whole nation, but of a disaffected party 
 who rejected the authority of the family of David (the waters of Siloam) 
 and rejoiced in the successes of the enemy. However plausible such a sup- 
 position may appear, it is not to be assumed without necessity, or in prefer- 
 ence to an explanation which involves no such imaginary facts. Henderson 
 and others understand by this people, the kingdom of the ten tribes, whose 
 apostasy from the true religion, and their rejection of the theocracy, 
 are here assigned as reasons for the evils threatened. A Jewish pro- 
 phet, speaking or writing to the Jews, would of course be understood to 
 mean by this people those whom he addressed. It may be said indeed that 
 this has reference to the mention of Ephraim in the foregoing context (v. 4). 
 But this would prove too much, by requiring Syria to be included in the 
 charge of rejecting the waters of Siloam (Umbreit), in which case we must 
 either suppose the words to be used in a twofold sense, or take &tfE in that 
 of simply despising, which is inadmissible. The same objection lies, in a 
 less degree, against the opinion of Barnes and others, that by this people we 
 are to understand Israel and Judah as a race. This is favoured by the fact 
 that both these kingdoms are included in the threatenings of the subsequent 
 context. But the exclusion of Syria is still more unnatural if Ephraim is 
 included. The true sense seems to be that given by Hitzig, except that he 
 regards teitoti as an incorrect orthography for sto^a, the infinitive of &&a to 
 melt, to be dissolved with fear. c Because this people has rejected the 
 waters of Siloam, gently flowing, and is afraid of Rezin and the son of 
 Remaliah,' etc. This explanation is unnecessary, as the same people who 
 were terrified by the approach of the invaders would of course rejoice in 
 their departure. The particle rs< simply denotes the direct occasion of the 
 joy. The more definite idea of rejoicing over is suggested by the context. 
 For a full description of the fountain of Siloam, and the localities connected 
 with it, see Robinson's Palestine, vol. I. pp. 501-505. 
 
 V. 7. Therefore (because the people had thus ceased to trust in the 
 divine protection, and rejoiced in the success of their application to Assyria), 
 behold (as if the event were actually present), Jehovah (is) bringing up 
 upon them the waters of the river (i. e. the Euphrates, as an emblem of the 
 Assyrian power), its strong and many waters (here contrasted with the 
 gently flowing waters of Siloam), to wit, the Icing of Assyria and all his 
 glory (with particular reference to military strength and display), and it 
 (the river) shall come up over all its channels and go over all its banks, 
 which may either mean that it shall transcend its usual limits, or that after 
 submerging Israel, it shall overflow into Judah also. In favour of this last 
 interpretation is the language of the next verse, and the fact that otherwise 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. Ill 
 
 the punishment of Ephraini or the ten tribes is not expressly mentioned. — 
 The oopul'dtive conjunction is used by a common Hebrew idiom to introduce 
 the apodosis of the sentence. The figure of an overflowing river is pecu- 
 liarly appropriate, not only as affording a striking antithesis to the fountain 
 mentioned in the sixth verse, but because *Wpi is often used absolutely to 
 denote the Euphrates, the great river of the Assyrian and Babylonian em- 
 pires. Clericus supposes that it here denotes the Tigris, as a river of As- 
 syria proper. But according to the usage of the Greek and Roman writers, 
 Assyria extended to the bank of the Euphrates, which Arrian describes as 
 rising above its banks and overflowing zrjv yqv 'Aggvqiuv. The beauty of 
 the metaphor is rendered still more striking by the frequent allusions, both 
 in ancient and modern writers, to the actual inundations of this river. Here, as 
 in ch. 7 : 17, 18, the figures are explained in literal expressions by the Pro- 
 phet himself. Here too the explanation has been questioned as a gloss on 
 grounds exclusively rhetorical. But every repetition, as Ewald well ob- 
 serves, makes the hypothesis of an interpolation more and more improbable. 
 Its alleged incongruity, if it did not exclude it in the first place, must have 
 struck the most uncritical reader on its second or third recurrence. Some 
 suppose an allusion in triaa to the pomp of the oriental kings in their 
 marches. But this is not known to have been an Assyrian usage, and the 
 supposition is at least unnecessary. Some understand by its channels and 
 its bmiks the channels and banks of Judah ; but this construction agrees 
 neither with the proper meaning of the words nor with the metaphor of 
 which they form a part. According to Junius, the overflowing of the banks 
 was designed to represent the king of Assyria's violation of his own engage- 
 ments in oppressing those for whose relief he had come forth. 
 
 V. 8. And it (the river) shall pass over (from Syria and Israel) into 
 Judah, overflow and pass through (so as nearly to submerge it), to the neck 
 shall it reach (but not above the head), and the spreadings of its wings shall 
 be the filling of thy land, O Immanuell The English version disturbs the 
 metaphor by using the personal pronoun he so as to refer this verse directly 
 to the king, and not to the river which represented him. It also makes 
 Cibn mean to pass through, which is really expressed by W, while *the for- 
 mer verb denotes a change of direction, and subjoins a threatening against 
 Judah to the threatening against Israel. By the neck, the Targum under- 
 stands Jerusalem, in which it is followed by Calvin, Junius, Piscator, 
 Vitringa, Henderson and Barnes, the last of whom supposes a distinct allu- 
 sion to the elevated site of the Holy City. Most probably, however, the 
 expression was intended to denote nothing more than the imminency of the 
 danger by figures borrowed from a case of drowning, the head alone being 
 left above the water. Most writers suppose the figure of a stream to be 
 
142 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 exchanged in the last clause for that of a bird, or for the description of an 
 array ; but Umbreit and Knobel understand wings to be used here, as often 
 elsewhere, in the sense of sides or lateral extremities, and applied to the 
 river itself. Some of the Jewish writers make b$tif$ a proposition, God 
 (is) with us, in favour of which is the analogy of v. 9 below, and the fact 
 that the words are separately written in most manuscripts. In favour of 
 making it a proper name is the analogy of ch. 7 : 16, and the pronoun of 
 the second person joined to the preceding word, thy land, Immanuel ! 
 Some of the Rabbins make the Prophet the object of address, ' thy land (O 
 Isaiah).' BuMhis is arbitrary, and renders the connexion of the clauses 
 very harsh. If this had been the meaning, the Prophet would probably 
 have said, ' but God is with us.' Those who regard Immanuel as the name 
 of a contemporary child, understand by thy land thy native land (as in 
 Gen. 12: 1, Jon. 1: 8), and to the question why this child should be 
 specially addressed, reply because he was a sign to the people, and his 
 name prophetic. But as we have seen that Immanuel is the Messiah, thy 
 land must mean the land belonging to thee, thy dominion ; or rather both 
 ideas are included. Thus understood, this brief apostrophe involves a 
 prayer and promise of deliverance, acsi dixisset terra nihilominus erit tua 
 o Immanuel! (Calvin). 
 
 V. 9. He now turns to the enemies of Judah and assures them of the 
 failure of their hostile plans. The prediction, as in ch. 6 : 9, is clothed in 
 the form of an ironical command or exhortation. Be wicked (i. e. indulge 
 your malice, do your worst) and be broken (disappointed and confounded), 
 and (that not only Syria and Israel, but) give ear all remote parts of the 
 earth (whoever may attack the chosen people), gird yourselves (i. e. arm 
 and equip yourselves for action) and be broken, gird yourselves and be 
 broken (the repetition implying the certainty of the event). The first verb 
 (*i3h) has been variously derived from nsn, »fn, and 3®n, and explained to 
 mean associate yourselves (Targum, Vulgate, etc.), break and be broken 
 (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, etc.), make a noise or rage (Henderson). This last 
 is given by Gesenius in the second edition of his German version ; in the 
 first, an*d in his latest Lexicons, he gives the verb its usual sense of being evil 
 or malignant, which is also expressed by Luther (seyd bose ihr Volker !) 
 It is here equivalent to do your worst. Seeker and Lowth, on the authori- 
 ty of the Septuagint, read isn know ye, corresponding to wan hear ye. 
 Hendewerk and Knobel suppose Syria and Israel to be exclusively ad- 
 dressed ; but this is directly contradicted by the second clause. The fail- 
 ure or disappointment threatened is of course that of their ultimate design to 
 overthrow the kingdom of Judah, and does not exclude the possibility of 
 partial and temporary successes. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 1 13 
 
 V. 10. Not only their strength but their sagacity should be confounded. 
 Devise a plan, and it shall be defeated (nullified or brought to nought), 
 speak a word (whether a proposition or an order), and it shall not stand (or 
 be carried into execution) 9 fif (hnmanucl) God (is) ivith us. Junius and 
 Tremellius make the last word a proper name, as in v. 8 — ' Loquimini 
 verbum et non existet, nam Himmanuelis (existet verbum).' This con- 
 struction is too forced to be even called ingenious. The truth is that even 
 as a name Immanuel contains a proposition, and that here this proposition is 
 distinctly announced, but with a designed allusion to the person whom the 
 name describes. As if he had said, •' the assurance of your safety is the 
 great truth expressed by the name of your deliverer, to wit, that God is with 
 us.' The mere retention of the Hebrew word could not convey its sense 
 in this connexion to the English reader. 
 
 V. 11. The triumphant apostrophe in v. 10 is now justified by an ap- 
 peal to the divine authority. I have reason to address our enemies in this 
 tone, for thus said Jehovah to me in strength of hand (i. e. when his hand 
 was strong upon me, when I was under the influence of inspiration), and 
 instructed me away from walking in the way of this people (i. e. warned 
 me not to follow the example of the unbelieving Jews). When one is 
 spoken of in Scripture as inspired, it is said not only that the spirit was 
 upon him (Ezek. 11 : 5), but also that the hand of Jehovah was upon him 
 (Ezek. 1:3. 3 : 22. 33 : 32. 37 : 1), and in one case at least that it was 
 strong upon him (Ezek 3 : 14). Hence strength of hand may have the 
 sense of inspiration, and the whole phrase here employed be equivalent in 
 meaning to the New Testament expressions iv nvsvftaTi (Rev. 1 : 10), iv 
 ixaiuGEi (Acts 11: 5), iv dvvafiei xcu nvevfiati ayi($ (1 Thess. 1:5). 
 Henderson is right in saying that the translation taking me by the hand can- 
 not be justified, but wrong in representing it as " the rendering of our 
 common version," the text of which has with a strong hand, and the mar- 
 gin in strength of hand, the literal translation, *Vffi is explained by 
 Gesenius as a future Kal of unusual form, by Ewald as a preterite Piel with 
 an unusual union-vowel. Gesenius connects it with the phrase before it 
 ( c when his hand was strong upon me, and he warned me,' etc). Others 
 more probably with *>ex ni (' thus spake Jehovah and warned me,' etc.). 
 The author of this communication is supposed by some interpreters to be 
 the Son of God, for reasons which will be explained below. 
 
 V. 12. The words of God himself are now recorded. Saying, ye 
 shall not call conspiracy (or treason) every thing which this people calleth 
 conspiracy (or treason), and its fear ye shall not fear nor be afraid, ■rtjg, 
 according to etymology and- usage, is a treasonable combination or conspi- 
 
144 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 racy. It is elsewhere constantly applied to such a combination on the part 
 of subjects against their rulers (2 Kings 11 : 14. 12: 21. 14: 19. 15: 30). 
 It is not strictly applicable, therefore, to the confederacy of Syria and Israel 
 against Judah (Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Henderson, etc.), nor to that of 
 Ahaz with the king of Assyria (Barnes, etc.). It would be more appro- 
 priate to factious combinations among the Jews themselves (Aben Ezra, 
 Kimchi), if there were any trace of these in history. The correct view of 
 the passage seems to be this. The unbelieving fears of the people led 
 them to seek foreign aid. From this they were dissuaded by the Prophet 
 and his followers, who regarded it as a violation of their duty to Jehovah. 
 This opposition, like the conduct of Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege, 
 was regarded by the king and his adherents as a treasonable combination 
 to betray them to their enemies. But God himself commands the prophet 
 and the true believers not to be affected by this false reproach, not to regard 
 the cry of treason or conspiracy, nor share in the real or pretended terrors 
 of the unbelievers. 
 
 V. 13. Jehovah of Hosts, him shall ye sanctify (i. e. regard and treat 
 as a Holy God, and as the Holy One of Israel), and he shall be your fear, 
 and he your dread, i. e. the object of these feelings. If they felt as they 
 ought towards God, as supreme and almighty, and as their own peculiar 
 God, with whom they were united in a national covenant, they could not 
 so distrust him as to be alarmed at the approach of any earthly danger. 
 ■pnsa may either be an active participle (that which terrifies you) or a 
 verbal noun resembling fcOia in its mode of derivation. The collocation 
 of the words makes the sentence more emphatic. Him shall ye fear is sub- 
 stantially equivalent to Him alone shall ye fear. Thus explained, the pas- 
 sage is at once a condemnation of the terror inspired by the approach of the 
 two kings, and of the application, which it had occasioned, to Assyria for 
 aid against them. 
 
 V. 14. And he (Jehovah) shall be for (or become) a holy thing (an 
 object to be sanctified) and for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of 
 offence (i. e. a stone to strike against and stumble over) to the two houses 
 of Israel (Ephraim and Judah), for a gin (or trap) and for a snare to the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem. 8M{5» is by many understood to mean a sanctu- 
 ary, in the specific sense, or with the accessory idea, of a refuge or asylum 
 (Paulus, Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Winer, Maurer, Hendewerk, Barnes, 
 Ewald, Umbreit, Henderson). But although the temples of the gods were 
 so regarded by the Greeks and Romans, no such usage seems to have pre- 
 vailed among the Christians till the time of Constantine (Bingham's Orig. 
 Eccles. vni. 11,1). As to the Jews, the only case which has been cited 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 145 
 
 to establish such a practice seems to prove the contrary. So far was 
 the altar from protecting Joab, that he was not even dragged away but 
 killed upon the spot (*2 Kings 2: 28). J. D. Michaelis supposes an allu- 
 sion to the stone which Jacob called Bethel or the residence of God (Gen. 
 28: 19), the same object being here described as a sanctuary and as a stont 
 of stumbling. But although this idea may be included, the word has pro- 
 bably a wider meaning, and was meant to bear the same relation to iO"Hpn 
 (in v. 13) that ir¥«a bears to iHTn and y^-vo to "M^sr. God was the 
 only proper object to be dreaded, feared, and sanctified, i. e. regarded as a 
 holy being in the widest and the most emphatic sense. Thus explained, 
 the Hebrew ttS^o corresponds almost exactly to the Greek to ayiov, the 
 t term applied to Christ by the angel who announced his birth (Luke 1 : 35). 
 In 1 Peter 2 : 7, where this ver^ passage is applied to Christ, /} ripjj seems 
 to be employed as an equivalent to tiypv as here used. To others he is a 
 stone of stumbling, but to you who believe he is rj rytg, something precious, 
 something honoured, something looked upon as holy. The same applica- 
 tion of the words is made by Paul in Rom. 9 : 33. These quotations seem 
 to show that the prophet's words have an extensive import, and are not to be 
 restricted either to his own times, or the time of Christ. The doctrine of 
 the text is, that even the most glorious exhibitions of God's holiness, i. e. 
 of his infinite perfection, may occasion the destruction of the unbeliever. 
 The most signal illustration of this general truth was that afforded in the 
 advent of the Saviour. It was frequently exemplified, however, in the 
 interval, and one of these exemplifications was afforded by the conduct 
 of the unbelieving Jews in the reign of Ahaz, to whom the only power 
 that could save them was converted by their own unbelief into a stone 
 of stumbling and a rock of offence. The same idea is then expressed 
 by another simple and familiar figure, that of a snare or trap. Both 
 figures naturally suggest the idea of inadvertence and unforeseen ruin. 
 The two houses of Israel are not the two schools of Hillel and Shammai, 
 or the kingdom of Israel and the faction that favoured it in Judah, both 
 which are rabbinical conceits, but the two rival kingdoms of Judah and 
 Ephraim, here put together to describe the whole race or nation of Israel. 
 The sense is not that Jehovah would be sanctified by Judah, and become a 
 stumbling-block to Israel ; but that to some in either house or family these 
 opposite events would happen. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are distinctly 
 mentioned as the most conspicuous and influential members of the nation, 
 just as Jerusalem itself is sometimes mentioned in connexion with Judah, 
 which really included it. (Vide supra ch. 1:1.) 
 
 V. 15. This verse completes the threatening by an explicit declara- 
 tion that Jehovah would not only be a stumbling-block and snare to the 
 
 10 
 
146 ISAIAH. CHAP. VIII. 
 
 houses of Israel, but that many should actually fell and be ensnared and 
 broken. And many shall stumble over them (the stone and snare) — or among 
 them (the children of Israel) — and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be 
 taken. Gesenius and most of the later writers refer na to the stone, rock, etc. ; 
 but Ewald and most of the older writers to the people. The first construc- 
 tion points out more distinctly the occasion of the threatened ruin, the last 
 the persons whom it should befall ; the general sense remains the same in 
 either case. 
 
 V. 16. Bind up the testimony, seal the law, in my disciples. These 
 are not the words of the Prophet speaking in his own person, but a com- 
 mand addressed to him by God, or as some suppose by the Messiah, the • 
 ti^pE mentioned in the foregoing verse. \ itringa explains "to as the imper- 
 ative of *rti to form, delineate, inscribe. The command will then be to 
 inscribe the revelation in the hearts of the disciples. It is commonly 
 agreed, however, that the root is *hs to bind, and that the prophet is com- 
 manded to tie up a roll or volume, and to seal it, thereby closing it. By 
 law and testimony here we may either understand the prophetic inscription in 
 v. 1, or the whole preceding context, considered as included in the general 
 sense of revelation, as God's testimony to the truth and as a laiv or declara- 
 tion of his will. The disciples, or those taught of God, are supposed by 
 some to be Uriah and Zechariah, the two witnesses named in v. 2 : by 
 others the sons of the prophets or literal disciples of Isaiah ; but it probably 
 means the' better portion of the people, those truly enlightened because 
 taught of God (ch. 54: 13), to whom the knowledge, of this revelation, or 
 at least of its true meaning, was to be restricted. It is probable, therefore, 
 that the preposition before ■'■tfifc does not mean to or for or with or through, 
 but either among or in, i. e. in their minds or hearts. The act described is 
 not that of literally binding and sealing up a material record, but that of 
 spiritually closing and depositing the revelation of God's will in the hearts of 
 those who were able and willing to receive it, with allusion at the same 
 time to its concealment from all others. Kimchi regards these as the words 
 of the Prophet — nothing now remains but to bind and seal the testimony. 
 This, however, even if we make "to an infinitive, is a very harsh con- 
 struction. 
 
 V. 17. And I (the Messiah) will wait for Jehovah that hideth his 
 face from the house of Jacob, and will expect him. Most writers make 
 these the words of the Prophet ; but since he is addressed in the verse pre- 
 ceding, without any intimation of a change of speaker here, and since the 
 next verse is quoted in Heb. 2 : 1 3, as the words of the Messiah, it seems 
 better to assume, with Cocceius and Henderson, that throughout this pas- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 147 
 
 sage the Messiah is the speaker. The phrase to wait yponhns changed its 
 meaning since the date of the English version, the prominent idea betas 
 
 now that of service and attendance, not as of old that of expectation, which 
 is the meaning of the Hebrew verb. God's hiding his face from the house 
 of Jacob implies not only outward troubles but the withholding of divine 
 illumination, indirectly threatened in the verse preceding. The house of 
 Jacob is the whole race of Israel, perhaps with special reference to Judah. 
 The thing to be expected is the fulness of time when the Messiah, no longer 
 revealed merely to a few, should openly appear. For a time the import of 
 God's promises shall be concealed from the majority, and during that inter- 
 val Messiah shall wait patiently until the set time has arrived. 
 
 V. 18. Behold, I and (he children which Jehovah hath given me (are) 
 for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of Hosts, the (One) dwell- 
 ing in Mount Zion. Luther supplies a verb in the first clause — f Behold, 
 here am I and the children, etc.' Augusti repeats a verb from the preced- 
 ing verse — * I and my children trust in the Lord.' Most writers supplv 
 are alter given me — C I and my children are for signs, etc' From Jeho- 
 vah, i. e. sent and appointed by him. Of the whole verse there are two 
 distinct interpretations. 1. According to Kimchi, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius. 
 Ewald, Barnes, and others, Isaiah is the speaker, and the children meant are 
 his two sons Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, to which some add 
 Immanuel. As all these names, and that of the Prophet himself, are signi- 
 ficant, it is supposed that for this reason he and his children are said to be 
 signs and wonders, personified prophecies to Israel, from Jehovah, who had 
 caused the names to be imposed. 2. According to Henderson and manv 
 older writers, these are the words of the Messiah, and the children are his 
 spiritual seed (Isai. 53 : 10), whom the Father had given him (John 6 : 
 37, 39. 10: 29. 17 : 6, 7, 9, 11, 12). The great argument in favour of 
 this last interpretation is the application of the verse to Christ by Paul 
 (Heb. 2: 13), not as an illustration but an argument, a proof, that Christ 
 partook of the same nature with the persons called his children and his 
 brethren.' It is true that many who regard Isaiah as the speaker suppose 
 him to have been a type of Christ in this transaction. But a double sense 
 ought not to be assumed where a single one is perfectly consistent with the 
 context, and sufficient to explain all apparent contradictions, as in this case, 
 where admitting that the Messiah is the speaker, we have no ellipsis to 
 supply, and no occasion to resort to the hypothesis either of a type or an 
 accommodation. It is not necessary, however, to restrict the terms, with 
 Henderson, to the period of the advent, and to our Saviour's personal fol- 
 lowers. Even before he came in the flesh, he and his disciples, i. e. all 
 who looked for his appearing, were signs and wonders, objects of contemp- 
 tuous astonishment, and at the same time pledges of the promise. 
 
148 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 V. 19. And when they (indefinitely any one, or definitely the unbe- 
 lievers) shall say to you (the disciples and children of Messiah, who is still 
 speaking), seek unto (i. e. consult as an oracle) the spirits (or the spirit- 
 masters, those who have subject or familiar spirits at command) and to the 
 wizards (wise or knowing ones), the chirpers and the mutter ers (alluding 
 to the way in which the heathen necromancers invoked their spirits, or 
 uttered their responses), should not a people seelc to (or consult) its God, 
 for the living (i. e. in behalf of the living should it resort) to the dead ? 
 Grotius explains .the last clause as a continuation of the speech of the idol- 
 aters — 'Consult familiar spirits; ought not a people to consult its gods.?' 
 But since Jehovah was the God of Israel, such an argument would defeat 
 itself. It is better to regard this clause as the reply of the believing 
 Jews to those who tempted them. Ewald and others give i?s the meaning 
 of instead — ' Should a people consult the dead instead of the living God ?' 
 It is more consistent with the usage of the language to take the preposition 
 in the sense of for, i. e. for the benefit or in behalf of ' When you, my 
 disciples, are invited by superstitious sinners to consult pretended wizards, 
 consider (or reply) that as the heathen seek responses from their gods, so 
 you ought to consult Jehovah, and not be guilty of the folly of consulting 
 senseless idols or dead men for the instruction of the living.' Henderson 
 supposes the Prophet to be speaking in his own person ; but if the Messiah 
 is the speaker in v. 18, it is gratuitous and therefore arbitrary to suppose 
 another speaker to be introduced without any intimation of the change. 
 
 V. 20. Instead of resorting to these unprofitable and forbidden sources, 
 the disciples of Jehovah are instructed to resort to the laiv and to the testi- 
 mony (i. e. to divine revelation, considered as a system of belief and as a rule 
 of duty) — if they speak (i. e. if any speak) not according to this word (an- 
 other name for the revealed will of God), it is he to whom there is no 
 dawn, or morning (i. e. no relief from the dark night of calamity). — The 
 first clause is elliptical. Cocceius alone connects it immediately with what 
 precedes, and understands \h as meaning besides — ' in addition to the law and 
 the testimony which we have already.' Others supply a new verb, return, 
 adhere, come, go, etc. It is best, however, to repeat WJ'Ift from the preced- 
 ing verse, especially as this verb is elsewhere followed by b in the same 
 sense. (See 2 Chron. 17 : 3, 4. Comp. Job 10 : 6.) — Piscator violates 
 the accents by separating kVbk from liajr. < If not (i. e. if they will not 
 come to the law and the testimony), let them say,' etc. Junius takes xb ex 
 as equivalent to x?n, which it never is unless another interrogation precedes. 
 Knobel refers to the xbn in v. 19 ; but this is too remote, and is moreover 
 separated from xb ex by the first clause of v. 20. Kimchi, Abarbenel, Coc- 
 ceius, Hitzig, Maurer, make xb ex the common elliptical formula of swearing 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 1 19 
 
 — ' if they will not say,' i. e. they surely will say. Ewald adopts the same 
 construction, and rx plains the verse to mean that when they are reduced to 
 extremity (as those who have no dawn) they will begin too late to speak 
 According to this wordy i. e. join in the appeal to the law and to the testi- 
 mony, which they now despise. Umbreit modifies this interpretation by 
 giving ox its strict conditional meaning, and continuing the sentence through 
 the next verse — ' If they do not thus speak, to whom there is no morning, 
 then they must pass through the land, etc' — ifc'K, which is properly the rela- 
 tive pronoun, is omitted by the Vulgate, and explained in the English ver- 
 sion and by Barnes as a causal particle. DeDieu, Vitringa, and some 
 others make it a particle of asseveration, certainly, surely ; Gesenius the 
 sign of the apodosis, then there is no dawn to them ; J. H. Michaelis, a sub- 
 stitute for ^3,. but in the sense of that, i know ye that.' So the Dutch ver- 
 sion, 'it shall come to pass that.' All these are needless and therefore in- 
 admissible departures from the ordinary usage. Of those who give the 
 word its proper meaning as a relative pronoun, some refer it todhe noun 
 immediately preceding — this word which (Lowth) — others to the people or 
 to some individual among them — they who have or he who has no morn- 
 ing (Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit). But the best construction seems to be that 
 of Hendewerk, who supplies the substantive verb before the relative, * they 
 are one who has no morning,' or better still, ' it is he who has (or they who 
 have) no morning.' None can speak inconsistently with God's word — or. 
 none can refuse to utter this word, viz. to the law and to the testimony 
 — but one whom God has abandoned — " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to 
 them that are lost." (2 Cor. 4 : 3.) Quern Deus vult perdere prius de- 
 mentat. Lowth renders "ntu obscurity, from the analogy of intu black and 
 -lima blackness. J. H. Michaelis, Dathe, and Augusti, make it equivalent 
 to the Arabic ^gt, meaning magic — ' His word in which there is no magic/ 
 i. e. no deception. But the Hebrew word is never used in this sense. 
 Calvin, the English version, Barnes and others, give it the general sense of 
 light — ' it is because there is no light (i. e. knowledge or sound judgment) in 
 them.' But according to usage, the word means specifically morning-light, 
 the dawn of day succeeding night, and is so rendered by the Vulgate (matu- 
 tina lux), Luther (Morgenrothe), and most modern writers. By this Vi- 
 tringa understands the morning of the resurrection, and J. H. Michaelis the 
 epiphany of Christ. But as night is a common figure for calamity, the 
 dawn will naturally signify its termination, the return of better times. (See 
 ch. 58 : 8. 47 : 11. Job 11: 17.) They may be said to have no dawn, for 
 whom there is nothing better in reserve. 
 
 * 
 
 V. 21. And they (the people) shall pass through it (the land) hardly 
 bestead (i. e. distressed) and hungry ; and it shall be (or come to pass) 
 
150 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 that when they are hungry they shall fret themselves, and curse their king 
 and their God, and shall look upward. Those interpreters who make the 
 whole of the preceding verse conditional, explain the 1 at the beginning 
 of this as the sign of the apodosis — ' if they speak not, etc. then shall 
 'they pass, etc' So J. D. Michaelis, Dathe, and Augusti. The latter sup- 
 • plies people as the subject of "«$ ; Lowth and the Dutch Version, every one 
 of them ; but this* is unnecessary. The verbs, though singular in form, like 
 ■ft in the preceding verse, refer to the subject of the plural irtijk?. Jerome 
 repeats ^intf) as the subject of ^22 (lux pertransibit) light shall pass through 
 the land, but not continue in it.' — Through it, not the condition just de- 
 scribed (Schroeder), nor the law (either in the sense of searching or in that 
 of transgressing it), nor the earth or the gentile part of it (as some of the 
 Jews explain it), nor Zion mentioned in v. 18 (Cocceius), but the land of 
 Judah, which though not expressly mentioned till the next verse, is tacitly 
 referred to by a common Hebrew idiom. (See Ps.68 : 15. 87 : 1.) Grotius 
 repeats His favourite suggestion, that the Prophet pointed to the ground 
 when he said tta, so that the gesture and the word together meant this land 
 — tvtipi is not hardened in a moral sense, but hardly treated or distressed, 
 as appears from the addition of 3§"J. This last is not expressive of bodily 
 hunger (Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer), nor of spiritual famine (Cocceius) ; nor 
 is it a mere figure for the absence of all comfort and tranquillity of mind 
 (Vitringa), but a term implying destitution both of temporal and spiritual 
 good (J. H. Michaelis). Calvin, Lowth, and Barnes, understand tyjfcntl as 
 expressing self-reproach or anger with themselves ; but this is not consistent 
 with the subsequent description of their desperate impenitence. The reflex- 
 ive form, which occurs nowhere else, more probably denotes to excite one's 
 self to anger. His king is not his earthly sovereign, the king of Judah 
 (Grotius), of Judah or Israel as the case might be (Hitzig), or his idol, par- 
 ticularly Moloch or Milcom, names derived from rfm (Targum, Calvin, Ju- 
 nius), but Jehovah considered as the king of Israel. So too v*rf>$ is not his 
 false god, his idol, but the God whom he was bound to serve, his God, 
 who at the same time was his king (Henderson). As the verb to curse 
 does not elsewhere take the preposition a as a connective, Cocceius proposes 
 to translate the phrase he shall curse by his king and by his God, by 
 which he seems to understand the conduct of the Jews, who at one time 
 cursed Caesar in Jehovah's name, and at another time rejected Christ saying, 
 We have no king but Caesar ! Thus they alternately cursed their king in 
 God's name, and cursed God in their king's. The act of looking up is by 
 some regarded as a sign of penitence or of conversion from idols to the true 
 God ; but this is inconsistent with the terms of the next verse. Junius, 
 Piscator, and the Dutch annotators, connect it with the cursing as an 
 accompanying gesture—' they shall curse their king and their god, looking 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 151 
 
 up.' But this clause is really in close connexion with the first of th 
 verse, and hoth together must he understood as indicating utter perplexity 
 and ahsolute despair of help from God or man, from heaven or earth, from 
 above or below. 
 
 V. 22. And to the earth he shall look, and behold distress and darkness, 
 dimness of anguish, and into darkness (he shall be) driven — or, the dimness 
 of anguish and of darkness is dispelled. Heaven and earth are here opposed 
 to one another, as sea and land are in ch. 5 : 30. Distress and darkness are 
 here identified, as distress and light are there contrasted. Junius and Hender- 
 son explain CJW3 as a participle, corresponding to rnja in the last clause (dark- 
 ened with distress, driven into gloom) ; but there is no such participial form. 
 Cocceius explains it as a noun denoting the dizziness and dimness of sight 
 produced by great distress (vertigo arctationis), which may also be the 
 meaning of the Septuagint version (axoiog wote [iq pJnen). The true sense 
 of the Hebrew word is outward and inward gloom, distress of circumstances 
 and despair of mind. It is separated from what follows by Calvin (caligo, 
 angustia) and Barnes (gloom, oppression), but is really a construct form 
 iroverning P£&« As the latter originally signifies pressure or compression, 
 Gesenius explains the phrase to mean darkness of compression, i. e. dense 
 or compact darkness. But n^W is here (as in Isai. 30 : 6. Prov. 1 : 27) a 
 synonyme of irTOt, both denoting straitened circumstances and a correspond- 
 ino- state of mind. — The Peshito translates nw as an active verb, and the 
 Vulgate as an active participle (caligo persequens). The Targum, Coc- 
 ceius, and Vitringa, suppose the passive participle to be here used # as an 
 abstract noun (caligo, impulsio). Saadias, Munster, Barnes, and others, 
 make rttva an epithet of r&ex ('obscuritas impulsa,' 'deepened darkness '), 
 but the latter word is feminine. Ix>wth as usual cuts the knot by proposing 
 to read either -sa or htfija, and Kocher by taking the latter as a neuter 
 noun in apposition with the former. Jarehi, Kimchi, Calvin, Junius, Ro- 
 senmuller, Gesenius, Ewald, and* others, refer rn:^ to the people or the 
 person who is the subject of the verb t^JE, and either supply a preposition 
 before 5"&sa, or explain it as an accusative after a verb of motion. The 
 meaning will then be thrust or driven into darkness. The objections to 
 this construction are, first, the- necessity of supplying both a verb and pre- 
 position, and secondly, the unusual collocation of the words, rvrw n'-rx for 
 nbsx Va rvina. On the other hand, it is strongly recommended by the analogy 
 of Jer. 23 : 12, where the same idea is expressed by the union of the same 
 verb and noun. Another construction is the one proposed by J. D. Micha- 
 elis, who connects mM with cpjp, and puts the latter in construction not 
 only with npis but also with nbrs — « the dimness of anguish and of gloom is 
 dissipated.' This construction is recommended by its freedom from gram- 
 
152 ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 matical anomalies, and by its rendering the use of ^3 at the beginning of the 
 next verse altogether natural. The objections to it are, that it violates the 
 accents ; that it makes the Prophet speak of the darkness of darkness (but 
 see Exod. 10 : 22) ; and that the transition from the threatening to the pro- 
 mise is, on this supposition, too abrupt. Either of the two constructions 
 last proposed may be preferred without materially affecting the interpreta- 
 tion of the passage. Hitzig modifies that of Michaelis by taking the last 
 word separately — it is dispelled ! 
 
 V. 23. This darkness is to be dispelled — for (there shall) not (be) 
 darkness (forever) to her ivho is now distressed (literally, to whom there is 
 distress). The present calamity, or that just predicted, is not to be perpetual. 
 The future state of things shall exhibit a strange contrast with the former. 
 As the former time degraded the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali, 
 so the latter glorifies the way of the sea, the hank of the Jordan, Galilee of 
 the Gentiles. The same region is described in both clauses, namely, the 
 northern extremity of the land of Israel. This is designated, first, by the 
 saqu; which occupied it, then, by its relative position with respect to the 
 Jordan and the sea of Tiberias. This part of the country, from being the 
 most degraded and afflicted, should receive peculiar honour. Its debase- 
 ment and distress both arose from its remote and frontier situation, proximity 
 to the heathen, intercourse and mixture with them, and constant exposure 
 to the first attacks of enemies, who usually entered Canaan from the north. 
 To the former of these reasons may be traced the expressions of contempt 
 for Galilee recorded in the books of the New Testament (John 1 : 46. 7 : 
 52. Matt. 26: 69. Acts 1 : 11. 2 : 7). How this disgrace was to be ex- 
 changed for honour, is explained in the next verse. Besides this, which 
 seems to be the most satisfactory interpretation, there are several others, 
 more or less at variance with it. The English version supposes a contrast 
 not merely between ^£*j and i^an, but between these two and the subse- 
 quent deliverance. This requires b^nto'be taken in the sense of lightly 
 afflicting, as distinguished from ^srn to afflict more grievously. But this 
 distinction is unauthorized by usage. The Vulgate renders bjrn alleviata 
 est. Some of the Jewish writers make it mean to lighten the country by 
 removing its inhabitants ; but then "Psai-j must mean to bring them back 
 again. Koppe makes Judah the subject of the promise. As Galilee was 
 first afflicted, then delivered, so should Judah be ; but this is wholly arbi- 
 trary. Cocceius converts the promise into a threat by reading there ivas not 
 (or has never been) such darkness. Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and 
 others, give to ^s the sense of but, because what immediately precedes is 
 understood by them not as a promise but a threatening. Vitringa and 
 Junius retain the proper meaning for, but connect it with v. 16 or v. 18, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 153 
 
 The necessity of either supposition is removed by explaining the last clause 
 of v. 22, with J. D. Michaelis ind Hitzig, as the beginning of the promise. 
 The Vulgate connects sptya x'~ with v. 22 and translates it non poterit avo- 
 lare, as if from C]i* to fly ; but it is obviously a cognate form to tffrq in the 
 preceding verse. Hitzig explains ww a^> as a compound, meanigg the 
 negative or opposite of darkness, i. e. light, as f9 stb (ch. 10 : 15) means 
 that which is not wood. Some regard a as a temporal particle, at or in the 
 former time. Junius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius and others make it a conjunc- 
 tion, as the former time debased, etc. The original construction seems to be 
 tike the former time (which) debased, etc. Of those' who regard b^n and 
 niasn as descriptive of different degrees of affliction, some suppose the 
 invasion of Tiglath-pileser to be compared with that of Shalmaneser ; or the 
 invasion of Israel with that of Judah ; or the Assyrian with the Babylonian 
 conquest ; or the Babylonian with the Roman. The sea mentioned in the 
 last clause is not the Mediterranean but the sea of Galilee, as appears from 
 Matt. 14: 15, 16. 185 is here used in the sense of side or part adjacent. 
 The region spoken of was that along the Jordan (on one or both sides) 
 near the sea of Galilee. According to Junius, Galilee of the Gentiles 
 means Galilaea populosa. Gesenius admits that Isaiah has reference to the 
 times of the Messiah in this promise of deliverance and exaltation to the 
 Galileans. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The change for the better, which was promised at the close of the eighth 
 chapter, is described in the ninth as consisting in the rise of a great light 
 upon the darkness, in the increase of the nation and their joy, excited by 
 deliverance from bondage and the universal prevalence of peace, arising 
 from the advent of a divine successor to David, who should restore, estab- 
 lish, and enlarge his kingdom without any limitation, vs. 1-6. 
 
 From the times of the Messiah, the Prophet suddenly reverts to his 
 own, and again predicts the punishment of Ephraim by repeated strokes. 
 The people had been warned both by messages from God and by experi- 
 ence, but had continued to indulge their proud self-confidence, in conse- 
 quence of which God allowed the Assyrians, after overthrowing Rezin, to 
 attack them also, while at the same time they were harassed by perpetual 
 assaults from their hostile neighbours, vs. 7—11. 
 
154 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 Still they did not repent and return to God, who therefore cut off sud- 
 denly many of all classes, but especially the rulers of the nation and the 
 false prophets, the flattering seducers of the wretched people, from whom 
 he must now withhold even the ordinary proofs of his compassion, vs. 
 
 All this was the natural effect of sin, like a fire in a thicket, which at 
 last consumes the forest, and involves the land in smoke .and flame. Yet 
 amidst these strokes of the divine displeasure, they were still indulging mu- 
 tual animosities and jealousies, insomuch that Israel was like a famished 
 man devouring his own flesh. Manasseh thus devoured Ephraim and 
 Ephraim Manasseh, while the two together tried to devour Judah, vs. 
 17-20. g 
 
 The recurrence of the same clause at the end of vs. 11, 16, 20, and the 
 fourth verse of the next chapter, has led the modern Germans to regard this 
 as a case of regular strophical arrangement; and as the same form occurs 
 above in ch. 5 : 25, Ewald interpolates that verse between the sixth and 
 seventh of this chapter, as a part of the same context. The objection to 
 these critical hypotheses will be stated in the exposition. 
 
 It has been observed already that the division of the chapters is in this 
 part of the book peculiarly unfortunate ; the first part of the ninth (vs. 1-6) 
 containing the/conclusion of the eighth, and the first part of the tenth (vs. 
 1-4) the conclusion of the ninth. 
 
 The numbers of the verses in this chapter differ in the Hebrew and 
 English Bibles ; what is the last verse of the eighth in the former is the first 
 of the ninth in the latter. The references in the commentary are all to the 
 divisions of the Hebrew text. 
 
 V. 1. The people (just described, i. e. the people of Galilee), those 
 walking in the dark (expressive both of spiritual blindness and extreme dis- 
 tress), have seen a great light (the change being presented to the Prophet's 
 view as already past) : the dwellers in the land of the shadow of death (i. e. 
 of intense darkness), light has beamed upon them. These words, in a gene- 
 ral sense, may be descriptive of any great and sudden change in the con- 
 dition of the people, especially of one from ignorance and. misery to illumi- 
 nation and enjoyment. They are still more appropriate to Christ as the 
 light of the world (John 8 : 12), a light to the nations (Isai. 42 : 6. 49 : 6), 
 and the sun of righteousness (Mai. 4 : 2), which rose upon the world when 
 he manifested forth his glory by his teachings and his miracles in Galilee 
 (John 2:11). It was in this benighted and degraded region that he first 
 appeared as a messenger from God ; and in that appearance we are 
 expressly taught that this prediction was fulfilled (Matth. 4: 12-17). 
 Cocceius needlessly supposes these to be the words of a new speaker. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 155 
 
 There is nothing to intimate a change of subject, and this verse is really a 
 mere specification in positive form of the negative prediction in the first 
 • clause of the verse preceding. By the people we are not to understand all 
 Israel (Maurer), nor the Jews as distinguished from the ten tribes (Kimchi, 
 Calvin), nor the people of Jerusalem (Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Grotius), nor th< 
 people of God, the spiritual Israel (Cocceius), but the Galileans who had 
 just been mentioned (Junius, J. H. Michaelis, Vitringa, Hendewerk).- — By 
 darkness Piscator understands sorrow ; Gesenius, calamity in general ; the 
 Targum, Israel's sufferings in Egypt ; Jarchi, Kimchi, and Grotius, those 
 of Judah during Sennacherib's invasion ; Calvin, those of the Jews, and 
 Hendewerk those of the ten tribes, in exile. But it rather expresses the 
 complex idea of a state of sin and misery (Psalm 107 : 10, 11), including 
 outward and inward darkness, the darkness of ignorance and the darkness 
 of distress. — DeDieu and Fiirst make n" 1 ^ a simple derivative of cV* with 
 a feminine termination, like roabxa from -jbo. The more common and pro- 
 bable opinion is that it is a compound of ^s and MS. It is not the proper 
 name of a particular valley (Hitzig), but a poetical designation of the most 
 profound obscurity — as dark as death — deadly darkness — with a special 
 allusion here to the spiritual death, under whose shade the Galileans sat. — 
 Instead of have seen, Luther, J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius and others, have 
 the present see, as if the Prophet while speaking beheld a sudden flas*h. 
 Light is not merely an emblem of joy (Piscator) or deliverance (Gesenius), 
 but of outward and inward illumination. Krrobel understands by the people 
 the exile of the ten tribes, and by the land of the shadow of death Assyria 
 as the place of their captivity. 
 
 V. 2. The Prophet now, by a sudden apostrophe, addresses God himself, 
 who, by bestowing on the Galileans this great light, would not only honour 
 them, but afford occasion of great joy to all the true Israel, including those 
 who should be gathered from the gentiles. Thou hast enlarged the nation 
 (i. e. Israel in general), thou hast increased its joy (literally, to it thou hast 
 increased the joy) — they rejoice before thee like the joy in harvest, as men 
 rejoice when they divide the spoil. Luther and Umbreit explain va to 
 mean the gentiles, and regard this not as a description of deliverance but of 
 oppression. Hitzig supposes ril to mean the returning exiles. All other 
 writers seem to be agreed that it means the Israelites in general. The in- 
 crease, of the nation has been variously explained to mean the gathering of 
 a great army by the king of Assyria, to whom the verse is then addressed 
 (Grotius) — or the crowding of the Jews into Jerusalem during Sennache/ib's 
 invasion (Aben Ezra) — or an increase in the number of the Israelites while 
 in captivity (Hitzig) — or the general diffusion of the Jewish race after the 
 exile (Vitringa). It really means the increase of the people in their own 
 
156 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 land, not a mere growth of population (Gesenius), but an increase of the 
 true Israel by the calling of the gentiles (Hengstenberg, Christol. vol. I. pt. 
 2, p. 110). Symmachus separates nbw from what follows (znlrftvvag to I 
 t&vog o ovx ?(i£ydXvvag),m which he is followed by J. D. Michaelis and 
 Maurer. But this requires a change in the punctuation and division of the 
 words to render it grammatical. DeDieu takes ap as equivalent to *6n — 
 •' hast thou not increased the joy ?'— which is forced and arbitrary. Another 
 construction is, thou hast increased the nation of the Jews, but thou hast 
 not increased the joy of their enemies (Jarchi) or of the gentiles (Luther). 
 But this assumes two different subjects in the two successive clauses. Hit- 
 zig and Hengstenberg thus construe it — thou dost increase the nation 
 whose joy thou hast not heretofore increased. But this requires a relative 
 to be supplied, and arbitrarily refers the verbs to different times. If the 
 textual reading (t&) be retained, as it is by Hengstenberg, Maurer, Hitzig, 
 Henderson, Umbreit, and the older writers, the best construction is that 
 given by Calvin and Cocceius — thou hast increased the nation, but thou 
 hast not increased the joy as thou art now about to do. It is best, how- 
 ever, to read i? instead of ah, with the Masora, several ancient versions, 
 Gesenius, DeWette, and Knobel, or to regard the latter as a mere orthogra- 
 phical variation for the former (Ewald ad loc. and Heb. Gr. <§> 555). The 
 same emendation is required by the context in several other places (e. g. 
 ch. 49 : 5. 63 : 9). Junius and Tremellius suppose the former joy or pros- 
 perity of Israel, acquired by toil and bloodshed, as in a harvest or a battle, 
 to be here contrasted with the joy which the Messiah would impart. Kno- 
 bel supplies a relative before WOO, gives "iUSd the sense of when, and sup- 
 poses the joy of actual victory to be compared with that of harvest — thou 
 hast increased the joy wherewith they rejoice before thee, like the joy of 
 harvest, when they rejoice in their dividing the spoil. But this makes the 
 structure of the sentence artificial and complex. Rejoicing before God 
 Calvin explains to mean rejoicing with a real or a reasonable joy ; Piscator, 
 with a secret spiritual joy, not before man but God ; Cocceius, Vitringa, 
 Hitzig, Hengstenberg, and Ewald, more correctly, as an act of religious wor- 
 ship, either simply in allusion to the rejoicing of the people before God at 
 the tabernacle or temple under the law of Moses (Deut. 12 : 7. 14 : 26), or 
 in reference to an actual performance of that duty. The Targum explains 
 harvest as a metaphor for war or battle, which destroys the Prophet's 
 beautiful comparison of the joy of victory, or joy in general, to that 
 which accompanies the harvest in all countries, and especially in the 
 East (Ps. 4: 8. 126: 6). — Kirnchi makes the Assyrians the subject of 
 ^, Knobel the Israelites themselves; but it is better to take it indefi- 
 nitely or to supply men as in the English version, "^5fcp3 is not a false 
 reading for i n sp or vxpfi, which we find in a few manuscripts (Lowth), but 
 
ISAIAH, dllAP. IX. • 157 
 
 another instance of the idiomatic use of the construct form before a pre 
 position, as in the preceding verso (fmSL i »aap)i See Gesenius $114. 1. 
 Ewald $ 510. T.o the promise hero given there is probably allusion in 
 the language of the angel who announqed the birth of Jesus to the 
 shepherds (Luke 2 : 10) : Behold, 1 brinu; you good tidings of great 
 joy, which shall be to all the people (nuvu to» \$up) t i. e. to the whole 
 nation, all the Israel of God. 
 
 V. 3. This verse assigns the reason or occasion of the promised joy. 
 They shall rejoice before thee, that (or because) the yoke of his burden 
 (his burdensome yoke), and the rod of his shoulder (or back), and the 
 staff of the one driving him (his task-master, slave-driver) thou hast 
 broken, like the day (as in the day) of Midian, as Gideon routed Midian, 
 i. e. suddenly, totally, and by special aid from heaven. This promise 
 was not fulfilled in the deliverance of the Jews from Babylon (Calvin), 
 which bore no resemblance to the victory of Gideon ; nor in the de- 
 struction of Sennacherib's army (Grotius), the benefits of which event 
 were only temporary ; nor in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (J. 
 D. Michael is), to which there is no allusion in the context ; but in the 
 glorious deliverance of the Galileans (the first converts to Christianity), 
 and of all who with them made up the true Israel, from the heavy bur- 
 den of the covenant of works, the galling yoke of the Mosaic law, the 
 service of the devil, and the bondage of corruption. Outward de- 
 liverance is only promised, so far as it accompanied the spiritual change 
 or was included in it. Cocceius refines too much when he distinguishes 
 between the rod and staff, as denoting the civil and the ceremonial law. 
 The meaning, on the other hand, is lowered by restricting the prophetic 
 figures to Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem (Grotius), or the tribute paid 
 to Assyria by Hezekiah (Jarchi) or Ahaz (Gesenius), or to mere de- 
 pendence on a foreign power (Hitzig). The application of the terms 
 by J. D. Michaelis to the persecution of the Galileans or first Christians 
 by the Jews, seems al ogether fanciful. Barnes refers the pronoun in his 
 burden to the oppressor (which he made you bear), and Forerius in like 
 manner explains the rod of his shoulder to mean the rod carried on 
 the tyrant's shoulder. But the suffix in both cases relates not to the op- 
 pressor but to the oppressed, and cru includes not merely the shoulders 
 but the space between them, the upper part of the back. Forerius also 
 refers ia to the oppressor — ' thou hast broken the rod of the oppressor 
 with himself.' Munster refers it to the rod — * with which he oppressed 
 them.' Maurer refers it correctly to the sufferer, but gives the preposi- 
 tion the distinct sense of against cr upon, because the tyrant presses or 
 rushes upon his victim. It is no doubt, as Gesenius and Ewald hold, 
 
158 SAIAH, fcHAP. IX. 
 
 a mere connective, taken here by tos$ as it is elsewhere by sjg|j (Ex. 1 : 
 14. Lev. 25 : 39). The day of any one in Hebrew often means the day in 
 which something memorable happens to him, or is done by him (vide supra, 
 ch. 2: 12), and in Arabic is . absolutely used for a day of battle. The 
 rout of the Midianites, recorded in the seventh chapter of Judges, is here 
 referred to, not because it took place in a single night, like the destruction 
 of Sennacherib's army (Jarchi) — nor because the foes of Israel, 'like those 
 of the church, destroyed each other (Cocceius) — nor because the truth, 
 which overcomes the world, is in earthen vessels, like the lamps of Gideon 
 ( Vitringa) — nor because the preaching of the gospel may be likened to the 
 blowing of trumpets (Dutch Annotations) — but because it was a wonderful 
 display of divine power, without the use of any adequate human means — 
 and also, as suggested by Herder (Heb. Poes*. vol. II. p. 496), because it 
 took place in the same part of the country which this prophecy refers to. 
 Jezreel, where the battle was fought (Judg. 6 : 33), was in the territory of 
 Manasseh, to which tribe Gideon himself belonged (Judg. 6 : 15) ; but he 
 was aided by the neighbouring tribes of Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali 
 (Judg. 6 : 35). — Junius, in order to sustain his interpretation of the second 
 verse, continues the construction into this, and gives to ?a the sense of when 
 — c they rejoiced before thee, etc., when (or whenever) thou didst break their 
 yoke,' etc. — i. e. in every case of former deliverance. (See also the margin 
 of the English version.) The Septuagint and Targum supply a verb in 
 the first clause (acpijQTjiai, iVhsk), which is unnecessary, as .the nouns in that 
 clause are' governed by the verb in the last part of the sentence. That verb 
 does not mean to scatter (Septuagint), or to conquer (Vulgate), or to frighten 
 (Cocceius), but to break, to break off, or to break in pieces. Vitringa 
 takes nvn as a synonyme of rrafe a yoke ; but it no doubt denotes here, as 
 in every other case, a staff or rod. Gesenius, in his Commentary, supposes 
 an ellipsis of the preposition before uv ; but, in the last edition of his grammar, 
 he agrees with Maurer in supposing the noun itself to be used adverbially or 
 absolutely in answer to the question when ? The absolute form of ibsiO is 
 written by Gesenius bsb, by Ewald Vno. The Daghesh is euphonic, and 
 the Sheva anomalous. 
 
 V. 4. The destruction of the oppressing power shall be followed by pro- 
 found and universal peace. To express this idea, the Prophet describes the 
 equipments of the soldier as consumed with fire. For all the armour of the 
 armed man (or the man-at-arms, who mingles) in the tumult (of battle), and 
 the garment rolled in blood, shall be for burning (and for) food (or fuel) of 
 fire. In other words, the usual accompaniments of battle shall be utterly 
 destroyed, and by implication, war itself shall cease. There is no need of 
 supposing, with Vitringa, Lowth, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Henderson, an allu- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 159 
 
 sion to the ancient custom of burning the armour and equipments of the 
 slain upon the field of battle as an act of triumph. It is not the weapons of 
 ihe enemy alone, but all weapons of war, that are to be consumed ; not 
 merely because they have been used for a bad purpose, but because they 
 are hereafter to be useless. It is not so much a prophecy of conquest as of 
 peace; a peace however which is not to be expected till the enemies of 
 God are overcome ; and therefore the prediction may be said to include 
 both events, the final overthrow of all opposing powers and the subsequent 
 prevalence of universal peace. This last is uniformly spoken of in Scrip- 
 ture as characteristic of Messiah's reign, both internal and external, in 
 society at large and in the hearts of his people. With respect to the latter, 
 the prediction has been verified with more or less distinctness, in every case * 
 of true conversion. With respect to the former, its fulfilment is inchoate, 
 but will one day be complete, when the lion and the lamb shall lie down 
 together, and He who is the Prince of Peace shall have dominion from sea 
 to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. An allusion to this pro- 
 mise and its final consummation may be found in the words of the heavenly 
 host who celebrated the Saviour's birth (Luke 2: 14), Glory to God in the 
 highest, and on earth peace, good will to men. According to Jarchi, 
 Kimchi, Calvin, and Grotius, this verse contains two distinct propositions, 
 one relating to the day of Midian or to wars in general, and the other to 
 the slaughter of Sennacherib's army or the deliverance of the Jews from 
 exile. The sense would then be that while other battles are accompanied 
 with noise and bloodshed, this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. But 
 this construction, besides assuming a change of subject, of which there 
 is no intimation in the text, departs from the natural and ordinary meaning 
 of the words. The fire mentioned in the last clause has been variously 
 explained as a poetical description of the Assyrian slaughter (Jarchi, Kim- 
 chi, Aben Ezra, Grotius), or of the angel by whom it was effected (Abar- 
 benel) — of the destruction oL Jerusalem (Vatablus, J. D. Michaelis), or of 
 the world (Diodati) — or as an emblem of the Holy Ghost (Forerius), or 
 of our Saviour's zeal for man's salvation (Gill). It is mentioned simply 
 as a powerful consuming agent, to express the abolition of the imple- 
 ments of war, and, as a necessary consequence, of war itself. The verse, 
 then, is not a mere description of Gideon's victory (Junius) — nor a com- 
 parison between that or any other battle and the slaughter of Sennach- 
 erib's army (Grotius) — nor a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem in spite 
 of an obstinate and bloody defence (J. D. Michaelis) — but a prophecy of 
 changes to take place when the great light and deliverer of the nation 
 should appear. The v*. t at the beginning is translated when by Junius and 
 Tremellius and h» the margin of the English Bible ; but it really means for, 
 and assigns a second reason for the joy predicted in v. 2. )'xz>, which occurs 
 
160 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 nowhere else, is taken in the sense of war or battle, by David Kimchi, 
 Luther, Calvin, and Grotius ; in that of a military greave or sandal, boot 
 or shoe, by Joseph Kimchi, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Maurer, Hengstenberg, 
 Hendewerk, Henderson, and Ewald ; and in that, of armour or equipment 
 in general, by Hitzig, DeWette, Uiribreit and Knobel. "jsjtb is a participle 
 formed from this noun, and signifies a person thus equipped. The whole 
 phrase therefore means the armour of the armed man, the equipment 6f 
 the soldier. The obscurity of these terms to the old translators is suffi- 
 ciently apparent from the aiolijv hiavvriy(iivriv of the Septuagint, the vio- 
 lenta praedatio of the Vulgate, and the unintelligible^ version of the whole 
 sentence given in the Targum. Hoheisel and Rosenmuller understand by 
 
 ' 0*1 the noise or clatter of the military shoe or sandal armed with nails ; 
 but it rather means noise in general, or more specifically, the shock and 
 tumult of battle, the melee. The phrase ute-na qualifies "jxb — the armour of 
 him who mingles armed in the tumult of battle, and whose ftbato or upper 
 garment is described as rolled in blood, not merely dyed of a red colour. 
 (Hitzig), but literally stained with the blood of conflict. J. D. Michaelis 
 makes the first clause, by a harsh and ungrammatical construction, mean 
 that he who arms himself arms himself only to tremble or to make to trem- 
 ble. There is no need of supplying a verb in the first clause, with Calvin 
 (fit) and Grotius (solet esse), much less two with Barnes. The nouns in 
 this clause are the subjects of the verb at the beginning of the second, 
 which agrees grammatically with the second, .but logically with both. The 
 Vav is conversive, and at the same time introduces the apodosis of the sen- 
 tence (Gesenius <§> 152, I, a). There is no need therefore of adopting J. D. 
 MichaelisV construction of the last clause, that whatever is destined for the 
 
 fire (i»k nba&w) will certainly be burned (HBTOb nrpfi). 
 
 V. 5. This verse gives a further reason for the joy of the people, by 
 bringing into view the person who was to effect the great deliverance. For 
 a child is born to us (or for us, i. e. for our oenefit) — a son is given to us 
 (i. e. by Jehovah, an expression frequently applied in the New Testament 
 to Christ's incarnation), and the government is upon his shoulder (as a 
 burden or a robe of office) — and his name is called Wonderful (literally, 
 Wonder) — Counsellor — Mighty God — Everlasting Father — Prince of 
 Peace. The figure of a robe or dress is preferred by Grotius and 
 Hengstenberg, that of a burden by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Knobel, who cites 
 analogous expressions from Cicero (rempublicam universam vestris humeris 
 sustinetis), and the younger Pliny (bene humeris tuis sedet imperium). 
 When it is said that his name should be called, it does not mean that he 
 should actually bear these names in real life, but merely that he should 
 deserve them, and that they would be descriptive of his character. The 
 
ISAIA II. CHA P. I X . 161 
 
 h x-p- may agree with hw, or be construed indefinitely — he (i. e. any 
 one) shall call hit name — which is equivalent to saying they thall call his 
 name, or in a passive form, his name thall be called. The child here pre- 
 dicted or described is explained to be Hezekiah, by Jarchi, Kimchi, Aben 
 Ezra, Grotius, Hensler, Paulas, Gesenius, Hendewerk. This explanation 
 is rejected, not only by the older writers, but among the modern Germans 
 by Bauer, Eichborn, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Hit/ig, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel. 
 The vav conversive render- the futures "H™ and x 7""" perfectly equivalent, in 
 point of time, to the preterites ni^ and *,n: ; so that if the latter refer to an 
 event already past, the former must refer to past time too, and vice versa. 
 The verse then either represents Hezekiah as unborn, or as already invested 
 with the regal office, at the date of the prediction, neither of which can be 
 historically true. The attempt to escape from this dilemma, by referring 
 the two first verbs to something past, and the two next to something future, 
 is a direct violation of the laws of Hebrew syntax. Besides, the terms 
 of the description are extravagant and false, if applied to Hezekiah. In 
 what sense was he wonderful, a mighty God, an everlasting father, a prince 
 of peace 1 The modern Jews, in order to sustain their antichristian exe- 
 gesis, have devised a new construction of the sentence, which applies all 
 these epithets, except the last, to God himself, as the subject of the verb a--" . 
 And (he who is) Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever- 
 lasting Father, calls his (i. e. Hezekiah's) name the Prince of Peace. 
 This construction, which is given by Jarchi and Kimchi, is supposed by 
 some to have been suggested by the Chaldee Paraphrase, while others cite the 
 latter as a witness in favour of applying all the names to the Messiah. (See 
 the opposite statements in Vitringa and Henderson.) But how could 
 even the last of these distinctive titles be applied to Hezekiah ? Neither 
 actively nor passively could he be called, at least with any emphasis, a 
 Prince of Peace. He waged war against others, and was himself invaded 
 and subjected to a foreign power, from which he afterwards revolted. To 
 this it is replied by Gesenius and Maurer, that the Prophet may have enter- 
 tained a groundless expectation. But even this bold conjecture is of no 
 avail against a second objection of a different kind, viz. that a long enume- 
 ration of titles belonging to God himself is utterly irrelevant in speaking of 
 a name which should be borne by Hezekiah. And this objection lies, with 
 still more force, against Abarbenel's construction, which includes even 
 Prince of Peace among Jehovah's titles, and takes lao x-p^ absolutely in 
 the sense of giving a name or making famous. The hypothesis first men- 
 tioned is exposed moreover to the fatal grammatical objection, urged by Cal- 
 vin and Cocceius, that, according to invariable usage, tWD must have stood 
 between the names of God and the name of Hezekiah. These construc- 
 tions are accordingly abandoned now, even by some who still identify the 
 
 11 
 
16*2 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 child with Hezekiah. These assume the ground, maintained of old by Aben 
 Ezra, that there is nothing in the epithets which might not be applied to 
 Hezekiah. In order to maintain this ground, the meaning of the epithets 
 themselves is changed, sbs is either made to mean nothing more than 
 remarkable, distinguished (Grotius, Gesenius, Knobel), or is ungrammati- 
 cally joined with y9V* in the sense of a wonderful counsellor (Ewald), or 
 wonderfully wise (Hendewerk). "pUtt itself is joined with *fiaa ^«, as 
 meaning a consulter of the mighty God, a construction which is equally at 
 variance with the Masoretic interpunction and the usage of the word fSVi, 
 which never means one who asks, but always one who gives advice, and 
 more especially a public counsellor or minister of state. (Vide supra, ch. 
 1 : 26. 3 : 3.) But some who admit this explain the next title, "nraa fen, to 
 mean a mighty hero or a godlike hero (Gesenius, DeWette, Maurer), 
 although they grant that in another part of this same prophecy it means the 
 Mighty God. (Vide infra, ch. 10: 21. cf. Deut. 10: 17. Jer. 32: 18.) 
 *iy ^nx is explained to mean a father of spoil, a plunderer, a victor (Abar- 
 benel, Hitzig, Knobel) — or a perpetual father i. e. benefactor of the people 
 (Hensler, Doederlein, Gesenius, Maurer, Hendewerk, Ewald) — or at most, 
 the founder of a new or everlasting age (Lowth), or the father of a numer- 
 ous offspring (Grotius). All this to discredit or evade the obvious mean- 
 ing of the phrase, which either signifies a father (or possessor) of eternity, 
 i. e. an eternal being — or an author and bestower of eternal life. Possibly 
 both may be included. The necessity of such explanations is sufficient to 
 condemn the exegetical hypothesis involving it, and shows that this hypo- 
 thesis has only been adopted to avoid the natural and striking application of 
 the words to Jesus Christ, as the promised child, emphatically born for us 
 and given to us, as the Son of God and the Son of man, as being wonderful in 
 his person, works and sufferings — a counsellor, prophet, or authoritative 
 teacher of the truth, a wise administrator of the church, and confidential 
 adviser of the individual believer — a real man, and yet the Mighty God — 
 eternal in his own existence, and the giver of eternal life to others — the 
 great peace-maker between God and man, between Jew and gentile, the 
 umpire between nations, the abolisher of war, and the giver of internal peace 
 to all who being justified by faith have peace with God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ (Rom. 5 : 1). The doctrine that this prophecy relates to the 
 Messiah, was not disputed even by the Jews, until the virulence of antichris- 
 tian controversy drove them from the ground which their own progenitors 
 had steadfastly maintained. In this departure from the truth' they have 
 been followed by some learned writers who are Christians only in the name, 
 and to whom may be applied, with little alteration, what one of them (Ge- 
 senius) has said with respect to the ancient versions of this very text, viz. 
 that the general meaning put upon it may be viewed as the criterion of a 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 163 
 
 Christian and an anticbristian writer. It has been already mentioned that 
 some writers even of this class have been compelled to abandon the appli- 
 cation of this text to Hezekiah, and that one of the latest and most emi- 
 nent interpreters by whom it is maintained, admits that there may be some 
 allusion to the nascent doctrine of a personal Messiah. These concessions, 
 partial and reluctant as they are, serve to strengthen the most ancient and 
 most natural interpretation of this signal prophecy. 
 
 V. 6. The reign of this king shall be progressive and perpetual, 
 because founded in justice and secured by the distinguishing favour of Jeho- 
 vah. To the increase of the government (or power) and to the peace (or 
 prosperity of this reign) there shall be no end, upon the throne of David 
 and upon his kingdom, to establish it and to confirm it, in justice and in 
 righteousness, from henceforth and forever, the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts 
 shall do this. According to Luther, Cocceius, Castalio, Gesenius, Maurer, 
 Hitzig, DeWette, Ewald, the preposition at the beginning of the verse con- 
 nects it with what goes before. He is born, or called by these names, for 
 the increase of power and for prosperity without end. To this it may be 
 objected, first, that the means and the end thus stated are incongruous, and 
 then that "px, according to usage, is not a mere particle of negation, but in- 
 cludes the substantive verb. Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, Umbreit and Knobel 
 retain the old and common construction, which supposes a new sentence to 
 begin here and connects the preposition with what follows. The government, 
 or power thus to be enlarged is of course that of the child, who is described 
 as born and given in the foregoing verse. A striking parallel is furnished 
 by the prophecy in Micah 5 : 3. There, as here, a king is promised who 
 should be the son of David, and should reign over all the earth in peace and 
 righteousness forever. It is there expressed, and here implied, that this 
 king should re-unite the divided house of Israel, although this is but a small 
 part of the increase promised, which includes the calling of the gentiles 
 also. Peace, though included in nib©, is not a full equivalent. The He- 
 brew word denotes not only peace as opposed to war, intestine strife, or 
 turbulence, but welfare and prosperity in general as opposed to want and 
 sorrow. The reign here predicted was to be not only peaceful but in every 
 respect prosperous. And this prosperity, like the reign of which it is pre- 
 dicted, is to have no limit either temporal or local. It is to be both univer- 
 sal and eternal. There is nothing to preclude the very widest explanation 
 of the terms employed. Ewald explains bs as meaning for the sake of, on 
 account of; but there is no need of departing from the sense of on which is 
 its proper one, and that which it always has in other cases when prefixed 
 to the noun aton. A verb is introduced before K&a bs by the Vulgate (se- 
 debit) and Gesenius (komme), but without necessity. The construction 
 
164 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX 
 
 is what the grammarians call a pregnant one. The endless increase of 
 power and prosperity on the throne of David means of course that the Prince, 
 whose reign was to be thus powerful and prosperous, would be a descendant 
 of David. This is indeed a repetition and explanation of a promise given 
 to David (2 Sam. 7: 11-16. 1 Kings 8 : 25) and repeatedly referred to by 
 him (2 Sam. 23 : 1-5. Ps. 2, 45, 72, 89, 132). . Hence the Messiah is not 
 only called the Branch or Son of David (2 Sara. 7.: 12, J 3. Jer. 23 : 5. 
 33 : 15), but David himself (Jer. 30 : 9. Ezek. 34 : 23, 24. 37 : 24. Hos. 
 3 : 5). The two reigns are identified, not merely on account of an external 
 resemblance or a typical relation, but because the one was really a restora- 
 tion or continuation of the other. Both kings were heads of the same body, 
 the one a temporal head, the other spiritual, the one temporary, the other 
 eternal. The Jewish nation, as a spiritual body, is really continued in the 
 Christian church. The subject of the prophecy is the reign of the Messiah ; 
 the effect predicted, its stability and increase ; the means to be employed, 
 judgment and justice ; the efficient cause, the zeal of Jehovah. Grotius dis- 
 tinguishes between judgment and justice, as denoting righteous government 
 on one hand, and righteous subjection to it on the other. The justice 
 spoken of is that of the Messiah and his subjects. All the acts of his ad- 
 ministration will be righteous, and the effect of this upon his people will be 
 righteousness on their part, and this prevalence of righteousness will natu- 
 rally generate the increase and stability here promised. The preposition s 
 does not merely mean with justice, as an accompanying circumstance, but 
 by it, as a necessary means. The phrase firoa cannot mean from that 
 time, as explained by Junius and Tremellius (ab isto tempore), but must 
 have its ordinary sense, from this time. It is possible, however, that the 
 Prophet, as in many other cases, takes his stand upon a point of future 
 time, and speaks of it as actually present. Having spoken of the promised 
 child in v. 5 as already born and given, he may now look forward from 
 its birth into the future, and in this sense use the phrase from henceforth. 
 Cocceius understands the words more strictly as meaning ' from the date of 
 the prediction,' and referring to the whole series of events, from that time 
 onwards, which are mentioned in this prophecy — the deliverance of Judah — 
 the destruction of Ephraim and the overthrow of Syria — the deportation of 
 the ten tribes — Sennacherib's invasion — Nebuchadnezzar's conquest — the 
 Babylonish exile — the return — the subsequent vicissitudes — the rising of 
 the great light upon Galilee — the increase of the church by the accession 
 of the gentiles — -the breaking of the yoke and staff of spiritual bondage — 
 the destruction of the implements of war — the establishment and gradual 
 enlargement of the Messiah's kingdom. These form a chain of great 
 events succeeding one another without any interruption from the date of 
 the prediction to the end of time. Whatever be the terminus a quo intended 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 165 
 
 l>y the Prophet, it is clear that he describes the reign of the Messiah as an 
 endless one. The word cb^r, though properly denoting mere indefinite 
 duration, and therefore frequently applied to terms and periods of time, 
 such as the length of human life, is always to be taken in its largest 
 meaning, unless limited by something in the context or the nature of the 
 case ; much more in such an instance as the one before us, where the con- 
 text really precludes all limitation by the strength of its expressions. To 
 explain forever here, with Jarchi and Grotius, as meaning till the end of 
 Hezekiah's life, is simply ludicrous, unless the other phrases, both in this 
 verse and the fifth, are mere extravagant hyperboles. The Masoretic 
 interpunction requires this phrase to be connected with what follows — ' from 
 henceforth and forever the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts will do this.' It is so 
 read by Junius, Cocceius, and Gill ; but most interpreters suppose it to qualify 
 what goes before, and take the remaining words as a short independent 
 proposition. The difference is little more than one of punctuation. Both 
 constructions make the reign of the Messiah an eternal one. The word 
 newp expresses the complex idea of strong affection comprehending or 
 attended by a jealous preference of one above another. It is used in the 
 Old Testament to signify not only God's intense love for his people but his 
 jealousy in their behalf, that is to say, his disposition to protect and favour 
 them at the expense of others. Sometimes, moreover, it includes the idea 
 of a jealous care of his own honour, or a readiness to take offence at any 
 thing opposed to it, and a determination to avenge it when insulted. 
 There is nothing in this idea of the divine jealousy incongruous or unworthy 
 as Umbreit supposes. The expressions are derived from the dialect of 
 human passion, but describe something absolutely right on God's part for 
 the very reasons which demonstrate its absurdity and wickedness on 
 man's. These two ideas of God's jealous partiality for his own people, and 
 his jealous sensibility respecting his own honour, are promiscuously blended 
 in the usage of the word, and are perhaps both included in the case before 
 us. Both for his own sake and his people's, he would bring these events to 
 pass. Or rather the two motives are identical, that is to say, the one in- 
 cludes the other. The welfare of the church is only to be sought so far as 
 it promotes God's glory, and a zeal which makes the glory of the church an 
 object to be aimed at for its own sake, cannot be a zeal for God, or is at 
 best a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. The mention of 
 God's jealousy or zeal as the procuring cause of this result affords a sure 
 foundation for the hopes of all believers. His zeal is not a passion but a 
 principle of powerful and certain operation. The astonishing effects pro- 
 duced by feeble means in the promotion, preservation, and extension of 
 Christ's kingdom, can only be explained upon the principle that the zeal 
 of the Lord of Hosts effected it. The reign here described cannot be that 
 
166 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 of Hezekiah, which was confined to Judah, and was neither peaceful nor 
 progressive nor perpetual. It cannot be the joint reign of himself and his 
 successors ; for the line was broken at the Babylonish exile. It cannot be 
 the reign of the Maccabees or Hasmonean princes, for these were not the 
 sons of David but of Levi. The prediction, if fulfilled at all, could only 
 be fulfilled in a reign which after it began was never interrupted, and has 
 ever since been growing in extent and power. Is not this the reign of 
 Christ ? Does it not answer all the requisite conditions ? The evangelists 
 take pains to prove by formal genealogies his lineal descent from David, and 
 his reign, unlike all others, still continues and is constantly enlarging. 
 Hendewerk and other modern German writers have objected that this pro- 
 phecy is not applied to Christ in the New Testament. But we have seen 
 already, that the first verse of the chapter and the one before it are inter- 
 preted by Matthew as a prophecy of Christ's appearing as a public teacher 
 first in Galilee ; and no one has denied that this is part of the same context. 
 Nor is this all. The expressions of the verse before us were applied to 
 Christ, before his birth, by Gabriel, when he said to Mary (Luke I : 32-34), 
 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the 
 Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall 
 reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his Jcwgdom there shall be no 
 end. The historical allusions in these words show clearly that the person 
 spoken of was one expected, or in other words a subject of prophecy, and 
 though the terms are not precisely those used by Isaiah, they agree with 
 them more closely than with any other passage. Indeed the variations may 
 be perfectly accounted for, upon the supposition that the angel's message 
 was intended to describe the birth of Christ as a fulfilment, not of this pre- 
 diction only, but of several others also which are parallel with this, and that 
 the language was so framed as to suggest them all, but none of them so 
 prominently as the one before us and the earlier promise upon which it was 
 founded. (Compare 2 Sam. 7:11,12. Dan. 7 : 14, 27. Micah 4 : 7, etc.) 
 The objection that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and that the men- 
 tion of the throne of David shows that a temporal monarchy was meant, 
 proceeds upon the supposition that there is no such thing as figurative lan- 
 guage, or at least that it is never used in prophecy. The objection of 
 the Jews, that wars have not ceased since Christ came, lies with still 
 greater force against their application of the text to Hezekiah. It is founded 
 moreover on a misconception of the promise, which was not made to the 
 world but to the church, and not even to that, as something to be realized 
 at once, but by a gradual process of pacification. The reference to Christ 
 is not a mere typical and secondary one, but primary and positive. Some 
 who refer this whole prediction, in its proper sense, to Hezekiah, at the 
 same time grant that it has a higher reference to Christ. Why then assume 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX 101 
 
 a lower sense without necessity or warrant ? The violence thus done to tin- 
 expressions of the text w ill be sufficiently evinced by stating that according 
 to this view of tin* matter, as exhibited by Grotius, the increase here pro- 
 mised means continuance for nine and twenty years (mulliplicabitur ejus 
 impcrium, id est, durabit per annosXXIX) — from henceforth and forever is 
 from Hezekiah's birth until his death (« modo et usque in sempiternum, ab 
 initio ad finem vitae) — and when the Prophet says the zeal of God shall do 
 this, what be means is that his zeal will lead him to bestow upon his people 
 such a prince as Hezekiah (zelus Domini exercituum faciet hoc, id est, ar- 
 dens amor Dei erga pios, qui insunt populo, dabit nobis ac servabit tarn 
 bonum principem). This forced attenuation of the Prophet's meaning 
 might be natural enough in the rabbinical expositors, whose only aim was to 
 avoid the application of the prophecy to Christ ; but it was utterly unworthy 
 of a man like Grotius, who had nothing to gain by it, and who after all 
 admits the very thing which he appears to be denying, but admits it in the 
 questionable shape of a twofold fulfilment and a double sense, by which pro- 
 ceeding he gratuitously multiplies the very difficulties which interpretation 
 is intended to remove. Upon the whole, it may be said with truth that 
 there is no alleged prophecy of Christ, for which it seems so difficult with 
 any plausibility to find another subject ; and until that is done which all the 
 Rabbins and a Grotius could not do, we may repose upon the old evangeli- 
 cal interpretation as undoubtedly the true one. — In nearly all editions and 
 manuscripts, the first letter of the word n:na presents the final form Q, an 
 orthographical anomaly mentioned in the Talmud, and perhaps very ancient, 
 but not to be regarded as a relic of Isaiah's autograph, and therefore involv- 
 ing some mysterious meaning. By different Jewish writers it has been 
 explained as an allusion to the recession of the shadow on the dial — to the 
 enclosing of Jerusalem with walls agAi after the captivity — to the cap- 
 tivity itself, as an enclosure — to the stability of Messiah's kingdom, as the 
 open B is said to have the opposite meaning in Neh. 2:13. Some Chris- 
 tian writers have followed this rabbinical example by suggesting what may 
 possibly have been intended by the unusual orthography, supposing it to be 
 both ancient and intentional — e. g. the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews 
 from the kingdom of Christ — the secret inward progress of that kingdom 
 among men — the perpetual virginity of Mary — the concealment of the time 
 when the prediction should be verified — the spread of the gospel to the four 
 corners of the world — the birth of Christ six hundred years (of which c is 
 the cipher) after the prediction — the opening to the gentiles of the church 
 which had been previously shut up and restricted to the Jews — the perfec- 
 tion of Christ's kingdom, as denoted by the perfect or square form — and its 
 mystical nature, as denoted by the unusual form of the letter. It is sug- 
 gested by Cocceius, that the unusual mode of writing may have been in- 
 
168 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 tended to attract attention to this signal prophecy. But why should it have 
 been resorted to in this one passage, and in this particular part of it ? 
 Hengstenberg, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Henderson regard it as an acciden- 
 tal anomaly, occasioned by mistake and preserved by superstition ; the only 
 objection to which is the extreme care of the Jews as to all points of orthog- 
 raphy, and the improbability of such an error, if it could occur, becoming 
 general. Some have accordingly supposed the singularity to be connected, 
 in its origin, with the criticism of the Hebrew text. Eliller (de Arcano 
 Chethib et Keri) conjectures that the final mem was meant to show that the 
 first two letters of h:ns% according to some ancient reading, ought to be 
 omitted, and the word read simply hai. Gesenius, Maurer, and Knobel 
 adopt the supposition of Elias Levita, that it indicates a different division of 
 the words, which is also noticed in the Masora, viz. ttroari h2i dV — to them 
 the dominion shall he great or multiplied. There is, however, no example 
 of the abbreviation cb for D*$, corresponding to the common one of C2 for crra. 
 
 V. 7. Having repeatedly interchanged" the three great subjects of this 
 prophecy — the deliverance of Judah from the power of Syria and Israel 
 — its subsequent punishment by means of the Assyrians — and the reign of 
 the Messiah, for whose sake the kingdom was to be preserved — the Prophet 
 passes here abruptly from the last to the first, and again predicts the pun- 
 ishment of Ephraim. He reverts to this event, which had already been 
 repeatedly foretold, for the purpose of declaring that the blows would be 
 repeated as often and as long as might be needed for the absolute fulfilment 
 of God's threatenings. He begins by showing that Israel had already been 
 sufficiently forewarned. The Lord sent a word "into Jacob, and, it came 
 doivn into Israel. Calvin supposes an antithesis between the clauses, and 
 explains the verse to mean that wha| had been predicted as to Israel should 
 be fulfilled in Israel ; but there is no such usage of bss. Grotius adopts 
 the same construction, with the additional error of applying Jacob to the 
 whole race, and Israel to the ten tribes, which is altogether arbitrary. 
 Equally groundless is the supposition that Jacob and Israel denote the rival 
 kingdoms. The two names of the patriarch are here used as equivalents, 
 denoting his descendants, and especially the larger part, the kingdom of the 
 ten tribes, to which the national name Israelis wont to be distinctively applied. 
 Another false antithesis is that between the verbs, referring one to past time 
 and the other to the future. This is adopted even by Ewald ; but accord- 
 ing to the usage of the language, Van is conversive of the preterite only 
 when preceded by a future, expressed or implied. (See Nordheimer <§> 21 9. 1.) 
 The LXX seem to have read "G*Ja pestilence instead of"0^ a word. Castalio 
 gives it here the sense of thing (rem mittet), Vitringa that of threatening, 
 which is not expressed by this word, but suggested by the context. The 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I I 169 
 
 true sense is that oft dictum Of authoritative declaration, not that which fol- 
 lows, nor that which goes before, but the whole series of threatenings and 
 warnings which God had pent by (ill the prophets and by all the seers 
 (2 Kings 17 : 18), perhaps with special reference to that respecting Pekah 
 in the seventh chapter. The sending of the word here mentioned had 
 cither actually taken place, or was regarded by the Prophet in his vision as 
 already past. The preposition does not mean against, or simply to, but 
 into, as usual after verbs of motion. The Septuagint renders bta came, the 
 Targum was heard. In Josh. 21 : 45 and 1 Kings 8 : 56, this same verb is 
 used with ■qjj wo?'d in the sense of failing, or not coming to pass. Adopting 
 this sense here, the meaning of the verse would be, that God had sent a word 
 of warning, but that it had not yet been fulfilled. But in both the places 
 cited, the idea expressed is not that of mere delay, but of entire failure, im- 
 plying the falsity of the prediction. To give it the contrary sense of coming 
 to pass or taking effect, as Jarchi and Calvin do, is altogether arbitrary. 
 The great majority of writers take it in its usual and proper sense of falling 
 or descending. There is no need, however, of supposing an allusion to the 
 falling of an arrow, or of seed into the earth, or of rain upon it. A more 
 obvious and natural association would be that of a thunderbolt, suggested by 
 Gill and J. D. Michaelis, in reference to the threatening nature of the reve- 
 lation ; especially as 2 b23 is elsewhere used in the sense of falling upon, 
 i. e. attacking (Josh. 11 : 7). The essential import of the phrase is to 
 describe the word as coming down from God in heaven (compare Dan. 4 : 
 28), or, as Hendewerk supposes, from Jerusalem, his earthly residence, mo- 
 tion from which is always spoken of as downward in the Hebrew idiom. 
 The word which God had uttered against Israel had reached them as a mes- 
 sage from him, as a revelation, so that there could be no doubt as to its 
 authority and genuineness. Gesenius and Hitzig render the verbs in the 
 present tense, and regard this verse as a title or inscription of the following 
 prophecy, because it makes the strophe and antistrophe unequal. But if 
 this proves any thing, it is that the strophical arrangement is itself a fanciful 
 misapplication of the principles of Greek and Latin prosody to the measured 
 prose of the Hebrew prophets. The solemn repetition of the last clause of 
 v. 8 would be just as natural in an oration as in an ode or a dramatic 
 chorus. The injurious effects of this exaggerated theory of Hebrew versifi- 
 cation ori the criticism and interpretation of the sacred text have been al- 
 ready stated in the general introduction. 
 
 V. 8. The word which God had sent had reached the people ; they had 
 heard and understood it, but continued to indulge their pride and self- 
 security. And they know (the divine threatening), the people, all of them 
 (literally all of it, the noun being singular but used collectively), Ephraim 
 
HO ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 and the inhabitant of Samaria (a limitation of the general terms preceding, 
 so as to prevent their application to Judah), in pride and in greatness of 
 heart (an equivalent expression), saying (the words recorded in the next 
 verse). The apparent inversion in the last clause is well explained by 
 Hendewerk, as arising from the fact that TOKb always stands immediately 
 before the words spoken. Most writers understand the verbs as futures ; 
 but this is a question of no moment, as the past time which the Prophet has 
 in view upon the other supposition, was actually future at the date of the 
 prediction. Lowth arbitrarily translates the vav at the beginning of this 
 verse because, and that at the beginning of v. 10 therefore, making one long 
 sentence. Luther, Hendewerk, and Ewald render it by that, and make the 
 construction a subjunctive one — ' that they may know or feel it ' — which is 
 at least unnecessary. Umbreit not only gives the same construction, but 
 takes is*!* 1 in the absolute sense of having or obtaining knowledge (dass zu 
 Erkentniss komme), which is less consistent both with usage and the con- 
 text than the common opinion that the "ai of v. 7 is the object of the verb. 
 Vitringa, Gesenius, and many others, understand the clause to mean that 
 they should know the truth of these predictions by experience. It rather 
 means that they had known and understood God's warning message. By 
 the people we are not to understand the whole race (Junius), but the ten 
 tribes, or perhaps the whole race and especially the ten tribes (J. H. Mi- 
 chaelis). The suffix in ifc&, is referred by Gill to ^n*i — the people shall 
 know all of it, i. e. all the word — " they shall find that the whole of it will 
 be accomplished, every punctilio in it." Gesenius, Hendewerk, and Um- 
 breit render.it his (sein ganzes Volk), as if referring to the names in v. 7. 
 Its real antecedent is fisn, as the construction is the common Hebrew one 
 in all such cases — the people all of it, i. e. all the people. The Septuagint 
 makes people govern Ephraim (nag 6 labg rov 'Eyguip) ', but in Hebrew 
 this construction is forbidden by the article. The inhabitant of Samaria is 
 distinctly mentioned, as the inhabitants of Jerusalem are in ch. 8 : 14. 
 Schultens (in his Animadv. Philol. ad Jer. 50 : 11) gives to a the sense of 
 for, because of, and connects it with what goes before. It really means in 
 or with, and connects the noun with what follows. ^\ is inaccurately ren- 
 dered as an adjective, agreeing with ao£>, by the Septuagint (vxprjly xagdia) 
 and Hendewerk (stolzem Herzen). Greatness of heart in Hebrew does not 
 mean magnanimity, but pride and arrogance. (Vide infra, ch. 10: 12). 
 The feeling here described is not " a desire of splendour, power, and magnifi- 
 cence, a purpose to be distinguished" (Barnes), but a misplaced confidence 
 in the stability of their condition, •nsxb, although an infinitive in form, is 
 not incorrectly rendered as a gerund (dicendo) by Pagninus, Montanus, and 
 Cocceius. A relative construction is preferred by Luther (die da sagen), 
 Calvin (qui dicunt), J. H. Michaelis (dum dicunt), and many others. The 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 171 
 
 participial form of the English Version is given also by the Septuagint, Vul- 
 gate, and Dutch Versions, by Vitringa, and by Lowth. There is no neces- 
 sity or ground for the interrogative construction given by DeDieu (an in super- 
 bia dlcendum (bit ?). Forerius strangely understands the Prophet as sarcas- 
 tically saying that the people shall be taught to say, in their pride and arro- 
 gance, what follows. Hitzig, without the irony — the people shall be made 
 conscious of their own pride and arrogance in saying, etc. But this con- 
 struction seems to overlook the preposition, ^ESt is not to be taken in the 
 sense of purposing or thinking, which it sometimes obtains from an ellipsis 
 of i-b bst in his heart, or to himself (Gen. 27 : 41), but in its proper sense 
 of speaking, as the usual expression of intention and desire. The conjec- 
 tural emendation of the text by changing vpt* to 19"P (Houbigant), 1'tfP 
 (Seeker), or WOJP (Lowth), is perfectly gratuitous. 
 
 V. 9. The very words of the self-confident Ephraimites are now recorded. 
 Instead of being warned and instructed by what they had already suffered, 
 they presumptuously look for greater prosperity than ever. Brides ore 
 fallen, and hewn stone will we build ; sycamores are felled, and cedars will 
 we substitute. The oriental bricks are unburnt, so that most of their brick 
 structures are as little durable as mud walls. The sycamore is durable, 
 but too light and spongy to be used in solid building. The latter is accord- 
 ingly contrasted with the cedar, and the former with hewn stone, the two 
 most highly valued building materials. By some interpreters these words are 
 literally understood. According to J. H. Michaelis, they refer to the cities of 
 the ten tribes which the Syrians destroyed ; according to Gill, to the houses 
 outside of the cities and peculiarly exposed to the invaders. So Knobel un- 
 derstands the sense to be, that instead of the mean houses which the. As- 
 syrians had destroyed, the people of the ten tribes were determined to build 
 better. Hitzig and DeWette suppose that sycamores and cedars are here 
 mentioned, not as timber, but as living trees, and give cpbrw the specific 
 sense of planting anew. Thus Calvin understands the people to be here 
 represented as regarding the devastations of the enemy only as occasions 
 for increasing the beauty of their houses and plantations. But as this im- 
 plies a protracted process, we must either suppose it to be put into the mouth 
 of the presumptuous Israelites as a foolish boast, or understand it figuratively. 
 So indeed the whole verse is explained by many, of whom some regard the 
 brick, stone, and trees as figures for great men in general (Targum), or for 
 the kings of Israel in particular (Jarchi), or for the State considered as a 
 building or a tree (Hendewerk), while others more correctly understand both 
 clauses as a metaphorical description of a change from worse to better, by a 
 substitution of the precious for the vile without specific reference to the lit- 
 eral rebuilding of towns or houses. Bricks and sycamores are then mere 
 
172 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 proverbial expressions for that which is inferior, and cedars and hewn stone 
 for that which is superior. An illustrative parallel is found inch. 60 : 17, 
 where the same general idea is expressed by the exchange of stones for iron, 
 iron for silver, wood for brass, brass for gold, of course without allusion to a literal 
 exchange or mutual substitution. Jerome refers this verse to the low condi- 
 tion of Judah under Ahaz, and the boastful determination of the ten tribes to 
 subdue and then restore it to its former splendour ; but it really relates to 
 what the ten tribes had themselves endured, and expresses their belief that 
 these reverses would be followed by a better state of things than they had 
 ever known. Cocceius understands the sense to be that the prosperity en- 
 joyed already would be followed by still greater ; but even an inferior de- 
 gree of prosperity would hardly have been represented by the metaphor of 
 fallen bricks and prostrate trees. 
 
 V. 10. Here begins a second stage in the progress of God's judgments. 
 He had sent a warning prophecy before (v. 7), and they had been taught 
 its meaning by experience (v. 8), but without effect upon their proud self- 
 confidence. And (now) Jehovah raises up above him (i. e. Ephraim) the 
 (victorious) enemies of Rezin (his late ally) and (besides these) he will in- 
 stigate his own (accustomed) enemies (to wit, those mentioned in the next 
 verse). The suffix in T^s refers, not to Rezin, but to Jacob, Israel, Eph- 
 raim, the inhabitant of Samaria, mentioned in vs. 8, 9. They who were to 
 conquer Israel are called the enemies of Rezin, to remind the Israelites of 
 their alliance with him, and to intimate that they who had so lately con- 
 quered Syria were soon to conquer Israel. There is no need therefore of 
 the emendation 'VWD princes, which is found in many manuscripts and ap- 
 proved by Houbigant and Ewald, but which seems to be a mere attempt to 
 escape the supposed difficulties of the common reading *n», which has here 
 no doubt its usual sense of enemies, with a particular allusion to its etymol- 
 ogy as meaning those who press, oppress, and overcome, so that in this con- 
 nexion it would really suggest the idea of Rezin's conquerors, which is ex- 
 pressed by Hitzig. Still less is it necessary to exchange *pxi for |VS or 
 •jvsfisi, as J. D. Michaelis is disposed to do, on the authority of the Sep- 
 tuagint (sm oQog Ziwv). — "n^s may be properly translated, as it usually is, 
 against him, which idea is undoubtedly included ; but connected as it is 
 with the verb s^, the preposition may be taken in its original and proper 
 sense of over or above. ' Then he exalted Rezin's enemies above him. ? 
 By Tirx we are to understand his own foes, those to whose attacks he was 
 accustomed, in addition to the enemies of Rezin, the Assyrians, "pso 11 is 
 rendered by the Septuagint scatter (diaoxtddott) and by the Vulgate con- 
 found (in tumultum vertet, misprinted in the London Polyglot in tumulum). 
 It is taken in the sense of mixing or combining by Calvin (coadunabit), 
 
isaiaii, (ii \ p, ix. 178 
 
 Grotius (conglomeravit), Munster, Castalio, ;md others. J. II. Michaelis, who 
 
 adopts this version, explains rst as a preposition meaoiog with (eosque 'inn lios- 
 tibus Israelis commiscebit). Others suppose an allusion to the mixture of 
 nations in the Assyrian army (Calvin), or to the mixture of Assyrians with 
 the Syrian population (Vatablus). Gesenius, in his Commentary and in the 
 earlier editions of his Lexicon, follows Schultens and J. D. Michaelis in at- 
 taching to this word the sense of arming, which is adopted by Rosenmuller 
 in the abridgment of his Scholia, and by Iiitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk and 
 DeWette. But Gesenius himself, in his Thesaurus, now explains the word 
 as meaning to excite, raise up, or instigate, an explanation given in the 
 Targum (i~~ n ) and by Saadias, Abulwalid, and Cocceius (instigat). 
 
 V. 1 1 . This verse contains a more particular description of Ephraim's 
 own enemies who were to be stirred up against him, with a declaration that this 
 was not to be the end of the infliction. Aram (or Syria in the widest sense) 
 before, and Philistia (or the Philistines) behind, and they devour Israel 
 with open mouth (i. e. ravenously). For all this (or notwithstanding all 
 this) his wrath dees not turn back (from the pursuit or the attack), and still 
 his hand is stretched out. On the meaning of this last clause, vide supra, 
 ch. 5 : 25. The Syrians and Philistines are supposed by some to be refer- 
 red to, as forming part of the Assyrian army. The reference may however 
 be to separate attacks from these two powers. Before and behind may 
 simply mean on opposite sides, or more specifically to the east and west, 
 which are often thus described in Hebrew, ns bzn does not mean in every 
 place (Targum) or on all sides (Lowth) — nor does it mean with all their 
 mouths (Peshito), i. e. the mouths of all their enemies — but with the whole 
 mouth, with the mouth wide open, as expressed by Luther (mit vollem 
 Maul), Calvin (a pleine bouche), and most modern writers. J. H. Michae- 
 lis makes rat ^32 mean on account or in consequence of all this. It is 
 clear, however, from the first clause and the whole connexion, that the re- 
 ference is not to the people's sin but to their punishment. 
 
 V. 12. These continued and repeated strokes are still without effect in 
 bringing the people to repentance. And the people has not turned to him 
 that smote them, and Jehovah of Hosts they have not sought. Sin is de- 
 scribed in Scripture as departure from God. Repentance, therefore, is re- 
 turning to him. To seek God, in the idiom of Scripture, is to pray to him 
 (Isai. 55: 6), to consult him (Isai. 8: 19), to resort to him for help (Isai. 
 31 : 1), to hold communion with him (Amos 5 : 4, 5). Hence it is some- 
 times descriptive of a godly life in general (Psalm 14 : 2). So here it in- 
 cludes repentance, conversion, and new obedience. Calvin, followed by 
 the English version, makes the vav at the beginning mean because or for. 
 
174 ISAIAH,. CHAP. IX. 
 
 This verse, however, does not assign the reason of the fact recorded in the 
 one preceding, but continues the description. God went on punishing, and 
 the people went on sinning. The strict sense of the particle may therefore 
 be retained. The first verb agrees with cs in form as a singular ; the second 
 agrees with it in sense as a collective. The preposition 1», which strictly 
 means until, as far as, is regarded by Cocceius as emphatic and as signify- 
 ing that the people, if they turned at all, did not turn far enough. But as 
 this preposition often follows ntf when used in the sense of returning to God 
 by repentance, it may be regarded merely as an idiomatic substitute for Vx. 
 A single manuscript reads bs> for t*. The unusual combination of the article 
 and suffix in *iwn is regarded by Gesenius (Lehrg. p. 658) as a simple 
 anomaly, and by Nordheimer (vol. 2, p. 13) as an emphatic form ; but 
 Ewald (<§> 516. 3) explains it by supposing in to be not a possessive but 
 an objective suffix, governed by the participle. The difference of construc- 
 tion is the same as in the English phrases, his smiter and the (one) smiting 
 him. God is thus described, as Aben Ezra has observed, in order to in- 
 timate that he was the inflicter of their punishment — the Assyrian being 
 merely the rod of his anger (ch. 10: 5) — and also that his stroke sought 
 to lead them to repentance. 
 
 V. 13. The next stroke mentioned is a sudden destruction among all 
 ranks of the people, the extremes being designated by two figures drawn 
 from the animal and vegetable world. And Jehovah has cut off from Israel 
 head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. itss does not mean a root 
 (Aben Ezra), nor a branch in general (Kimchi), but a branch of the palm- 
 tree (Gesenius in Comm.) or the tree itself (Gesenius in Thes.). This tree, 
 though now rare in the Holy Land, abounded there of old, especially in the 
 southern part, where several places were named after it (Deut. 34 : 3. 2 
 Chron. 20 : 2). Hence it appears on Roman coins as the symbol of Judea. 
 It is highly esteemed in the east, both for beauty and utility. Its branches 
 grow near the top of its lofty trunk and bend towards the ground, as its 
 leaves do also, with a gentle curvature, resembling that of a hand partly 
 closed, from which peculiarity the Hebrew name WW and the Latin palma 
 seem to be derived. It is here contrasted with the ITDSK, not a smaller 
 branch or twig (Jarchi), but a rush or reed, so called from fijs a marsh, 
 because it is in such ground that it chiefly grows. The Targum seems to 
 treat the figures as synonymous, not opposite in meaning, perhaps with some 
 allusion to the Greek word riyzucov. Palm and rush are explained to mean 
 the strong and weak by Kimchi and Cocceius, who refers them specifically 
 to the young men and warriors, as contrasted with the widows and orphans 
 in v. 16. It is best, however, to understand them as denoting more gener- 
 ally that which is superior and inferior, including every class in the com- 
 
ISA J AH, CHAP. IX . 175 
 
 inunity. The figures are correctly resolved by the Septoagmt (jit'yuv xut 
 fic/.nin), and Strangely rendered by the Vulgate (incurvantem et nj'nunan- 
 tt'in), perhaps with some allusion to the derivation of the Hebrew words. 
 It is a singular conceit of Gill's that the use of the terms head and tail was 
 intended to imply that the people had become beasts, which no more fol- 
 lows than it does from the use of the terms branch and rush that they had 
 become plants. 
 
 V. 14. To the descriptive figures of the preceding verse, the Prophet 
 now adds a specific application of the first. Jehovah had cut off from 
 Israel, not only in a general sense the upper and lower classes of society, 
 but in a more restricted sense, the wicked rulers, who were the corrupt head 
 of the body politic, and the false prophets who, as their abject adherents, 
 and on account of their hypocrisy and false pretensions to divine authority, 
 might be regarded as its tail, because contemptible and odious, even in com- 
 parison with other wicked men, who laid no claim to a religious character. 
 The elder and the favourite (or honourable person), he is the head, and the 
 prophet teaching falsehood, he is the tail. On the meaning of )p% and 
 d^b N v a3, vide supra, ch. 3 : 2, 3. That the head is not explained to mean 
 the king, may be, as Hendewerk suggests, because the prophecy relates to 
 the time which immediately succeeded the death of Pekah. Henderson 
 transposes the conjunction in the last clause — the prophet and the teacher of 
 lies — but si-he is properly a participle, and is needed to qualify aona. It is 
 not the prophet, as such, but the prophet teaching falsehood, who is called 
 the tail. The teaching of falsehood does not mean the teaching of tra- 
 ditions (J. H. Michaelis) or of vice (Septuagint), but teaching in the name 
 of God what he has not revealed. The Targum makes a< h 23 denote a scribe 
 (nso) or doctor of the law ; but it must have its sense of prophet, as denoting 
 one who claims to be inspired. The false prophets are called the tail, not 
 because they were w r eak (Targum), or of low extraction (Gill), or of a 
 mean spirit, like a dog which wags its tail upon its master (Musculus), nor 
 because their false doctrine was like the poison in the stings of scorpions 
 (Menochius), nor because the civil rulers and religious teachers were the 
 two extremes, between which the mass of the people was included (Vitrin- 
 ga) ; but because the false prophets were morally the basest of the people, and 
 because they were the servile adherents and supporters of the wicked rulers. 
 With respect both to the head which they followed, and the body of which 
 they were the vilest part, they might be justly called the tail. This verse 
 has been rejected, as a gloss or interpolation, by Houbigant, Koppe, Cube, 
 Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald and Knobel, on the ground that it inter- 
 rupts the natural consecution of the passage ; that it is too prosaic for a 
 poetical context ; that it contains a superfluous explanation of a common 
 
176 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 proverbial expresison ; that it explains it in a manner inconsistent with the 
 context, as the figures in v. 13 obviously mean the high and the low gener- 
 ally ; that it explains only one of the two figures in that verse ; that it has 
 the very form of an explanatory gloss ; that it breaks the strophical arrange- 
 ment by giving to this strophe a supernumerary verse. To this it may be 
 answered, that correctly understood it does not interrupt the train of thought, 
 but sensibly advances it ; that it is not too prosaic for the context, and that 
 if it were, Isaiah was a prophet, not a poet by profession, and was always 
 wise enough to sacrifice rhetoric and rhythm to common sense and inspira- 
 tion ; that if the verse contained an explanation not suggested by the con- 
 text, it could not be superfluous ; that it is not an explanation of the figures 
 in v. 13, but a more specific application of the first of them ; that the Prophet 
 did not make a like use of the second, because it was not equally suited to 
 his purpose of expressing his contempt for the false prophets ; that the same 
 form is used in cases where no interpolation is suspected; and lastly, that 
 the strophical arrangement is itself a modern figment, founded on a kind of 
 repetition which is not unusual in animated prose. (Vide supra ad v. 7.) 
 Another answer to the last objection is given in Hendewerk's commentary on 
 the passage, which, with this exception, is an admirable refutation of the 
 adverse argument, as stated by Gesenius. The interpolation of these words 
 is ascribed by Gesenius to some very ancient Jewish polemic. But if so 
 old, why may it not be a little older, and the work of Isaiah himself, who 
 was certainly no friend of the false prophets ? The rhetorical objections to 
 this obvious conclusion are not only insufficient because they are rhetorical, 
 but because the rhetoric itself is bad. 
 
 V. 15. This verse gives a reason, not why all classes were to be 
 destroyed, but why the rulers and false prophets had been specially men- 
 tioned. It arises, therefore, naturally out of the fourteenth, and thus inci- 
 dentally proves it to be genuine. The truth expressed and implied is that 
 the leaders of the people had destroyed them and should perish with them. 
 The leaders of this people have been seducers, and the led of them (are) 
 swallowed up (or ruined). On the double meaning of 'nursa, and the paro- 
 nomasia erroneously introduced by some translators, vide supra, ch. 3:12, 
 where the verb s?s occurs in the same connexion. On Ewald's supposition, 
 that the fourteenth verse was interpolated from that chapter, the verse before 
 us ought to be rejected also. Luther explains vntt»« as meaning those who 
 suffer themselves to be led (die sich leiten lassen) ; Hendewerk, those who 
 were to be, or ought to have been rendered happy (seine zu begliickenden). 
 But even supposing that the Hebrew word was intended to suggest both ideas, 
 it cannot be correct to express one in the first clause and the other in the second, 
 as" the original expressions correspond exactly, and the primary sense must 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. I \. 177 
 
 be the same in both. The suffix in VnttlW, is omitted a< superfluous by the 
 
 Vulgate and Geseohis. Henderson refers it to " H tfa ra as its antecedent (led 
 by them) ; but the true antecedent is osn (such of the people as are thus 
 misled), and is correctly pointed out as such by Calvin (in eo), Vatablus 
 (ex hoc populo), and others. According to J. D. Michaclis, they are said 
 to be swallowed up in sloughs and pitfalls ; according to Jarchi, in ways 
 from which there is no exit. It is more probably, however, a strong figure 
 for losing the way (Luther), or for destruction in general (Calvin). 
 
 V. 16. Therefore (because the people are thus incorrigibly impenitent) 
 the Lord will not rejoice over their young men (literally chosen ones, i. e. 
 for military service, the word being used in the general sense of youths, but 
 seldom without reference to war), and on their orphans and their widows 
 (elsewhere represented as peculiarly the objects of God's care) he ivill not 
 have mercy (expressing in the strongest form the extent and severity of the 
 threatened judgments), for every one of them (literally of it, referring to the 
 singular noun people) is profane (or impious) and an evil doer, and every 
 mouth (is) speaking folly (in the strong Hebrew sense of wickedness). For 
 all this his wrath is not turned back, and still is his hand outstretched. The 
 Vulgate. Aben Ezra, Calvin, Vitringa, Lowth, and Furst give to epn the 
 sense of hypocrite or hypocritical. Gesenius, Ewald, and the other modern 
 writers give it the general sense of impious or wicked, as expressed by the 
 Septuagint (avopoi). This explanation is supported by etymological an- 
 alogy, the other by rabbinical tradition. Lee, from the analogy of Syriac, 
 explains it to mean heathenish, idolatrous (Hebrew Lexicon, s. v.). The a 
 in sia is taken as a preposition (of evil, made up or consisting of evil) by 
 Hitzig (vom Argen), Ewald (vom Bosen), DeWette, and Knobel. Ge- 
 senius, Umbreit, and the older writers treat it as a participle from rsi. 
 Calvin explains !"i^23 121 as implying that they uttered their own wicked- 
 ness, betrayed themselves ; but it probably means nothing more than that 
 they were wicked in speech as well as act. For *****, Lowth reads rrm on 
 the authority of eighteen manuscripts. 
 
 V. 17. This verse assigns a reason why God's hand is still stretched out 
 for the destruction of his people, by describing that destruction as the natural 
 effect of their own wickedness, here likened to a fire beginning near the 
 ground among the thorns and briers, then extending to the undergrowth or 
 brushwood of the forest, which, as it consumes away, ascends in a volume 
 of smoke. For wickedness burneth as the fire, thorns and briers it con- 
 sumes, then kindles in the thickets of the forest, and they roll themselves up- 
 wards, a column (literally, an ascent) of smoke. Most of the older writers 
 translate all the verbs as futures, thus converting the whole verse into a 
 
 12 
 
H8 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 threatening. But the interchange of preterite and future forms, as well as 
 the connexion, seem to show that they should be explained as presents, and 
 as expressing the natural effects of wickedness, in the form of a description 
 or a general proposition. The vav conversive before M*n shows it to be 
 dependent on the foregoing verbs and posterior in point of time, a relation 
 which may be expressed in English by exchanging and for then. Hender- 
 son gives n2'.m the specific meaning of idolatry (see Zech. 5 : 8-11), but 
 Luther more correctly that of wickedness in general, of heart and life (das 
 gottlose Wesen). Thorns and briers are often used as emblems of the 
 wicked (Mic. 7: 4. Neh. 1 : 10. 2 Sam. 23: 6), and their burning as a 
 figure for the punishment of sinners (Isai. 33: 12. Ps. 118: 12. 2 Sam. 
 23: 7), especially by means of foreign enemies (Isai. 10: 17.32: 13). 
 Most of the recent German versions render the last Vav so that, in order to 
 show that what precedes is related to what follows as the cause to its»efFect. 
 The verb •oSKtV 1 , which occurs nowhere else, has been variously derived 
 and explained as meaning to be pulverized (Cocceius, Junius), to move 
 proudly (Castellus, J. D. Michaelis), to ascend (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Cal- 
 vin). This last sense is combined with that of spreading out by J. H. Mi- 
 chaelis (ut expandant et elevent se.) Gesenius, Ewald, and other modern 
 Germans, adopt the sense of rolling or being rolled together, which is given 
 in the Vulgate and Peshito, and by Saadias, Abulwalid, Jarchi, and Rabbi 
 Parchon. The Vulgate makes the verb agree with nfKfl (convolvetur su- 
 perbia fumi), Eichhorn with fiSn ; but it really agrees with the thickets of 
 the forest — and they (the burning thickets) are rolled, (or roll themselves) 
 together. The meaning of mxa is not pride (Vulgate), but elevation or as- 
 cent, and in this connexion an ascending body, column, cloud, or volume. 
 It may either be governed by the preposition in understood, or construed as 
 he object of the verb, or put in apposition with its subject. They roll up- 
 wards (in or as) a volume of smoke. 
 
 V. 18. The figure of a general conflagration is continued in this verse, 
 and then exchanged for a literal description of the miseries produced by civil 
 war. In the wrath of Jehovah of Hosts, the land is darkened with the 
 smoke — or heated by the flame — and the people is like food (or fuel) of 
 fire — one another (literally, man his brother) they do not spare. Most 
 writers understand the n at the beginning in the sense of by or through, 
 as denoting the cause or the means by which the effect is produced. 
 Thus Hendewerk observes that the displeasure of Jehovah is described as 
 the second source of misery ; and Henderson says that " instead of being 
 further represented as resulting from wickedness, the conflagration is re- 
 solved into" the anger of God as the avenger of sin." But this is not neces- 
 sarily the meaning of the particle, and in ch. 13 : 13, where the same phrase 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 179 
 
 occurs — in the wrath of Jehovah of Hosts, and in the day of his fierce 
 anger — the 2 in one ofause seems to mean the same thing as --"-in the other. 
 It is probable therefore that in this case also it denotes not the cause but the 
 time of the event, and should not be rendered by or through, but simply in 
 i. e. in the time or during. There il then no departure from the import 
 of theigure in v. 17. That the sufferings of Israel were produced by the 
 divine wrath, is abundantly implied though not expressed. — prttl, which 
 occurs only here, has been variously derived and explained as meaning to 
 tremble (Peshito), to be disturbed (Vulgate), to be smitten (Saadias), to be 
 wasted (Gesenius in Lex. Man.) etc. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, the English 
 Version, Vitringa, Lowth, J. D. Michaelis, Barnes, and Umbreit, make it 
 mean to be darkened, which agrees well with the figures of the foregoing verse. 
 But Gessnius (in Thes.), Rosenmuller, Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, 
 Knobel, follow the Septuagint and Targum and the Arabic analogy, in 
 giving it the sense of being burnt or burnt up. The agreement of y~x with a 
 masculine verb, here and in a few other cases (e. g. Gen. 13 : 6. Ps. 105: 
 30), may be resolved into the rule of Hebrew syntax, that the verb, when 
 it stands before its subject, often takes the simplest form without regard to 
 the distinction of genders. — t&SHHD, a derivative of Vax to devour, is peculiar 
 not only to this book, but to this chapter. It denotes not the act of burning 
 or consuming (Lee, Heb. Lex.), but the thing consumed. The particle 
 before it is omitted by Gesenius and DeWette, but is really important as 
 denoting that the language of the verse is metaphorical. The grammatical 
 subject of lbarp is not ©•«, but the people understood. The original construc- 
 tion is retained in the versions of Cocceius, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, Barnes, and 
 Ewald. The word brother may have merely its idiomatic meaning of 
 another person, or be treated as emphatic, and as meaning that the nearest 
 ties of blood were disregarded (Calvin). Kimchi supposes that although 
 the figure of a conflagration seems to be dropped in the last clause, there is 
 really a tacit allusion to the mutual ignition of one tree or piece of wood by 
 another. 
 
 V. 19. The horrors of civil war are now presented under the fearful im- 
 age of insatiable hunger, leading men to devour their own flesh. And he 
 tears on the right hand and is hungry still, and devours on the left and still 
 they arc not satisfied ; each the flesh of his own arm, they devour. Ewald 
 refers the first clause to the past and the second to the present ; Umbreit 
 the first to the present and the second to the future. But the very inter- 
 mingling of the past and future forms shows that the whole was meant to be 
 descriptive. The first verb has been variously rendered to turn aside (Sep- 
 tuagint, Vulgate), to withdraw one's self (Pagninus, Montanus), to distri- 
 bute (Schmidius), to plunder (Targum, Jarchi, Kimchi, Luther), to snatch 
 
180 ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 
 
 (Calvin, Grotius, English Version, Lowth) ; but the true sense seems to be 
 to cut or tear (Junius, Cocceius, Henderson), particularly with the teeth (De 
 Dieu), and thence to devour (Gesenius, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Kno- 
 bel). The English version seems to make this verb agree with ^« in v. 18 
 (he shall snatch) ; Calvin, Cocceius and Vitringa, with a distributive pro- 
 noun understood (rapiet quisque) ; J. D. Michaelis and the later G%rmans 
 better still with an indefinite subject (one devours or they devour). The 
 Prophet sees one assailing the other on the right, and the other in turn at- 
 tacking him upon the left, and this double subject, corresponding to a man 
 and his brother in verse 18, may have given occasion to the plural forms 
 issta and ibsa" 1 , corresponding to iVair, the plural verbs referring to the peo- 
 ple collectively, the singular nouns to the component individuals. The 
 Tarcum explains right and left as meaning south and north ; but they simply 
 denote that the devouring should be mutual and extend in all directions. 
 The flesh of his own arm is explained to mean the wealth of his kindred by 
 the Targum (m^-np ^ow) and Grotius (res cognatorum) ; but the figures 
 evidently have a stronger meaning. Eating and fighting are cognate ideas 
 in the Hebrew etymology (compare tnb and ttrtw) ; but in this case the 
 additional idea, that the fighting is between near kinsmen, is expressed by 
 the strong figure of devouring one's own flesh, while the special mention of 
 the arm may imply (as Hitzig and Hendewerk suggest) that the mutual 
 destroyers ought to have been mutual protectors. Knobel indeed objects to 
 this as a far-fetched explanation, and supposes simply an allusion to the fact 
 that starving men do actually gnaw their arms, as the most convenient and 
 accessible portion of the body. Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and Maurer give 
 to arm itself the sense of neighbour, which is hardly justified by Jer. 19 : 9. 
 Still less ground is there for an emendation of the text by reading isi for 
 is>-if , as proposed by Seeker and approved by Lowth, on the authority of the 
 Chaldee paraphrase (mr^p) and the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint 
 (zov addepov avzov) which varies from the common reading (rov fiqaxiovog 
 avtov). 
 
 V. 20. The application of the figures in v. 19, is now made plain by 
 the Prophet himself, who has been drawing no imaginary scene. It is 
 Israel, the chosen race, that feeds on its own flesh. They devour each the 
 flesh of his own arm — Manasseh (devours) Ephraim, and Ephraim fylanas- 
 se h — and together they (are) against Judah. For all this his wrath is not 
 turned baelz and still his hand (is) stretched out. The tribes here specified 
 are chosen for two reasons : first, because Judah and Joseph were the most 
 important branches of the stock of Israel, as well before as after the disrup- 
 tion ; and secondly, because the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were 
 more nearly related to each other than to any of the rest, and therefore their 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. 181 
 
 hostility afforded the most striking illustration of the mutual rancour which the 
 Prophet had described as prevalent. The Targum, followed by Jarchi, 
 atly weakens the effect of the first clause by explaining rx to be the pre- 
 position with, implying merely the conjunction of these two tribes against 
 Judah, without any intimation of their mutual hostility. The repetition of 
 the names in that case would be perfectly unmeaning. Gesenius, Hitzig, 
 and Uinbivit, also explain rx as a preposition, but in the sense of against, 
 which it seldom has, and which is in this case very far from being obvious. 
 Ewald, DeWette, and Knobel, correctly adhere to the old construction 
 given in the Septuagint, which takes rx as the sign of the objective or ac- 
 cusative, and repeats the verb devour between the two proper names. Vi- 
 tringa goes still further and makes all the names accusatives (Ephraimum 
 Manassen, Manassen Ephraimum), which leaves the verb without a subject 
 in the sentence, and wholly overlooks the objective particle. In the next 
 clause various verbs have been supplied — they shall besiege (Septuagint), 
 they shall unite (Targum), they make an attack (Augusti) — but the simplest 
 method is to supply the verb of existence arc or shall be. Hitzig denies 
 that any joint action against Judah is ascribed to Manasseh and Ephraim. 
 But vim seldom if ever means alike or equally ; the cases cited by Ge- 
 senius (Thes. torn. 2. p. 5S9) may all be resolved into examples of the 
 usual and proper sense, at once, together, implying unity of time, place, and 
 action. Eichhorn's proposal to reject this clause as a gloss, upon the ground 
 that it interrupts the sense and is at variance with the context (Hebr. Proph. 
 II. p. 219), although not more unreasonable than the other propositions of the 
 same kind which have been already stated, is nevertheless sufficiently ab- 
 surd. Not only is it common for intestine wars to give occasion and give 
 place to foreign ones, as Gesenius most truly says ; but this clause really 
 continues the description and adds greatly to its force, by suggesting the idea 
 that the mutual enmity of these two kindred tribes could only be exceeded 
 by their commow hatred to their common relative, the tribe of Judah. — 
 Grotius and Junius would refer this verse to the time of Sennacherib's inva- 
 sion ; but the kingdom of the ten tribes was then no longer in existence, 
 and there seems to be no ground for Junius's assertion or conjecture, that 
 the conquered Israelites were forced to serve in the Assyrian army against 
 Judah. The allusions of the verse are not to one exclusive period, but to a 
 protracted series of events. The intestine strifes of Ephraim and Manasseh 
 although not recorded in detail, may be inferred from various incidental 
 statements. Of their ancient rivalry we have examples in the history of 
 Gideon (Judges 8: 1-3) and Jephtha (Judges 12: 1-6) ; and as to later 
 times, it is observed by Vitringa that of all who succeeded Jeroboam the 
 Second on the throne of Israel, Pekahiah alone appears to have attained it 
 without treachery or bloodshed. That Manasseh and Ephraim were both 
 
182 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 against Judah, may refer either to their constant enmity or to particular attacks. 
 No sooner did one party gain the upper hand in the kingdom of the ten 
 tribes, than it seems to have addressed itself to the favourite work of ha- 
 rassing or conquering Judah, as in the case of Pekah, who invaded it almost 
 as soon as he had waded to the throne through the blood of Pekahiah. — The 
 repetition in the last clause intimates that even these extreme evils should 
 be followed by still worse ; that these were but the beginning of sorrows : 
 that the end was not yet. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The prophet first completes his description of the prevalent iniquity, 
 with special reference to injustice and oppression, as a punishment of which 
 he threatens death and deportation by the hands of the Assyrians, vs. 1—4. 
 He then turns to the Assyrians themselves, God's chosen instruments, whom 
 he had commissioned against Israel, to punish and degrade it, but whose 
 own views were directed to universal conquest, to illustrate which the As- 
 syrian himself is introduced as boasting of his tributary princes and his rapid 
 conquests, which had met with no resistance from the people or their gods, 
 and threatening Judah with .a like fate, unaware of the destruction which 
 awaits himself, imputing his success to his own strength and wisdom, and 
 glorying, though a mere created instrument, over his maker and his mover, 
 vs. 5—15. His approaching doom is then described under the figure of a 
 forest suddenly and almost totally consumed by fire, vs. 16-19. This suc- 
 cession of events is to have the effect of curing the propensity to trust in 
 man rather than God, at least among the elect remnant who survive ; for 
 though the ancient promises of great increase shall certainly be verified, only 
 a remnant shall escape God's righteous judgments, vs. 20—23. To these 
 the Prophet now addresses words of strong encouragement, with a renewed 
 prediction of a judgment on Assyria similar to that on Midian at Oreb and 
 on Egypt at the Red Sea, which is then described, in the most vivid manner, 
 by an exhibition of the enemy's approach, from- post to post, until he, stands 
 before Jerusalem, and then, with a resumption of the metaphor before used, 
 his destruction is described as the prostration of a forest — trees and thickets 
 — by a mighty axe, vs. 24-34. 
 
 It is commonly agreed that the close of the chapter relates chiefly, if 
 not wholly, to the destruction of Sennacherib's army, recorded in ch. 37: 
 
ISAIAH. CHAP. X. 183 
 
 36. The exceptions to this statement, and the arguments on both sid 
 will be given in the exposition of v. 28. 
 
 For the best illustration of the geographical details in vs. 28-32, a gen- 
 oral reference may here be given to Robinson's Palestine, $ 9 (vol. 2. pp. 
 104—151). 
 
 V. 1. In these four verses, as in the different divisions of the ninth chap- 
 ter, there is an accusation followed by a threatening of punishment. The 
 sin denounced in the first two verses is that of oppression and injustice. 
 The punishment threatened is desolation by a foreign foe, and its effect, 
 captivity and death. Woe unto them that decree decrees of injustice, and that 
 write oppression which they have prescribed. Many interpreters suppose 
 two different kinds of public functionaries to be here described, viz. judges 
 or magistrates and their clerks or scribes (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Abarbenel, 
 Grotius, Junius), or evil counsellors and sovereigns or their secretaries (Cleri- 
 cus), or civil rulers and prophets (Hendewerk). The Piel form CB3D is ex- 
 plained as a causative by Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, and Munster 
 (jubent scribere). Others suppose the distinction to be simply that between 
 enacting and recording. But the more common and probable opinion is 
 that the parallel verbs are here substantially synonymous, as PP 5 " 1 originally 
 means to engrave, or inscribe by incision, which was probably the oldest 
 mode of writing. Thus the Septuagint renders both ypucpovGi. The meta- 
 phor of writing is used elsewhere to describe the decrees and providential 
 purposes of God (Isai. 65 : 6. Job 13 : 26). Here the terms may include 
 both legislative and judicial functions, which are not so nicely distinguished 
 in ancient as in modern theories of government. The divine displeasure is 
 expressed against all abuse of power. ' The primary sense of Vis seems to 
 be inanity or nonentity ; then more specifically, the absence of truth and 
 moral goodness ; and still more positively falsehood, injustice, wickedness in 
 general. The primary import of \n9 is toil or painful labour ; then (like the 
 Greek aAd Latin novog, labor) suffering, vexation. It is related to *px as 
 the effect to the cause, as the oppression of the subject to the injustice of 
 the ruler. The proper sense of both words is retained by Cocceius in his 
 version (statuta vanitatis, laborem scribentibus). The masoretic accents 
 require bas to be governed by trirz*z and separated from "irz. This makes 
 it necessary to supply a relative before the last verb. Otherwise, it would 
 be more natural to understand D"»SPDO as a title of office, and to supply the 
 relative before V-zr. This is pointed out by Aben Ezra as the true construc- 
 tion, and Luther accordingly has Schriftgelehrte as the subject of both 
 clauses. Coeceius makes the whole refer to the elders of the people or 
 hereditary magistrates, and the scribes or doctors of the law, by whom all public 
 matters were controlled in our Saviour's time. By the yw "ppn he under- 
 
184 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 stands the traditions of the elders, and by hn" the yoke which they imposed 
 upon the conscience. It is evident, however, that the Prophet is still de- 
 scribing the evils which existed in his own day, although not peculiar to it. 
 The Piel form of the last verb, if it has any distinctive meaning, is a fre- 
 quentative, and indicates repeated and habitual action. 
 
 V. 2. As the first verse describes the sinners and their sin, so the sec- 
 ond sets forth its effect upon the people. To turn aside (or exclude) from 
 judgment the weak, and to take away (by violence) the right of the poor 
 (or afflicted) of my people, that widows may be (or so that widows are) their 
 spoil, and the fatherless they plunder. The infinitive indicates the tendency 
 and actual effect of their conduct. The Septuagint omits the preposition 
 and governs judgment by the verb directly (JxxIUovtzq -a^igiv 77700^00*-). This 
 form of expression frequently occurs in the sense of perverting justice or 
 doing injustice (Deut. 27: 19. Lam. 3: 25'. Ex. 23: 6. Deut. 26: 19, 
 24 : 17. 1 Sam. 8 : 3). Nearly allied to these, in form and meaning, is the 
 phrase to turn one aside in judgment (Prov. 18:5) or in the gate, as the place 
 where courts were held in eastern towns (Amos 5: 12), or with an ellipsis 
 of the second noun to turn the person aside, i. e. to deprive him of his right 
 by false judgment (Mai. 3: 5. Isai. 29: 21), or with an ellipsis of both 
 nouns (Exod. 23 : 2). But the phrase here used is to turn one aside from 
 the judgment, and seems intended, to express not so much the idea of judg- 
 ing wrongfully as that of refusing to judge at all. ' Verus sensus est ut 
 arceant pauperes a judicio, vel efficiant ut cadant causa (Calvin). ' The 
 same charge is brought against the rulers of Judah in ch. 1 : 23. The ex- 
 pression of my people intimates, not only that the sufferers were Israelites, 
 but that they sustained a peculiar relation to Jehovah, who is frequently 
 described in Scripture as the protector of the helpless, and especially of 
 widows and orphans (Ps. 68: 5). The second verb (bts) means to take 
 away by violence, and may here be understood either strictly, or figuratively 
 in the sense of violating justice, as the Vulgate expresses it (ut vim facerent 
 causae humilium). 
 
 V. 3. The wicked rulers are themselves addressed, and warned of an 
 approaching crisis, when they must be deprived of all that they now glory in. 
 And (though you are now powerful and rich) what will ye do in the day of 
 visitation, and in the ruin (which) shall come from far (though all may ap- 
 pear safe at home) ? To whom ivill ye flee for help, and where will ye leave 
 your glory (for safe-keeping) ? The questions imply negation, as if he had 
 said, you can do nothing to protect yourselves, there is no place of conceal- 
 ment for your glory. Junius and Tremellius make the construction hypo- 
 thetical — what would you do ? — to whom would you fly ? — where could you 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 185 
 
 leave? But as this implies tliat the contingency alluded to might not oc- 
 cur, it virtually changes a threat into b promise, which would here be out of 
 place, between the woe at the beginning of v. 1 and the menace at the end 
 of v. 4. By the day of visitation Vitringa understands a day of inspection 
 and examination ; but this is a modern or a technical meaning of the term. 
 Cocceius understands by the phrase, here and elsewhere, even in Ps. 8 : 5, 
 the time when God should be incarnate, and literally visit his people as a 
 man. According to the usage of the Old Testament, the day of visitation 
 is €i time when God manifests his presence specially, whether in mercy or 
 in wrath, but most frequently the latter. nxva originally signifies a noise 
 or tumult, and is therefore peculiarly appropriate to the ruin caused by foreign 
 invasions, such as those of the Assyrians and Babylonians, which appear to 
 be alluded to. xinn pmen is properly an independent clause — from afar it 
 shall come — but in order to conform the expression to our idiom, a relative 
 may be supplied as in the English version. The br, as Kimchi observes, is 
 in this connexion simply equivalent to ^x. The idea of fleeing for help is 
 expressed by the same verb and noun in ch. 20 : 6. By TO3 we are not 
 simply to understand nobility (Musculus, Forerius, Henderson) — or wealth 
 (Clericus, Lowth, Rosenmiiller) — much less the gains of oppression and in- 
 justice (Jarchi) — least of all their idols (Hendewerk) — but whatever they 
 now boasted of and trusted in. 
 
 V. 4. It (your glory) does not bow beneath the prisoners, and (yet) they 
 shall fall beneath the slain — i. e. if they do not bow under the captives 
 they shall fall under the slain — or, such of them as do not bow, etc. Be- 
 neath may either be strictly understood as meaning under their feet, or 
 simply among them. Junius and Piscator understand it to mean lower than 
 the captives and the slain. DeDieu and Rosenmiiller make it an adverb 
 meaning down. Ewald explains it to mean instead of, in the place or qual- 
 ity of, equivalent to as — as captives and as slain. Cocceius and Umbreit 
 make the first clause interrogative — does he not bow among the captives ? 
 Kimchi, DeDieu, Gesenius, and DeWette, render ^nbn, without me, i. e. 
 having forsaken me, or being forsaken by me (Junius) — without my inter 
 position. Some make it mean unless, referring to what goes before — they 
 can do nothing but bow, etc. (Ewald)— or to what follows — unless one 
 bow, etc. they shall fall, etc. The Septuagint and Vulgate, Castalio and 
 Clericus, take irta in the sense of lest or that not, and continue the con- 
 struction from the preceding verse — where will ye leave your glory, that ye 
 bow not, etc. Luther adopts the same construction, but connects sis with 
 Tfiaa in v. 3. Where will ye leave your glory, that it bow not, etc. This 
 agrees well with Henderson's explanation of 1132 as meaning nobility or 
 chief men, which would account also for the change to the plural form in 
 
196 ISAIAH. CHAP. X. 
 
 ■^>5\ DeDieu makes n^bx and d^avifi the subjects of the verbs — taking 
 r,nn as an adverb meaning down or beneath — < besides that the captive 
 sinks, they shall fall down slain.' Knobel suggests, as a possible construc- 
 tion, that sns m ay mean to bow down to the slaughter as in ch. 65 : 12, in 
 which case both verbs would express the idea of a violent death. On the 
 whole, the most natural interpretation of this difficult and much disputed 
 verse is that which explains it as a solemn declaration that their glory and 
 especially their noble chiefs must either go into captivity or fall in battle. 
 The concluding formula — for all this his wrath is not turned back and still 
 his hand is stretched out — again suggests the fearful thought that all these 
 accumulated judgments would be insufficient to arrest the progress of the 
 sinner or appease the wrath of God. 
 
 V. 5. The Assyrian is now distinctly brought into view, as the instru- 
 ment which God would use in punishing his people. But instead of simply 
 executing this task, the Assyrians would seek their own ends and exceed 
 their commission, and for. this they must themselves be punished. The Pro- 
 phet begins therefore with a woe against them. Woe unto Asshur (the As- 
 syrian or Assyria itself), the rod of my anger, and the staff in their (the 
 Assyrians') hand is my indignation, i. e. its instrument. According to 
 Kimchi, *tfi is merely a tts^b ta p^^, or particle of calling, by which God 
 summons the Assyrian to punish Israel. .So Munster : O Assur (veni ut 
 sis) virga, etc. It is also rendered O by Pagninus, Montanus, Forerius. 
 Vatablus, and Calvin, who suggests however that it may be taken as an ex- 
 . pression of grief (alas /) on God's part, at the necessity of punishing his 
 people. Lowth translates it Ho ! DeWette Ha ! But the analogy of v. 1 
 and the subsequent threatenings are decisive in favour of the common ver- 
 sion. A pronoun of the second person is supplied after ^n by Clericus (vae 
 vobis Assyrii), and J. D! JVJichaelis (wehe dir, Assyrien), while DeDieu 
 supplies the substantive verb after "iiiBS (Heus ! Assyria est virga, etc). 
 But it is simpler to connect tlie particle as usual directly with the noun, as 
 in the Septuagint (oval 'AoovQiotg) and most other versions. Junius, Pis- 
 cator, and the margin of the English Bible give to the second vav the 
 sense of for or though, which. is needless and unauthorized. The Vulgate, 
 Aben Ezra, Luther, Calvin, DeDieu, Vatablus, and Clericus, take fiOfi as a 
 demonstrative equivalent to hie, ille, ipse, or the like. Pagninus, Cocceius, 
 Schmidius, Vitringa, Rosenmuller, treat it as a relative (the rod which), and 
 Gesenius gives the same sense, by supposing an ellipsis of *>««, and making 
 xin the substitute or index of the verb to be. For trcq, Seeker reads um 
 (in the day of my wrath), a mere conjecture. The preposition is omitted 
 by Luther and Clericus (est manus eorum). The words D"ns Kin are re- 
 jected by Hitzig and Ewald as a gloss, on the ground that they render the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 187 
 
 two clauses inco: one describing Assyria as itself the rod, the other 
 
 putting a rod into Assyria's own hand, whereas in v. M Assyria is still rep- 
 resented as the rod and not rod-bearer. Hendewerk, DeWette, and 
 Knobel, avoid the conclusion by connecting "ss --- with the verb to be 
 supplied in the second clause — ' the rod of my anger and the staff of my in- 
 dignation, it is in their hand.' But in v. 24 (cf. ch. 9 : 3) Assyria re- 
 appears as a rod-bearer, and the chief point and beauty of the verse befo'reus 
 lies in the alleged inconsistency of representing the Assyrian, by whose rod 
 the Israelites were smitten, as himself a mere rod in the hand of God. Such 
 emendations are as puerile in taste as they are inconsistent with the favourite 
 German canon, that the harder reading is presumptively the true one. Any 
 school-boy can expound the hardest passage in the classics by omitting 
 what he pleases on the score of inconcinnity. The disputed words are re- 
 tained by Gesenius, Maurer, Hendewerk, DeWette, Umbreit, Knobel. Ac- 
 coiding to Junius, Hendewerk, and DeWette, ^st is governed by r\'^v (the 
 staff is in their hand of my indignation), and Schmidius, Clericus, Rosen- 
 miiller and Gesenius, give the same sense by repeating M^"a before •'est 
 (q. d. the staff in their hand is the staff of my indignation). The Septua- 
 gint connects the last word of this verse with the next (x\v bny^v fiov 
 anooxeXn). 
 
 V. 6. Upon (or against) an impious nation (i. e. Israel, including 
 Ephraim and Judah) will 1 send him (the Assyrian), and against the peo- 
 ple of my wrath (i. e. the people that provokes it and deserves it and is to 
 experience it) I will commission him (or give him his orders), to take spoil 
 and to seize prey (literally to spoil spoil and to prey prey), and to place (or 
 render) it (the people) a trampling (a thing to be trodden under foot, a 
 common figure for extreme degradation) like the mire of streets. See the 
 same comparison in ch. 5 : 25 and Ps. 18 : 43. — According to Cocceius the 
 use of the word n> tt in application to Israel implies that they had now become 
 gentiles or heathen. But the word seems to be simply used as a poetical 
 equivalent to e*. On the meaning of ^:n, vide supra ch. 9 : 16. Aben Ezra, 
 I^owth, Gesenius and others, explain people of my wrath as meaning simply 
 the people at whom I am angry ; but a stronger meaning seems to be re- 
 quired by the form of the expression and the context. Cocceius, with per- 
 verse ingenuity, refers the suffix in ^rves to D3>, which could not take it in 
 construction, and translates the phrase populum excandescentiae meum, im- 
 plying that they were (or had been) his people, but were now the objects 
 Af his wrath. The Septuagint changes the sense by omitting ^r-nr (t<x> fp$ 
 law). The true sense is not ill expressed in the paraphrase ofForerius, 
 populum quern duritcr tractare decrevi, Piscator understands by T,zn *ia the 
 Jews exclusively, in which he is followed by Henderson, who argues from 
 
188 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 vs. 9—11, that the kingdom of the ten tribes is regarded in this passage as 
 destroyed already. But, as Vitringa had before observed, the Assyrians did 
 not reduce Judah to an extreme of desolation, and in Sennacherib's invasion 
 Jerusalem, though pre-eminently guilty, was unharmed. Besides, the con- 
 nexion between this and the next chapter forbids the exclusive reference to 
 Judah. 
 
 V. 7. The Assyrian is now described as an unconscious instrument in 
 God's hand, and as entertaining in his own mind nothing but ambitious plans 
 of universal conquest. And he (Assyria personified, or the king of Assyria) 
 not so will think (will not imagine for what purpose he was raised up, or 
 will not intend to execute my will), and his heart not so will think (or 
 purpose) ; for (on the contrary) to destroy (is) in his heart, and to cut 
 off nations not a few, i. e. by a litotes common in Hebrew, very many na- 
 tions. According to Cocceius tvahfi «p xb (from n^n to resemble) means 
 he will not (or does not) think as I do. But the sense of imagining or pur- 
 posing appears to be fully justified by usage. 
 
 V. 8. This verse introduces the proof and illustration of his selfishness 
 and pride. For he will say (or giving it a descriptive form, he says) are net 
 my princes altogether kings, or at the same time kings, mere princes with re- 
 spect to me, but kings as to all the world besides ? By exalting his tributary 
 princes or the nobles of his court, he magnifies himself the more. The 
 oriental monarchs, both in ancient and modern times, have affected the title 
 of Great King (Isai. 36 : 4. Hos. 8 : 10), and King of kings (Ezek. 26 : 
 7. Dan. 2 : 37), corresponding to the Greek fityuloi ftuadeig, (tacdeTg fiaadtm, 
 and the Persian sL&JL#Lc«. This is the more offensive because such 
 titles properly belong to God alone (Ps. 95: 3. Dan. 2: 47. 8: 25. 
 Matth. 5: 35). 
 
 V. 9. Having boasted of his princes, he now boasts of his achievements 
 Is not Calno like Carchemish 1 Have they not been equally subdued by 
 me ? Or is not Hamath like Arpad 1 Or is not Samaria like Damascus ? 
 Similar boastings were uttered by Rabshakeh (ch. 36 : 19, 2CK 37 : 12, 13). 
 These conquests were the more remarkable because so speedily achieved, 
 and because the Assyrians had before confined themselves within their own 
 limits. All the towns named were further north than Jerusalem, and pro- 
 bably commanded the navigation of the two great rivers, Tigris and Eu- 
 phrates. Carchemish was a fortified town on an island in the Euphrate 
 at the mouth of the Chaboras, called by the Greeks Kipyjaior, and in Latin 
 Cercusium. It had its own king (Isai. 37 : 13) and its own gods (Isai. 
 36 : 19), and was taken by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15 : 29). Calno was 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 I 
 
 the (Ui siphon of the Greeks, on the east bank of the Tigris, opposite S 
 leucia. It is identified by Kimchi with the Cafnth qfGen. 10: 10, and by 
 Bochart with the Canneh of Ezek. 27 : 23. Hamath was a city of Syria, 
 on the Orontes, the mouth of which river, according to Keith (Land of Is- 
 rael, ch. 2. •§> 3), is the entering into Hamath, sometimes mentioned as the 
 northern boundary of Canaan in its widest extent (Num. 34 : 8. Josh. 13 : 
 5). It was called by the Greeks Epiphania. Abulfeda, the Arabian his- 
 torian, reigned there about the beginning of the fourteenth century. It is 
 now one of the largest towns in Asiatic Turkey, having about 100,000 in- 
 habitants. Arpad, another town of Syria, near Hamath, with which it is 
 several times named. Junius and Paulus regard it as the name of a region. 
 Grotius, Doderlein and others, confound it with Arvad in Phenicia (Gen. 
 10 : 8) ; but none of the ancient versions do so, and i is not interchangeable 
 with b. It is mentioned last in Jer. 49: 23, and is probably no longer in 
 existence. According to Jerome, there were two Hamaths, one the same 
 with Epiphania, the other with Antioch, the Hamath Rabba of Amos 6 : 2. 
 Vitringa supposes the Hamath here mentioned to be not the Epiphania but 
 the Emesa (or Emissa) of the Greek and Roman writers. The latest au- 
 thorities are all in favour of the other explanation. According to Jarchi, 
 the Assyrian in this verse is still boasting of his tributaries — i as the sons of 
 Carchemish are princes and rulers, so are those of Calno ' — which is alto- 
 gether arbitrary. The Targum, followed by AbenEzra, Calvin, and GilJ. 
 refers the questions of this verse to the future. Shall not Calno be as Car- 
 chemish 1 i. e. as I have subdued Carchemish, shall I not in like manner subdue 
 Calno ? But the great majority of writers understand the passage as explained 
 above, although they differ in the form of their translations. Some adhere 
 strictly to the form of the original without supplying any thing (Vulgate. 
 Calvin, Cocceius, Vitringa). Some supply the present of the verb to be 
 (Luther, Piscator, Clericus, Lowth, Barnes, Henderson, Ewald, Knobel). 
 Some introduce another verb — shall it not perish (Aben Ezra) — did it not 
 happen (ging's nicht ? Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Umbreit). J. D. 
 Michaelis omits the interrogation, and the Peshito substitutes behold! — 
 xb ex, as usual, continues the interrogative introduced by &6n (Nord- 
 heimer, $ 1090. 4. a.). It is most exactly rendered or not (oder nicht), by 
 Hendewerk, Ewald and Umbreit — less exactly, as a simple interrogative 
 without negation, by Luther, Lowth, Barnes and Henderson — as a negative 
 interrogation, but without expressing fix, by Hitzig and Vitringa — as a mere 
 disjunctive (oder) by Gesenius. 
 
 V. 10. As my hand hath found (i. e. reached and seized) the idol-ki?ig- 
 doms (worshippers of idols) — and their images (anglice, whose images were 
 more) than (those of) Jerusalem and Samaria — the apodosis of the sen- 
 
190 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 tence follows in the next verse. Barnes explains found as meaning found 
 them helpless ; and J. H. Michaelis, found strength to subdue them ; both 
 which are forced and arbitrary. Gesenius, Maurer, TJmbreit, suppose it to 
 mean struck, as an arrow finds Ahe mark ; but this idea is rather implied 
 than expressed, both here and in Psalm 21:9. I Sam. 23 : 17. The ideas 
 naturally suggested are those of detecting and reaching. The original import 
 of V>bx is retained in translation by Cocceius and Vitringa (regna nihili), 
 both of whom however understand it to mean idols. The singular form is 
 retained by Theodotion (zov eldalov), the Vulgate (regna idoli), and Um- 
 breit (des Gotzen). Ewald renders the whole phrase Go tzen- L'dnder. 
 Cocceius supposes that in using this expression, the king of Assyria is made 
 to speak rather in the person of a Jew than in his own (pro eo quod requi- 
 rebat io nqinov personae, substituitur quod requirit Veritas rci). Grotius un- 
 derstands him to express contempt of these foreign gods as in their nature 
 inferior to his own ; but the reference is rather to their having proved una- 
 ble to protect their votaries. The heathen nations of antiquity do not seem 
 to have denied the real existence and divinity of one another's gods, but 
 merely to have claimed superior honours for their own. — Instead of the com- 
 parative sense than, the Vulgate gives to ",a its local sense of from (de), 
 which seems to mean that the idols of the kingdoms were derived from Is- 
 rael, a fact which Jarchi does not scruple to assert, though not only unsup- 
 ported but directly contradicted by all history. Valablus gives the same 
 construction but refers the words, with less improbability, to the inferior and 
 dependent towns of Israel, as having learned idolatry from the royal cities. 
 On the whole, however, though the sentence is at best obscure, the most 
 satisfactory construction, both in a grammatical and historical point of view, 
 is that adopted by the great majority of writers, not excepting the most 
 learned of the Rabbins, David Kimchi, and which takes )v as a particle of 
 comparison. Kimchi and Calvin govern Samaria and Jerusalem directly 
 by the preposition ; most other writers repeat images before them. The 
 point of the comparison is not expressed in the original ; those versions are 
 too definite which render it more numerous, more precious, or more power- 
 ful, as all these particulars may be included. The second clause is paren- 
 thetical and disturbs the structure of the sentence by leaving the comparison, 
 with which it opens, incomplete, although the remainder is sufficiently im- 
 plied in the parenthesis itself. As my hand has found the idol-kingdoms 
 [so shall it find Samaria and Jerusalem.'] This, which would seem to be 
 the natural apodosis, is formally excluded but substantially supplied by the 
 last clause of the sentence as it stands. As if he had said, ' Since my hand 
 has found the idol-kingdoms whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and 
 Samaria, much more shall it find Jerusalem and Samaria themselves.' But 
 instead of a protasis without an apodosis, Gesenius and Maurer describe the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 191 
 
 sentence as a double protasis with one apodosis. ■ As my hand has found 
 the idol-kingdoms (whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and Samaria), 
 
 and as I have done to Samaria itself, shall I not, etc.' This supposes Sa- 
 maria to hr regarded, even in v. 10, as already conquered. 
 
 V. 1 1 . Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and to her idols, so do 
 to Jcrusuh in and her gods ? The interrogative particle, which properly he- 
 longs to the second verb, is placed at the beginning of the sentence, in order 
 to give prominence to its interrogative form, which involves an affirmation 
 of the strongest kind. This effect is wholly neutralized by rendering M&n 
 much more (Piscator), furthermore (Hendewerk), yes (Ewald), or behold 
 (Gesenius, Hitzig). Because an interrogative construction is employed in 
 Hebrew where in other tongues a simple exclamation would be used, it does 
 not follow that the one can be substituted for the other without doing violence 
 to the usage and genius of the language. The facts alleged by Gesenius 
 (in his Thesaurus s. v.), that B&fi, as used in the Books of Kings, is generally 
 changed in Chronicles to nsn, and that the Septuagint frequently translates 
 the former tdov, may prove a change of idiomatic usage, but cannot change 
 the meaning of xbn itself, or make that meaning less acceptable to every un- 
 sophisticated taste than the arbitrary substitute proposed. Still more objec- 
 tionable is the omission of x^n altogether. Luther, Vitringa, and J. D. 
 Michaelis, give the verb in this interrogation a subjunctive form, — may, might, 
 could, or should I not do 2 It is best however to retain the simple future, 
 as most writers do. — The English Version and some others use the same 
 word to translate rrt^Va and mass, which are in fact synonymous, although 
 the latter signifies originally trouble, sorrow, with reference perhaps to the 
 ultimate effect of image worship on the worshippers. The two words are 
 differently rendered by the Septuagint (^etQonotrjioig, eidaXoig), the Vulgate 
 (idolis. simulacris), the Targum, Junius, Vitringa, Gesenius, Ewald, Lowth 
 (idols, images). 
 
 V. 12. To the boastful speech of the Assyrian succeeds a prediction of 
 his fate. Although he had been suffered to proceed so far, and would be 
 suffered to proceed still further, in the work of subjugation, till he reached 
 the very verge of Zion and the portals of Jerusalem, God had determined 
 that the work should go no further, but be there cut short by the infliction of 
 a signal vengeance on the selfishness and pride of the invader. And it shall 
 be (i. e. the end of all this glorying shall be) that the Lord will cut his 
 work short at Mount Zion and at Jerusalem. (Yes, even there) will 1 
 visit (i. e. manifest my presence for the purpose of inflicting punishment) on 
 the fruit (or outward exhibition) of the greatness of heart (i. e. arrogance 
 and pride) of the king of Assyria, and on the ostentation (or display) of 
 
192 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. X 
 
 his loftiness of eyes (or looks, a common scriptural expression for great 
 haughtiness). His work may mean the Assyrian's work of conquest, 
 or the Lord's own work of punishment, in reference either to Assyria or Is- 
 rael. Either of these senses may be preferred without effect upon the 
 meaning of the sentence. By the destruction of Sennacherib's army, God 
 may be said to have cut short the work of that invader, or to have cut short 
 his own work by accomplishing his purpose of destruction, or to have cut 
 short his own work of punishing his people, by relieving them from danger. 
 The last of these senses may, however, be retained, and yet the general 
 meaning of the first clause wholly altered, as is actually done by nearly all 
 interpreters, who take *a in the sense of when, and read the clause as it is 
 rendered in the English Bible. It shall come to pass, when the Lord hath 
 performed his whole work on Mount Zion and in Jerasalem, that I will 
 punish, etc. i. e. the instrument of punishment shall be destroyed as soon 
 as it has done its work. According to this view of the passage, the com- 
 pletion of God's work upon Mount Zion is a previous condition of his pun- 
 ishing Assyria ; according to the other, the completion and the punishment 
 are one and the same thing. The former interpretation is that unanimously 
 ' given by all writers known to me, excepting Hitzig, who adopts a 
 singular construction of his own, disregarding the accents and connecting in 
 Mount Zion and Jerusalem with the second clause. He gives to ^s how- 
 ever like the rest its more unfrequent sense of when, whereas the first inter- 
 pretation above stated makes it as usual equivalent to on. The principal 
 objection to this new construction, next to the great weight of authority.against 
 it, is the meaning which it puts upon the preposition before Zion and Jeru- 
 salem. This, it is said, can only mean within the walls, and cannot there- 
 fore have respect to the destruction of the host without. But the preposition 
 sometimes denotes mere proximity, even when ' prefixed to nouns de- 
 noting place, e. g. "psa at the fountain, I Sam. 29: 1, laa ihaa by the 
 river of Chebar, Ezek. 10 : 15, and a*is "Vises at the rock Oreb, in this very 
 chapter, v. 26. (See Gesenius's Thesaurus, torn. 1. p. 172.) To the 
 common explanation it may be objected that 2^ni does not mean simply to 
 finish, but to finish abruptly or cut short (Isai. 38: 12. Job 6: 9), which 
 is certainly not so appropriate to the deliberate execution of a purpose as to 
 its sudden interruption. It is true that according to Cocceius, Vitringa, and 
 Gesenius (in Thesauro), there is an allusion to the weaver's cutting out the 
 web when it is finished ; but there seems to be no sufficient ground for this 
 assertion. J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius translate ^pBK as a third person, 
 which removes the appearance of grammatical irregularity, but only by the 
 sacrifice of strict adherence to the form of the original, which, when attain- 
 able, adds greatly to the value of a version, both in point of utility and taste. 
 In this case the enallage is highly emphatic — < the Lord will cut short' — 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 19& 
 
 yes ' I will visit.' There is the same objection to the gratuitous omission of 
 mrr, by Luther, Clericus, Pbcatof, J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Henderson 
 and Ewald. That phrase is not an idiomatic pleonasm, or intended to de- 
 termine the futurity of what directly follows — but an emphatic clause con- 
 necting this verse with the one before it — q. d. : such are the boasts and 
 such the expectations of Assyria, but it shall be, i. e. the end shall be, the 
 end of all this glorying and of all these threats shall be, that the Lord will 
 cut short, etc. J. D. Michaelis is singular in giving to the verb ipcst the 
 sense of looking down upon (wird er herabblicken). Here, as in ch. 9 : 8, 
 greatness of heart is a temper opposite to that of the lowly in heart and the 
 poor in spirit, who are represented in the New Testament as peculiarly 
 acceptable to God. (Matt. 5 : 3. 1 1 : 29.) According to Henderson there 
 is an implied antithesis between the looks considered as the leaves and the 
 actions as the fruit of the same tree, all which is more ingenious than natu- 
 ral. Gesenius and Maurer seem to restrict the meaning of rrutsn to mere 
 ostentation and parade ; but it is best to take it in a wider sense, as including 
 all the outward manifestations of an arrogant spirit. 
 
 V. 13. The Assyrian is again introduced as speaking, and as arrogating 
 to himself the two most necessary qualities of a successful ruler, to wit, en- 
 ergy and wisdom, military prowess and political sagacity. The last clause 
 gives the proofs of the assertion in the first, and mentions three things which 
 the boaster had disposed of at his pleasure, political arrangements, money, 
 and men. For he saith (in heart and life, if not" in words) by the strength 
 of my (own) hand I have done (all this), and by my (own) zvisdom, for I 
 am wise (as well as strong), and (in the exercise of these two attributes) 
 I remove the bounds of the nations, and rob their hoards, and bring down, 
 like a mighty man (as I am), the inhabitants. J. H. Michaelis takes T'l'r 
 in the sense of making gain or profit, as in Ez. 28 : 4 ; but it is better to 
 translate it J have done, and understand it as referring to the series of suc- 
 cesses just before enumerated. — Cocceius and Vitringa make the next clause 
 mean, it is through my wisdom that I have acted prudently, a construction 
 far inferior, in simplicity and strength, to the obvious and common one pro- 
 posed above. The removing of the bounds appears to be explained in the 
 Targum as descriptive of his conquering progress from one province to 
 another (xs'HEb M3*t8t) ; but the true sense is the more specific one of de- 
 stroying the distinctions between nations by incorporation in a single empire. 
 si-nni-nns is variously rendered by the Septuagint (tip Inyvv avzdor), Junius 
 (instructissima loca eorum), and Cocceius (et fixa eorum), but according to 
 its etymology denotes things laid up or kept in store for future use ; hence 
 treasures, with particular reference to their being hoarded. The Keri 1 n 33 
 for TOH3 is unnecessary, as the 5 in the latter is a caph vcritatis, denoting 
 
 13 
 
194 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 comparison, not with something wholly different, but with the class to which 
 the thing itself belongs. Thus like a mighty man does not imply that the 
 person spoken of was not of that description, but that he was — < like a 
 mighty man or hero as I am.' As the primary meaning of 2W is to sit, 
 some writers explain b^att^ as meaning those who sit on high (Vulgate, J. 
 D. Michaelis) or on thrones (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, Um- 
 breit, Knobel), and '•nwtn in the sense of displacing or dethroning. There 
 is no necessity, however, for departing from the less poetical but more 
 familiar sense, inhabitants and bringing down, i. e. subduing. 
 
 V. 14. The rapidity and ease of the Assyrian conquests is expressed by 
 a natural and beautiful comparison. In seizing on the riches of the nations, 
 the conqueror had encountered no more difficulty than if he had been merely 
 taking eggs from a forsaken nest, without even the impotent resistance which 
 the bird, if present, might have offered, by its cries and by the flapping of 
 its wings. My hand has found (i. e. reached and seized) the strength (or 
 more specifically, the pecuniary strength, the wealth) of the nations, and 
 like the gathering of (or as one gathers) eggs forsaken, so have I gathered 
 all the earth (i. e. all its inhabitants and their possessions) and there was 
 none that moved a wing, or opened a mouth, or chirped. — The present 
 form, which Hendewerk adopts throughout the verse, is equally grammatical, 
 but less in keeping with the context, which seems to represent the speaker 
 as describing not his habits but his past exploits. Clericus renders ^n by 
 moenia, as being the strength or defences of a besieged city, and the Vulgate 
 takes it as an abstract meaning strength itself, which is its primary import ; 
 but interpreters are generally agreed in giving it the more specific sense of 
 wealth, or strength derived from property, an idea which seems to be more 
 fully expressed by our word substance. The meaning of b'tos is here again 
 obscured in the English Version by the use of the singular form people, for 
 which Lowth has substituted peoples, thereby conveying the true sense of 
 the original, but at the same time violating the prevalent usage of the Eng- 
 lish language. Hitzig gives to h xs^ the sense of reaching after ; but ac- 
 cording to usage and the common judgment of interpreters, the particle is 
 here a mere connective of the verb and object. The infinitive construction 
 ^0X3 is expressed in the passive form by the Vulgate (sicut colliguntur), 
 Calvin, Clericus, and Vitringa, and as a verb of the first person by Junius 
 (quasi reciperem) and Cocceius (quasi auferrem), but as an indefinite con- 
 struction by Luther (wie man aufrafft) and most modern writers. The 
 pronoun before Tia&x is omitted in some versions as unnecessary to the 
 sense, but it is for that very reason emphatic and adds to the boastful tone 
 of the Assyrian's language. Fiirst and Ewald follow some of the Rabbins 
 in making ^3, which is elsewhere intransitive, agree with Spa (flatternden 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 193 
 
 Flugels), which i> itself construed adverbially by Calvin (qui abigeret ala) 
 and Cocecius (divngans ala). The construction of EptHUa as a gerund by 
 Clericus (ad pipit adum) and Gesenius (sum Gezirp) is a needless departure 
 from the form of the original. The word peeped (pipio) used in the English 
 
 version is DOt only obsolete but liable to be confounded with another of like 
 form from another root. (Sec Richardson's English Dictionary, vol. I. p. 
 1433.) The terms of the last clause may be understood as having refer- 
 ence to young birds ; but in that case there are two distinct comparisons 
 confusedly mingled in one sentence. In either case the language is designed 
 to be descriptive of entire non-resistance' to the progress of the Assyrian 
 conquests, and although designedly exaggerated in expression, agrees well 
 with the historical statements, not only of the Scriptures, but of Ctesias, Be- 
 rosus, Herodotus, Diodorus, Justin, and Trogus. 
 
 V. 15. Yet in all this the Assyrian was but an instrument in God's 
 hand, and his proud self-confidence is therefore as absurd as if an axe or a 
 saw or a rod or a staff should exalt itself above the person wielding it. 
 Shall the axe glorify itself above the (person) hewing with it 1 Or shall 
 the saw magnify itself above the (person) handling it ? (This is indeed) 
 like a rod's wielding those who wield it, like a staff's lifting (that which 
 is) no wood (viz. a man). The idea is not merely that of boastful opposi- 
 tion but of preposterous inversion of the true relation between agent and 
 instrument, between mind and matter. — The potential form may or can the 
 axe (Luther, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis), and the present form does the axe 
 (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette, Ewald), although not incorrect, 
 are less emphatic than the future proper, shall the axe glorify itself? i. e. 
 shall it be suffered so to do ? Would not such assumption, if it were 
 possible, be intolerable ? Barnes corrects the common version by omitting 
 the reflexive pronoun after boast ; but nxsn^ does not simply mean to use 
 boastful language, but by boasting to exalt one's self in comparison with 
 others. (Judges 7 : 2.) The preposition bs therefore does not mean merely 
 in the presence of (Hitzig), nor even against (English Bible), but should 
 have its proper sense of over or above. Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson 
 omit the or before the second question, perhaps because the English Bible 
 gives it in italics ; but the Hebrew word has often a disjunctive meaning, when 
 preceded in construction by the common interrogative particle. A: figura- 
 tive sense is put upon b^arn by Luther (trotzen), Gesenius (briistet), and the 
 later German writers ; but the literal version magnify itself is perfectly in- 
 telligible and retains the precise form of the original. cpsn is variously ren- 
 dered draw (Septuagint, Vulgate), shake (Calvin), guide (Cocceius), move 
 (Clericus), etc. The essential idea is that of motion, determined and quali- 
 fied by the nature of the thing moved. The Hebrew verb is specially ap- 
 
196 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 propriated to denote the handling or wielding of a tool or implement (Deut. 
 23 : 25. 27 : 5. Ex. 20 : 25). Piscator, Gataker, and others, take the a 
 before the verbs of the last clause as a specification of time — when one 
 shakes a rod or when a staff is lifted up — but this construction, al- 
 though not ungrammatical, introduces several very harsh ellipses. A writer 
 quoted by Vatablus takes the double 3 as the sign of a comparison, as — so, 
 but this would be comparing a thing merely with itself. Most interpreters 
 follow the Septuagint version in rendering the particle as if. This is 
 no doubt the sense, but the precise construction is like the lifting of 
 a staff, not in the passive sense of being lifted (wq av rig ccQrj Qcifidoi'), but 
 in the active one of lifting something else, like a rod's lifting those who lift 
 it. The construction which makes rx a preposition meaning in the power 
 of, dependent on, is arbitrary in itself and does not yield so good a sense. The 
 Vulgate, the Peshito, and the English Version, give d*nn a reflexive sense, 
 and either read Vs for rx, or take the latter in the sense of against, as 
 Calvin and Piscator do. The margin of the English Bible gives another 
 version, which is that of Junius and Cocceius, and the one now commonly 
 adopted as the simplest and most natural. — Gesenius, Hitzig, DeWette, 
 Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, make *Wro a pluralis majestaticus designed to 
 enhance the contrast between mind and matter. It is much more natural, 
 however, to explain it as a plural proper, as is done by Maurer, Hende- 
 werk, and Henderson. — As examples of misplaced ingenuity I add, that 
 J. D. Michaelis (in his Notes for the Unlearned) explains dniu as the stock 
 or handle in distinction from the iron of the axe or saw, and that DeDieu 
 proposes to take n^"\ti as the plural of *fci a mountain — ' as if the staff were 
 mountains, not a piece of wood ' — a construction which is not only forced, 
 but inconsistent with the strict correspondence of CjWS and d^na. The 
 same objection lies against Forerius's construction of the last clause — ' as if 
 the lifting of a staff (were) not (the lifting of) apiece of wood.' — Junius, 
 Cocceius, and most later writers, understand yftnkh as a peculiar idiomatic 
 compound (like fcp& and o^»V, Deut. 32 : 21,l6*^r»i and OTaraS Isai. 31:8, 
 comp. Jer. 5: 7), meaning that which is very far from being wood, of an oppo- 
 site nature to wood, i. e. according to Cocceius and Henderson, God himself, 
 but more correctly man, since the case supposed is that of a man brandishing 
 a rod or staff, the relation between them being merely used to illustrate that 
 between Jehovah and Assyria considered as his instrument. The last 
 clause of this verse has not only been very variously explained by modern 
 writers, but given great difficulty to the old translators, as appears from the 
 inconsistent and unmeaning versions of it. 
 
 V. 16. Therefore (on account of this impious self-confidence) the Lord, 
 the Lord of Hosts, will send upon his fat ones leanness, and under his glory 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X, 191 
 
 shall hum a burning like the burning of lire. The accumulation of divine 
 names calls attention to the source of the threatened evil, and reminds the 
 Assyrian that Jehovah is the only rightful Sovereign and the God of Battles. 
 This combination occurs now here else, and even here above fifty manu- 
 scripts and twelve printed editions read mm for Wi, and thereby assimilate 
 the form of expression to that used in ch. 1: 24. 3: 1. 10: 33. 19: 5. 
 This emendation is approved by Lowth, Ewald, and Henderson, who says 
 that " in consequence of Jewish superstition, the divine name has been tam- 
 pered with by some copyist." It is much more probable, however, that an 
 unusual form was exchanged for a common one in a few copies, than that 
 Jewish superstition tampered with the divine name in a single place, and 
 left it untouched in at least four others. — Gesenius and DeWette use the 
 present form sends ; but in a case of threatening, the future proper is far 
 more appropriate. This particular form of the Hebrew verb is often used 
 with the same preposition to denote the infliction of penal sufferings. The 
 best translation, therefore, is not send among but send upon, implying the 
 action of a higher power (compare Ezek. 7 : 3 and 5:7). Hitzig regards 
 ■pyova as an abstract meaning fatnesses or fatness, and Cocceius, Vitringa, 
 and J. H. Michaelis translate it by a plural neuter (pinguia) meaning fat 
 things or parts ; Ewald more explicitly, his fat limbs, which supposes an 
 allusion to a body. Most interpreters, however, understand it as an epithet 
 of persons (fat ones), as in Ps. 78: 31, viz. the Assyrian warriors or their 
 chiefs, so called as being stout and lusty. The sending of leanness upon 
 them seems to be a figure for the reduction of their strength, with or without 
 allusion to the health of individuals. Some suppose an exclusive reference 
 to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, others a more general one to the de- 
 cline of the Assyrian power. Both are probably included, the first as one 
 of the most striking indications of the last. — By glory we are not to under- 
 stand the splendid dress of the Assyrian soldiers (Jarchi), nor the army (Vi- 
 tringa), nor the great men of the army or the empire (Lowth), nor the glory- 
 ing or boasting of the king (Kimchi), but magnificence and greatness in the 
 general, civil and military, moral and material. The preposition rnn may 
 either mean instead of, in exchange for (Peshito), or in the place of, i. e. 
 in the place occupied by (Junius), or literally under, which is probably the 
 true sense, as it agrees best with the figure of a fire, which is then described 
 as kindled at the bottom of the splendid fabric, with a view to its more com- 
 plete destruction — Luther, Calvin, the English Version and some others, 
 make "ip" 1 a transitive verb meaning to kindle and agreeing with Jehovah, or 
 the king of Assyria ; but in all the other places where it occurs it is intran- 
 sitive, and is so rendered by the Vulgate (ardebit) and the recent writers, 
 agreeing with "ip" 1 , which is not here an infinitive, though so explained by Coc- 
 ceius (ardebit ardendo), but a noun. Cocceius is singular in supposing that 
 
198 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 this last clause is descriptive of the rage and spite excited in Sennacherib 
 by his first repulse from Judah. Other interpreters regard it as descriptive 
 of the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, as caused by a burning disease or 
 pestilential fever (Junius, J. H. Michaelis, J. D. Michaelis) — others more 
 naturally as a lively figure for the suddenness, completeness, and rapidity 
 of the destruction, without direct allusion to the means or cause (Calvin, 
 Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmuller, Barnes, Henderson). Gesenius, who ex- 
 cludes any special reference to Sennacherib's army, understands by the fire 
 here described the flames of war in general. 
 
 V. 1 7. And the Light of Israel shall be for a fire (i. e. shall become 
 one, or shall act as one), and his Holy One for aflame, and it shall burn 
 and devour his (the Assyrian's) thorns and briers in one day (i. e. in a very 
 short time.) — lis always denotes light, literal or figurative. In the places 
 cited by Barnes (ch. 44 : 16. 47 : 14. Ezek. 5: 2), the idea of fire is de- 
 noted by a cognate but distinct form (^x). According to Jarchi, the 
 Light of Israel is the Law of God, while another rabbinical tradition applies 
 it to Hezekiah. It is no doubt intended as an epithet of God himself, so 
 called because he enlightened Israel by his Word and Spirit, and cheered them 
 by the light of his countenance. There may be an allusion to the pillar of 
 cloud, and some think to the angel of Go^'s presence who was in it. The 
 Vulgate even renders psb in igne which is wholly unauthorized. There 
 seems to be no sufficient reason for supposing with Vitringa that the Pro- 
 phet alludes to the worship of Light or the God of Light among the hea- 
 then under the names "Qqoq, Horus, probably derived from lis. There 
 seems to be an antithesis between light and fire. He who was a light 
 to Israel was a fire to Assyria. Some of the early Jews read WHp as 
 a plural, meaning his saints, i. e, the pious Jews in the days of Hezekiah. 
 The thorns and the briers are explained by Jarchi as a figure for the chiefs 
 of the Assyrians — by Lowth, Ewald, Umbreit and others, for the common 
 soldiers as distinguished from the officers and princes, the forest-trees of the 
 ensuing context — but by most interpreters, with more probability, as a figure 
 for the whole body, either in allusion to their pointed weapons (Gesenius, 
 Henderson), or to their malice and vexation of the Jews (Kimchi, Grotius, 
 Hitzig), or to their combustible nature and fitness for the fire (Clericus, 
 Barnes). Vitringa supposes a threefold allusion to their number and con- 
 fusion as a great mixed multitude, their mischievous hostility, and their im- 
 pending doom. Here as in the foregoing verse, fire is mentioned as a rapid 
 and powerful consuming agent, without express allusion to the manner or 
 the means of the destruction threatened. 
 
 V. 18. And the glory (i. e. beauty) of his (the Assyrian's) forest and 
 his fruitful field, from soul to body (i. e, totally), will he (the Lord) con~ 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X 199 
 
 sume, and it shall be like the waiting away of a sick man. — Clericufl reads 
 their forest, but the reference is not so much to the Assyrians collectively as 
 to the king who was their chief and representative. By h is forest some 
 writers understand kit host collectively, his individual soldiers or their arms 
 being the trees which composed it ; others, the chief men as distinguished 
 from the multitude, the thorns and briers of the verse preceding. — The Vul- 
 gate, Clericus, Rosenmuller and Augusti, take iVe*o as a propername (A/* 
 Carmel), the mountain or mountains of that name being noted for fertility. 
 The name, however, is itself significant, being derived by some of the older 
 writers from 13 a pasture, and xbv full (Vitringa) or Via to cut (Bochart) 
 — by others from ana a vineyard and bx the name of God, a vineyard of 
 God, i. e. a choice or fruitful vineyard (Lowth, Lee) — but by most of the 
 recent lexicographers from nia a vineyard, with the addition of ^, making it 
 diminutive (Gesenius, Winer, Furst). In its primary import it may be ap- 
 plied to any highly cultivated or productive spot, a garden, vineyard, or- 
 chard, or the like, and its appropriation as a proper name is altogether sec- 
 ondary. Henderson renders it plantation. Here it may either be equiva- 
 lent and parallel to forest, in which case it would signify a park stocked 
 with choice and noble trees (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette) — or 
 it may be in antithesis to forest, and denote a cleared and cultivated field 
 (Ewald, Umbreit, etc.). Kimchi would understand by forest the chief 
 men, and by fruitful field their wealth and especially their military stores. 
 Vitringa thinks it possible that the forest is Nineveh the royal city, the 
 fruitful field the country at large, and the glory of both the wealth and 
 magnificence of the whole empire, as concentrated and displayed in Sennach- 
 erib's army. The obvious and true interpretation is, that the Prophet meant 
 to represent the greatness of Assyria under figures borrowed from the vege- 
 table world, and for that purpose uses terms descriptive of the most impres- 
 sive aspects under which a fruitful land presents itself, forests and harvest- 
 fields, the two together making a complete picture, without the necessity of 
 giving to each part a distinctive import. The forest and the fruitful field, 
 here applied to Assyria, are applied by Sennacherib himself to Israel (ch. 
 37 : 24). Cocceius and Vitringa construe foa as an absolute nomina- 
 tive — and as to the glory — but it is rather governed by the verb in the 
 next clause. — As the terms soul and flesh are strictly inapplicable to the 
 trees and fields, we must either suppose that the Prophet here discards his 
 metaphor, and goes on to speak of the Assyrians as men, or that the phrase 
 is a proverbial one, meaning body and sou], i. e. altogether, and is here ap- 
 plied without regard to the primary import of the terms, or their agreement 
 with the foregoing figures. Either of these explanations is better than to 
 understand the clause with Vatablus, as meaning that the fire would not 
 only take away the lives (em) of the Assyrians, but consume their bodies 
 
200 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 (ntts) — or with the Dutch Annotators, that the destruction would extend 
 both to men ('J3d) and to beasts ("1^2) — or with Musculus, that the progress 
 of the fatal stroke would be not ab extra but ab intra, which J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis regards as an exact description of the plague. — In the English Ver- 
 sion, the construction is continued from the preceding verse, as if r&ai and 
 the verbs of that verse had a common subject. But as those verbs were 
 feminine to agree with mnb, so this is masculine to agree with Jehovah, or 
 the Light of Israel, or the Angel of his Presence. Henderson restores the 
 Hebrew collocation, but makes it the subject of the verb consume. Lowth 
 and Barnes" more correctly supply he. This verb is rendered by a passive 
 or a neuter in the Vulgate, Luther, and Augusti, as if it were the Kal and 
 not the Piel. ■ The same construction is ascribed to the Peshito in the Latin 
 version of the London Polyglott ; but as the Syriac verb (^ L> i) has both an 
 active and a neuter sense, and as the rest of the clause is in exact accord- 
 ance with the Hebrew text, this translation does injustice to the faithfulness 
 and skill of that celebrated version. — Some of the recent versions render 
 mm so that it is (Ewald, LTmbreit), or so that he is (Hendewerk). Coc- 
 ceius makes t>03 the nominative before mn, Junius the nominative after it. 
 The most natural construction is to read with Hendewerk, he shall be (i. e. the 
 king of Assyria), or with the English Bible, they shall be (i. e. the Assyri- 
 ans collectively), or with Hitzig indefinitely, it shall be, i. e. the end, issue, 
 consequence, shall be, or the final state of things shall be. — The remaining 
 words of the verse have been very variously explained. Junius takes s as 
 a particle of time, which sense it often has before the infinitive : as (i. e. when) 
 he decays. All other writers seem to give it its usual comparative mean- 
 ing. Aben Ezra makes side a noun analogous in form to *vip*, in v. 16. 
 All other writers seem to make it the infinitive of &D^ to melt, dissolve, or 
 waste away, literally or figuratively, with fear, grief, or disease. — Jarchi 
 explains ooa as a cognate form to 00, and as being the name of a worm or 
 insect which corrodes wood — he shall be like the wasting of a wood-ivorm 
 — i. e. pulverized. The ancient versions make t)fi» the participle of CD3 
 (i. q. 5*13) to flee, and Junius reads the whole clause thus — and it shall be 
 (i. e. this shall come to pass) when the fugitive shall melt away (or be de- 
 stroyed) — i. e. when Sennacherib, fleeing from Judah, shall be murdered at 
 home. Cocceius explains oo'a to mean that which is lofty or eminent, and 
 takes it as the subject of mn — that which is lofty shall be like corruption or 
 decay. Kimchi derives the meaning of btjb from t>5, an ensign or standard 
 — like the fainting of an ensign, or as when a standard-bearer falls (the 
 soldiers fly). This is followed by Calvin, by the French, Dutch and Eng- 
 lish versions, by Vatablus, Piscator, Gataker, and Clericus (who explains 
 GD72 of the standard-bearer's heart failing him). To this it has been ob- 
 jected, that S3 never means a military standard, but a signal or a signal-pole* 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 201 
 
 and that no such effect as that supposed would necessarily follow from thi 
 flight or the fall of an ensign. The first of these objections applies also to 
 the very different interpretation of Tremellius — and he shall be a standard- 
 bearer (to the Assyrians) at the time of (their) decline. The most recent 
 writers are agreed in adopting the derivation of ocb proposed by Hezel and 
 Schelling, who compare it with the Syriac ooJ to be sick (whence the 
 adjective )™ -™i ). and explain the clause to mean it (or he) is (or shall be) 
 like the fainting (or wasting away) of a sick man. None of the ancient 
 versions give a literal translation of this clause. The Septuagint renders 
 both cb^ and ct>b by o qevyan', and adds ano yloyos xaiofitvtjg, upon which 
 Lowth does not hesitate to found a change of text. The Chaldee para- 
 phrase is, and he shall be broken and a fugitive — the Syriac, he shall be as 
 if he had not been — the Latin, erit terrore profugus. To these may be 
 added Luther's — he shall waste away and disappear — and Augusti's — 
 there shall remain a wasted body. This disposition to paraphrase the clause 
 instead of translating it, together with the various ways in which it is ex- 
 plained, may serve to show how difficult and doubtful it has seemed to all 
 interpreters, ancient and modern. The paronomasia in the original is not 
 very happily copied by Gesenius — wie einer hinschmachtet in Ohnmacht. 
 
 V. 19. And the rest (or remnant) of the trees of his forest shall be 
 few, and a child shall write them, i. e. make a list or catalogue, and by im- 
 plication number them. — The singular form of p? is retained in translation 
 by the Vulgate and Calvin (reliquiae ligni), and the sense of wood, though in 
 the plural, by Junius (reliqua ligna). His forest is omitted by Hendewerk, 
 changed to this forest by J. D. Michaelis, to the forest by Gesenius, and to 
 their forest by Clericus. The Septuagint substitutes an aviav, and the Tar- 
 gum an explanatory paraphrase, the rest of his men of ivar. — In the He- 
 brew idiom, number, when absolutely used, has an opposite meaning to its 
 usual sense in English and in Latin. By a number, we generally mean a 
 considerable number ; Horace says, nos numerus sumus, meaning, we are 
 many (numerous) ; but in Hebrew, men of number is a few men (Gen. 34 : 
 30. Deut. 4 : 27. 33 : 6). The idea seems to be that small amounts may 
 easily be reckoned, with some allusion, Rosenmiiller thinks, to the ancient 
 usage of weighing large and counting only small sums. Thus Cicero speaks 
 of treasures so vast ut jam appendantur -non numcrcntur pecuniae, and Ovid 
 says, of another kind of property, pauperis est numcrare pecus. The same 
 idiom exists in Arabic, the numbered days often mentioned in the Koran 
 being explained by the commentators to mean few. — The plural rn^ may 
 either agree with is'S as a collective, or with a plural understood — as for the 
 rest, they shall be few. So J. H. Michaelis and Rosenmiiller. In order to 
 remove the ambiguity, the words ibc - v-m are paraphrastically rendered by 
 
202 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 the Vulgate (prae paucitate numerabuntur), Luther, Vitringa, J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis, Evvald, Umbreit. The English Version and some others simply sub- 
 stitute for ^zs-q its peculiar idiomatic sense of few. — According to Rosen- 
 miiller, there is an allusion in the last clause to a child just beginning to 
 count, and as yet only able to reckon on its ringers, which he thinks will 
 account for the rabbinical tradition that a definite number (ten) is here pre- 
 dicted, and that just that number of Sennacherib's army did in fact escape. 
 Gill quotes another Jewish legend which reduces the number to five and 
 specifies the persons. The first of these traditions is explained by Jarchi as 
 involving an allusion to the letter yodh (the alphabetic representative of 10), 
 as the smallest and simplest of the Hebrew characters, so that a child who 
 was barely able to form this one would be competent to write down the 
 number of those who should escape the slaughter. According to Gataker 
 and Knobel, the idea is, that there would be no need of an inspector or a 
 muster-master, any child would be able to discharge the office. 
 
 V. 20. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day (that is, after 
 these events have taken place), that the remnant of Israel, and the escaped 
 of the house of Jacob, shall no longer add (i. e. continue) to lean upon their 
 smiter (him that smote them), but shall lean upon Jehovah, the Holy One 
 of Israel, in truth. There is here an allusion to the circumstances which 
 gave rise to this whole prophecy. Ahaz, renouncing his dependence upon 
 God, had sought the aid of Assyria, which secured his deliverance from pre- 
 sent danger, but subjected the kingdom to worse evils from the very power 
 to which they had resorted. But even these oppressions were to have an 
 end in the destruction of the hostile power ; and when this should take 
 place, Judah, now instructed by experience, would no longer trust in tyrants 
 but sincerely in Jehovah. Cocceius, Brentius, and Schmidius, refer this 
 promise to the times of Christ exclusively, because this is the usual applica- 
 tion of the phrase that day ; because reliance upon God in truth is a pecu- 
 liar promise of the new dispensation ; because Israel did continue to rely on 
 foreign aid, even after the decline of the Assyrian power ; and because vs. 
 22, 23, are referred by Paul (Rom. 9 : 27, 28) to the times of the New 
 Testament. But since this prophecy immediately follows and precedes pre- 
 dictions of the downfall of Assyria, and since that power seems distinctly 
 mentioned in the phrase Jin3E,it is not unreasonable to conclude, that in thai 
 day means after that event, and that the reference is not to a sudden and 
 immediate effect, but to a gradual result of the divine dispensations, so that 
 what is here predicted, though it began to be fulfilled from the time of that 
 catastrophe, did not receive its final consummation before Christ's appear- 
 ance. On this supposition, we are better able to explain the remnant of 
 Israel, as meaning not merely those left in Judah after the carrying away of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 203 
 
 the ten tribes — nor the Jews themselves who should outlive the Assyrian 
 
 oppressions, and to whom the same phrase is applied 2 Kings 19:4,31.21: 
 14 — nor merely the .lews who should return from the Babylonish exile, 
 and to whom it is applied Hagg. 1 : 2. Zech. 8: 6 — nor merely the spir- 
 itual Israel, the remnant according to the election of grace, Rom. 1 1 : 5 — 
 but all these at once, or rather in succession, should be taught the lesson of 
 exclusive reliance upon God, by his judgments on his enemies. — The verbal 
 form CpOV shall add (expressing continued or repeated action) is suppressed 
 not only in the English Version, but in many others, including the most recent. 
 It is retained in the ancient versions and by Calvin and Cocceius, and 
 accommodated to the idiom of other languages by Junius (pergat), Augusti 
 (fortfahren), Hendewerk (aufhoren). — The verb stay used in the English 
 Version to translate ■jStfa is equivocal, like peep in v. 14, because now em- 
 ployed chiefly in another sense. The idea expressed by the Hebrew word is 
 simply that of leaning for support. — Calvin renders the i at the beginning 
 of the last clause for, and Hitzig no ! Its true force may be best conveyed 
 in English by the simple adversative but. For the usage of the phrase 
 $KW BTttp, vide supra, ch. 1 : 9. By the phrase in truth, Cocceius under- 
 stands that the elect should trust in the reality, as distinguished from the 
 types and shadows of the old economy. The common and obvious inter- 
 pretation is, that they should trust God in sincerity, as opposed to a mere 
 hypocritical profession, and with constancy, as opposed to capricious vacil- 
 lation. 
 
 V. 21. A remnant shall return, a remnant of Jacob, to God Almighty. 
 There is an obvious allusion in these words to the name of the Prophet's 
 son Shear-jashub, mentioned in ch. 7 : 3. As the people were probably 
 familiar with this name, its introduction here would be the more significant. 
 The Targum expounds the remnant of Jacob to mean 'those who have not 
 sinned, or have turned from sin.' It really means those who should survive 
 God's judgments threatened in this prophecy, not merely the Assyrian inva- 
 sion or the Babylonish exile, but the whole series of remarkable events, by 
 which the history of the chosen people would be marked, including the 
 destruction and dispersion of the nation by the Romans. There is no need, 
 as Henderson supposes, of supplying the words and only in the text or in 
 translation. That idea, as Hitzig well observes, is suggested by the repetition. 
 The return here spoken of is one that was to take place at various times and 
 in various circumstances. Under the old dispensation, the prophecy was 
 verified in the conversion of idolatrous Jews to the worship of Jehovah, or of 
 wicked Jews to a godly life, by means of their afflictions — under the m 
 in the admission of believing Jews to the Christian church, and prospectively 
 in the general conversion of Israel to God, which is yet to be expected. 
 
c ^04 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 Grotius imagines that the return here mentioned is that of the Jews, whom 
 Sennacherib's invasion had assembled in Jerusalem, to their own homes ; 
 but this is directly contradicted by the words that follow, to the Mighty 
 God, which in that case would mean nothing. These words are understood 
 by Gesenius, Hitzig, and DeWette, here as in ch. 9 : 5, to mean mighty 
 hero. Hendewerk, Umbreit, and Knobel, with all the early writers, give 
 the words their proper sense. They shall return to Him who has thus 
 shown himself to be the Mighty God. Jarchi supposes a special allusion to 
 the slaughter of Sennacherib's army ; Clericus, to the impotence of idols, 
 from whose worship they would turn to that of the true God, the God truly 
 and exclusively omnipotent. The present form given to the verb turn by 
 the recent German writers, is less suited to so manifest a promise than the 
 proper future. — The definite article (the remnant), which is used in the 
 English Version and by Barnes, is less exact than the indefinite one 
 employed by Lowth and Henderson. 
 
 V. 22. The Prophet now explains his use of the word remnant, and 
 shows that the threatening which it involves is not inconsistent with the 
 ancient promises. For though thy people, oh Israel (or Jacob), shall be 
 like the sand of the sea (in multitude), only a remnant of them shall return. 
 A consumption is decreed, overflowing (with) righteousness. The first 
 clause is explained by Augusti, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette, Ewald, Um- 
 breit, as expressive only of a possible contingency (were thy people, or even 
 if thy people were) — by Luther, Gesenius, and Barnes, as referring to 
 their actual condition (though thy people be now numerous) — but more 
 correctly by Calvin, Cocceius, and Lowth, as relating to a certain event, 
 but one still future (though thy people shall be or is to be). There seems, 
 as Calvin says, to be allusion to the promises given to the Patriarchs (e. g. 
 Gen. 13: 16. 22: 17), and repeated by the Prophets (e. g. Hos. 2: 1), 
 the fulfilment of which might have seemed to be precluded by the threaten- 
 ing in v. 21 — to prevent which false conclusion, Isaiah here repeats the 
 threatening with the promise — ' though thy people shall indeed be numerous, 
 yet 'etc. This particle, supplied in the English Version, though unneces- 
 sary, does not " evidently obscure the sense " (Barnes), but makes it clearer 
 by rendering more prominent the apparent opposition between the threatening 
 and the promise. — Israelis taken in the Septuagintand English Version, and 
 by Henderson, as a nominative in apposition with thy people, God himself 
 being the object of address ; but the better and more usual construction 
 regards Israel as a vocative. The name may be understood as that of the 
 nation ; but there is more force in the language if we suppose (with Calvin) 
 an apostrophe to Israel or Jacob as the common ancestor, thus keeping up a 
 distinct allusion to the ancient promises. Thy people will then mean thy 
 
ISAIAH, CII A 1\ X. VO.'j 
 
 posterity — not the ten tribes exclusively, nor Judah exclusively, but the 
 whole race without distinction. — Like the sand of the sea does not 
 mean scattered and £spised, as Augusti strangely imagines, but innumera- 
 ble, as in every other ease where the comparison occurs (e. g. (Jen. 22: 17. 
 Ps. 139 : 18. Hos. 2: 1. cf. Gen. 13 : 16). Henderson explains is to him, 
 i. e. to God, as in Hos. 12:6; but it rather means Ml it, i. e. in thy people, as 
 we express proportion by saying ' one in ten.' It is retained by Cocceius (in 
 eo), Umbreit (darin), and Ewald (darunter) ; but in order to avoid the am- 
 biguity arising from a difference of idiom, the in may be exchanged for of 
 or from, as in the ancient versions and by most modern writers. Gesenius, 
 Hitzig, Hendewerk, and DeWette, use the present form returns, which is 
 not so natural in this connexion as the future given by Ewald, Umbreit, and 
 all the older writers. The return predicted is not merely that from the 
 Babylonish exile, but a return to God by true repentance and conversion, 
 as the only means of salvation — reliquiae convertentur (Vulgate). That a 
 remnant only should escape, implies of course a general destruction, which 
 is positively foretold in the last clause. Grotius and Clericus explain JV&a 
 to mean a reckoning, or a sum as determined by a reckoning, here applied 
 to the remnant of Israel as a small number, easily computed. This, accord- 
 ing to Clericus, is also the meaning of the Vulgate version, consummation 
 Forerius and Sanctius understand by it the remnant itself, as having been 
 almost consumed — DeDieu, a decree or determination — J. D. Michaelis, 
 the accomplishment or execution of a purpose — but the simple and true 
 meaning is consumption or destruction, as in Deut. 28 : 65. — Forerius 
 strangely understands "p">n to mean a harrow, or a threshing-machine, figura- 
 tively applied to the sufferings of the people.. Some explain it as an adjective, 
 meaning severe (Umbreit) or certain (Vatablus) — the Vulgate as a participle, 
 meaning shortened. Aben Ezra gives the true explanation of the word, as 
 a participle meaning decreed, determined (1 Kings 20 : 40). Henderson 
 supposes an allusion to the primary meaning of the verb (to cut, carve, or 
 engrave), implying permanence and immutability. Junius and Clericus 
 make this phrase dependent on 5)au5 as a transitive verbal form ; but it is 
 rather to be construed with the substantive verb understood — a consumption 
 is decreed — or as a subject with Cjiaaj as a predicate — the consumption 
 decreed (is) overflowing, i. e. overflows — a metaphor frequently applied to 
 invading armies (ch. 8 : 8. 28 : 15, 18. Dan. 11 : 20, 22) — so that there is 
 no need of attaching to C]ou5 the Chaldee sense of hastening, as proposed by 
 Clericus. He also makes it agree with the name of God, as Grotius does 
 with remnant ; but it really agrees with consumption. Righteousness, ac- 
 cording to DeDieu, here means goodness in general and mercy in particular. 
 Calvin and Grotius too explain it to mean piety or virtue ; but Vitringa 
 and others take it more correctly in its strict sense of retributive and puni- 
 
206 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 tive justice. A preposition is supplied before it by the Septuagint (fV dixctio- 
 ovvrt) and Umbreit (mit Gerechtigkeit), making it merely an attendant cir- 
 cumstance. Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, ^eWette, make it the 
 object of qatii considered as an active verb — floating righteousness in, i. e. 
 bringing it in like a flood. Ewald and others make the noun an adverbial 
 accusative — -flowing or overflowing (with) righteousness. The sense is 
 not that the remnant of Israel should be the means of flooding the world 
 with righteousness (Calvin), nor that they should be full of it themselves 
 (Grotius), but that the destruction of the great mass of the people would be 
 an event involving an abundant exhibition of God's justice. This clause is 
 therefore not, as DeDieu alleges, a direct promise of deliverance to the 
 elect, but a threatening of destruction to the reprobate. 
 
 V. 23. This verse contains a further explanation of the yv^n Ti^s. 
 For a consumption even (the one) determined, (is) the Lord, Jehovah 
 of Hosts, making (or about to make) in the midst of all the earth. — Au- 
 gusti makes ribs a verb (abgemessen ist), Vitringa a participle (consumma- 
 tum). Clericus takes it as a noun, but in the sense of sum or reckoning, 
 Lowth in that of full decree. Castalio has slaughter, which is too specific ; 
 Gesenius tvasting, which is not strong enough. Most writers follow the 
 ancient versions in translating it consumption or destruction. Castalio and 
 Umbreit make fixina an adjective, meaning cruel or severe. The Targum 
 seems to treat it as an adjective without a substantive, used as a noun, 
 synonymous with ribs. Cocceius, Junius, Gesenius, Ewald and others, give 
 it the sense of something decreed, a decree, a judgment. It may, however, 
 be more strictly understood as a- passive participle agreeing with fibs — a 
 consumption, even a decreed (consumption). — b's is omitted by the Targum, 
 Lowth and Barnes, and rendered all this by Junius and Piscator, so as to 
 give VW the restricted sense of land, which is the common explanation, 
 although Ewald has earth, like the Septuagint (omovpwq). This verse and 
 the one before it are quoted by Paul (Rom. 9 : 27, 28), to show that the 
 Jews, as such, were not the heirs of the promise, which was intended for the 
 remnant according to the election of grace. The words are quoted from the 
 Septuagint with a slight variation. The sense of the Greek is correctly 
 given in the English version* 
 
 V. 24. The logical connexion of this verse is not with that immedi- 
 ately preceding, but with v. 19. Having there declared the fate impending 
 over the Assyrian, the Prophet, as it were, turned aside to describe the effect of 
 their destruction on the remnant of Israel, and now, having done so, he resumes 
 the thread of his discourse, as if there had been no interruption. Therefore 
 (since this is soon to be the fate of the Assyrians) be not afraid, oh my 
 
ISAIAH, C II A I'- X. Wl 
 
 people inhabiting Zion, of Asshur (or the Assyrian). He shall smile thee 
 (it is true) with the rod, ami shall lift up his staff upon (or over) thee in 
 the way of Egypt. There is consequently DO need of departing from the 
 ordinary meaning of --'-, and rendering it but, as.Gesenius, Hitzig, Hender- 
 son and Unibreit do. — Instead of saith, Clericus and J. II. Michaelifl read 
 hath said in the past tense, which seems to make the verse the record of a 
 former revelation. — According to Aben Ezra and Kimchi, Zion is here put 
 simply for Jerusalem, and the address is to the population of that city, whe- 
 ther permanent or temporary, during Sennacherib's invasion. But as Zion was 
 the seat of the true religion, and the people of God are often said to inhabit 
 Zion, not in a local but a spiritual sense, most interpreters understand the 
 object of address to be Israel in general, while some restrict it to the pious 
 and believing Jews, the remnant of Israel, who were now to be consoled 
 and reassured amidst the judgments which were coming on the nation — TOfcg 
 is properly the name of the whole people, and denotes the Assyrians in the 
 strict sense, and not, as Cocceius suggests, the Syro-Grecian kings who suc- 
 ceeded Alexander, or the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, though the 
 terms of the consolation are so chosen as to be appropriate to other emer- 
 gencies than that by which they were immediately occasioned. — Gesenius, 
 Hitzig, DeWette, Hendewerk and Umbreit make M33? a description of the 
 past (he smote thee), which is wholly arbitrary, if not ungrammatical. 
 Evvald and Knobel translate it as a present, and supply a relative (who 
 smites thee). Henderson has he may smite thee, which appears to render it 
 too vague and dubious. By far the simplest and most natural construction 
 is that which gives the future form its strict sense (he shall smite thee), and 
 explains the clause as a concession of the fact, that Israel was indeed to 
 suffer at the hand of Assyria — q. d. true, he shall smite thee with the rod 
 etc. Aben Ezra supposes this to mean, that Assyria should smite them 
 only in design, i. e. try to smite them — others, that he should do no more 
 than smite them, he should smite but not kill, as a master treats his slave, 
 or a rider his beast. It seems more natural, however, to explain it in a 
 general way, as simply conceding that they should be smitten, the necessary 
 qualification or restriction being afterwards expressed. — Here, as in ch. 9 : 
 3, Vitringa understands by naa a yoke,* and by the whole phrase, he shall 
 lift up (and impose) his yoke upon thee. This does not materially change 
 the sense, but makes a distinction between the parallel expressions which, 
 to say the least, is needless and gratuitous. The best interpretation is the 
 common one, which takes rod and staff as equivalent figures for oppression. 
 — The last words, in the way of Egypt, are ambiguous, and admit of two 
 distinct interpretations. Some early writers, quoted by Calvin, make the 
 phrase to mean, on the way to (or from) Egypt, in allusion to the fact, that 
 Sennacherib attacked Judea in the course of an expedition against Egypt. 
 
208 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 This view of the passage is adopted by Jerome, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis 
 and Augusti, and has much to recommend it, as it seems to adhere to the 
 literal import of the terms, and introduces a striking coincidence of prophecy 
 with history. The principal objection is derived from the analogy of v. 26. 
 The weight of exegetical authority preponderates in favour of a figurative 
 exposition, making in the way synonymous with in the manner, after the 
 example as in Amos 4: 10. The sense will then be this : ' Assyria shall 
 oppress thee as Egypt did before.' — An entirely different construction of this 
 whole clause is that given by Junius and Tremellius, who make God him- 
 self the subject of the verbs Sissn and K$\ He shall smite thee with the 
 rod (i. e. with the Assyrian, so called in v. 5), but his staff he will lift up for 
 thee (i. e. for thy deliverance) as he did in Egypt (when the Red Sea was 
 divided by the rod of Moses). This construction, though ingenious, is to be 
 rejected, on the ground that it supposes an antithesis and changes and to 
 but without necessity, refers the rod and staff to different subjects, although 
 both are applied to the Assyrian in v. 5, and gives the preposition bs the 
 sense of for or in behalf of which it cannot naturally have in this connex- 
 ion, especially when following the verb H^p* 
 
 V. 25. This verse assigns a reason for the exhortation not to fear in v. 
 24. For yet a very little, and wrath is at an end, and my anger (shall go 
 forth or tend) to their destruction, i. e. the destruction of the enemy. In- 
 terpreters are not agreed upon the question whether the first clause has 
 reference to that destruction also, or to the restoration of God's people to 
 his favour. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, Clericus, J. H. Michaelis, Augusti, 
 Rosenmuller, Hitzig and Hendewerk, refer both HPt and ^bx to God's displea- 
 sure with Assyria, and this seems to be the sense designed to be conveyed 
 by the English Version, ri^3 will then mean to exhaust or sate itself. But 
 Jarchi, Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Maurer, 
 Barnes, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, refer D?t to God's anger against 
 Israel, and ^QH to his wrath against Assyria. < For yet a very little, and 
 the indignation, which has caused these sufferings to my people, shall be 
 ended, and my wrath shall turn to the destruction of their enemies.' The 
 only objection to this exposition is that it supposes an ellipsis of some verb 
 in the last clause, and in that respect is not so simple as the other, which 
 construes both the nouns with nbs. In favour of it may be urged, not only 
 the authorities already cited, but the fact that it makes the connexion with 
 the foregoing verse much more natural and easy — that it gives n^3 its usual 
 sense of being terminated, coming to an end — and o?t its appropriated sense 
 of God's displeasure with his own people. (Vide supra, v. 5. also ch. 30 : 
 27. 28 : 20. Dan. 8 : 19). The preterite form of n^3 is beautifully expres- 
 sive of the change as already past in the view of the Prophet. This effect 
 
ISAJAH, CHAP. X. 209 
 
 is greatly weakened l>y a substitution of the future (shall cease) for the past 
 (has ceased already). For DrV&an (from hta) some MSS. read ervban from 
 ribs, and Luzzatto er* Vzr (my wrath against the world shall cease). 
 
 V. 26. The suddenness and completeness of the ruin threatened are ex- 
 pressed by a comparison with two remarkable events in sacred history, the 
 slaughter of the Midianites by Gideon, and the overthrow of Pharaoh in the 
 Red Sea. And Jehovah of Hosts shall raise up against him (the Assyrian) 
 a scourge (or instrument of vengeance) like the smiting of Midian at the 
 rock Orch, and his rod (Jehovah's) shall again be over the. sea, and he shall 
 lift it up (again) as he did in Egypt (literally, in the way of Egypt, as in 
 v. 24). — The rock Oreb is particularly mentioned because one of the Midi- 
 anitish princes, who had escaped from the field of battle, was there slain by 
 Gideon ; and so Sennacherib, although he should survive the slaughter of 
 his host, was to be slain at home (ch. 37 : 38). — In the last clause there is 
 a beautiful allusion to v. 24. As the Assyrians lifted up the rod over Israel 
 in the manner of Egypt, so God would lift up the rod over them in the 
 manner of Egypt. As they were like the Egyptians in their sin, so should 
 they now be like them in their punishment. — According to the Rabbins --r 
 is something more than End, as flagellum is distinguished from scutica by 
 Horace. They had lifted a rod over Israel, but God would raise up a 
 scourge against them. — The construction of the last clause in the English Bi- 
 ble — and (as) his rod was upon the sea, (so) shall he lift it up etc. — 
 puts an arbitrary meaning on the particles. According to the first con- 
 struction given, his rod (shall be again) upon the sea is a poetical expres- 
 sion for 'his power shall again be miraculously displayed.' — Cocceius refers 
 the suffix in W1»B to "Atftt, by which he understands the Syro-Grecian kings, 
 and especially Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Cyprus and made an at- 
 tempt upon Egypt, but was driven back by the Romans. Hence he reads 
 — and his (the Assyrian's) rod shall be over the sea, and he shall lift it up 
 (or one shall take it away from him) in the ivay to Egypt. 
 
 V. 27. And it shall be (happen or come to pass) in that day (when 
 this prediction is fulfilled) that his burden (the burden imposed by him, the 
 heavy load of Assyrian oppression, perhaps with special reference to the 
 tribute imposed upon Hezekiah) shall depart (be removed) from thy shoul- 
 der, and his yoke (a poetical equivalent to burden) from thy neck 
 (oh Israel !) and the yoke (itself) shall be destroyed (or broken off) because 
 of (literally, from the face of) oil (or fatness or anointing). The only diffi- 
 culty lies in the concluding words, which have been variously understood. 
 Some have attempted to remove the difficulty by a change of text. Thus 
 Lowth reads CD^astt) on the authority of the Septuagint (anb rav wftcor) — 
 
 14 
 
210 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 Seeker "^^J "ttSS on account of my name, or *}«$ *»Mfl3 % the sons of oil — J. 
 D. Michaelis (for ^sn) brin the band of the yoke. Of those who retain the 
 common text, some take jvti in its usual sense of oil, and suppose an allu- 
 sion to the softening of the yoke with oil, or to its preservation by it. 
 ' Whereas yokes are commonly preserved by oil, this on the contrary shall 
 be destroyed by it' (Kocher). But in this interpretation, the explanatory 
 fact is arbitrarily assumed. Others take yy& in the sense of fat or fatness 3 
 and suppose an allusion to the rejection of the yoke by a fat bullock, Deut. 
 32 : 15. Hos. 4 : 16. 10 : 11 (Gesenius), or to the bursting of the yoke by the 
 increasing fatness of the bullock's neck (Hitzig, Hendewerk),or to the wear- 
 ing away of the yoke by the neck, instead of the neck by the yoke (Kimchi). 
 Of those who give this sense to yjfe t some give to "'as its strict sense, face. 
 Thus Doederlein — the yoke shall be destroyed from off the fat-faced, i. e. 
 prosperous. Others read the yoke shall be destroyed by the fatness (i. e. the ex- 
 cessive wealth and prosperity of the Assyrian empire) — or before the increasing 
 prosperity of Judah. Knobel supposes the face of the bullock to be meant 
 (compare Job 41 : 6), and with J. D. Michaelis reading ^n, understands 
 the verse as meaning that the yoke shall first slip from the shoulder of the 
 animal, then from its neck, and lastly from its fat face or head. Jerome 
 and Vitringa understand by "jwfl the unction of the Holy Ghost, as a Spirit 
 of grace and supplications, with allusion to the influence of Hezekiah's 
 prayers. Grotius and Dathe follow Jarchi and Kimchi in explaining *psa3 as 
 an abstract used for a concrete, anointing for anointed one, which they 
 apply to Hezekiah. The Targum gives the same construction, but applies 
 the word to the Messiah, in which it is followed by Calvin and Henderson. 
 The general meaning of the verse is plain, as a prediction of deliverance 
 from Assyrian bondage. 
 
 V. 28. From the time of the Assyrian's overthrow the Prophet now re- 
 verts to that of his invasion, which he describes in the most vivid manner 
 by rapidly enumerating the main points of his march from the frontier of Ju- 
 dah to the gates of Jerusalem. From the geographical minuteness and pre- 
 cision of this passage, Eichhorn and Hitzig have inferred that it was written 
 after the event, because Isaiah could not know what route Sennacherib 
 would take. Ewald supposes the description to be drawn from what had 
 actually taken place in former cases, i. e. from the route of the Assyrians on 
 previous occasions, but applied to an event still future. Gesenius and Hen- 
 dewerk regard the description as ideal and intended to express, in a poetical 
 manner, the quarter from which the invasion was to come and its general 
 direction, by rapidly enumerating certain places as the points through which 
 it was to pass. The same position is maintained in Robinson's Researches 
 (vol. 2. p. 149), on the ground that the road here traced could never have 
 
ISA I A II, CHAT. X. 211 
 
 been commonly used, because impracticable from tlie nature of the ground. 
 If passable at all, however, it may well have been adopted in a case of bold 
 invasion, where surprise was a main object. The difficulties of the route in 
 question must be slight compared with those by which Hannibal and Na- 
 poleon crossed the Alps. It is therefore not impossible nor even improba- 
 ble, that Isaiah intended to delineate the actual course taken by Sennach- 
 erib. At the same time this is not a necessary supposition, since we may 
 conceive the Prophet standing in vision on the walls of Jerusalem, and look- 
 ing towards the quarter from which the invasion was to come, enumerating 
 certain intervening points, without intending to predict that he would really 
 pass through them. In this case, the more difficult the route described, the 
 better suited would it be to express the idea that the enemy would come in 
 spite of all opposing obstacles. J. D. Michaelis supposes the invasion here 
 described to be that of Nebuchadnezzar — partly because that supposition, 
 as he thinks, makes the connexion between this and the next chapter clearer 
 and more natural — partly because the Babylonian army did pursue this 
 course, whereas Sennacherib came against Jerusalem from the south 
 (Isai. 36 : 2). That there is no weight in the former argument, will be 
 shown in the proper place. That there is little in the other, will appear 
 from the consideration, that the history contains no account of Sennacherib's 
 own march upon the city, but only of Rabshakeh's embassy from Lachish, 
 and it is expressly said that when that officer rejoined his master, he had 
 already advanced further to the north. It is easy to imagine, therefore, that 
 he may have chosen a circuitous and difficult approach, in order to take the 
 city by surprise. Besides the inconclusiveness of these objections to the old 
 interpretation, that of J. D. Michaelis is exposed to very serious objections ; 
 for example, that the foregoing context has relation to Assyria, without any 
 intimation of a change of subject ; that there is no hint of the city's being 
 taken, much less destroyed ; that the description in the text is not one of a 
 deliberate, protracted occupation, but of a rapid and transient incursion ; that 
 the march is immediately followed by a great reverse and sudden overthrow, 
 whereas Nebuchadnezzar was entirely successful. On these and other 
 grounds, the passage is applied by most interpreters to the Assyrians, al- 
 though some suppose Sennacherib's personal approach to be described, and 
 others that of his representative (Junius, Robinson etc.). — The places here 
 enumerated seem to have belonged chiefly or wholly to the tribes of Benjamin 
 and Judah. Some of them are still in existence, and the site of several has 
 been recently determined by the personal observations and inquiries of Rob- 
 inson and Smith. The catalogue begins at the frontier of the kingdom of 
 Judah, and, as J. D. Michaelis suggests, at the first place conquered by the 
 Israelites on taking possession of the land. The language is precisely that 
 of an eye-witness describing at the moment what he actually sees. He is 
 
212 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 come to Aiath — he is passed to Migron — to Michmash he intrusts his 
 baggage. Although the form Aiath nowhere else occurs, it is commonly 
 supposed to be the same with Ai, the ancient royal city of the Canaanites, 
 destroyed by Joshua (Josh. 8 : 1), and afterwards rebuilt (Ezra 2 : 28. Neh. 
 8 : 32). It is unnecessary, therefore, to suppose that the name here denotes 
 the spot or the region in which Ai once stood, as explained by Junius (Haj- 
 anam regionem versus). The ancient Ai was situated on a height to the 
 north-east of Jerusalem. Eusebius describes it as in ruins when he wrote, 
 and Jerome says its remains were scarcely visible in his day. Accord- 
 ing to Robinson, its site is probably still marked by certain ruins, south of 
 Deir Diwan, an hour from Bethel. — The present form, he passes, represents 
 the thing as actually taking place ; the preterite, he has passed, implies that 
 he has scarcely reached a place before he leaves it, and is therefore more 
 expressive of his rapid movements. Either is better than the future form 
 adopted by the ancient versions. According to J. D. "Michaelis, he passes 
 by Migron without entering — according to others, he passes to Migron from 
 Ai — according to Gesenius and the other recent versions, he passes through 
 Migron, as the second landmark on the route of the invaders. The precise 
 situation of this place is now unknown, as it is mentioned only here and in 
 1 Sam. 14 : 2, from which text it would seem to have been near to Gibeah. 
 — Michmash is still in existence under the almost unchanged name of Mukh- 
 mas, to the north-east of Jeba, on the slope of a steep valley. The place 
 is now desolate, but exhibits signs of former strength, foundations of hewn 
 stone and prostrate columns. Some give to "PRB? here its secondary sense 
 of depositing his baggage, stores, etc. (called in old English, carriages), 
 i. e. merely while he halted (Barnes), or leaving them behind to expedite his 
 march (Grotius), or because not needed for the taking of Jerusalem (Je- 
 rome), or on account of the difficult passage mentioned in the next verse 
 (Hendewerk). 
 
 V. 29. They have passed the pass, a narrow passage between Mich- 
 mash and Geba (I Sam. 13 : 3, 5 etc.), a spot no doubt easily maintained 
 against an enemy. Their passing it implies that they met with no resist- 
 ance, or had overcome it, and that there was now little or nothing to impede 
 their march. In Geba they have taken up their lodging (literally, lodged 
 a lodging). Geba appears from 1 Kings 15 : 22 to have been on or near 
 the line between Benjamin and Judah. There is a small village now called 
 Jeba, half in ruins, with large hewn stones and the remains of a square 
 tower, on the opposite side of the valley from the ancient Michmash. This 
 place Robinson and Smith supposed at first to be Geba, but afterwards 
 concluded that it must be Gibeah of Saul, and that the site of Geba must 
 be further down, where they heard of ruins, but had not time to explore 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 213 
 
 (vol. 2. pp. 114, 115). Knobel alleges that Geba and Gibeah of Saul were 
 one and the same place, and adopts the Vulgate version of the phrase y'r: 
 ^b (Gaba sedes nostra), which is also retained by Barnes (Geba is a 
 lodging- place for us). This supposes the Assyrians to be suddenly intro- 
 duced as speaking, to avoid which abrupt change of construction, Lowth, 
 Doederlein, and Dalhe, adopt the reading of the Targum, "isb for b^. Most 
 interpreters, however, follow A ben Ezra in explaining wb as a verb from 
 "jib. The construction of the verb with its derivative noun is analogous to 
 that of dreaming a dream, and other like expressions. The form of the ori- 
 ginal is imitated by Junius and Tremellius (in diversorium diverterunt). 
 This construction of *b\ as a verb is favoured by the parallelism, maitta YH9 
 being a similar combination of a noun with its verbal root. — Thus far he has 
 described what the Assyrians themselves do — they cross the line at Ajath — 
 pass through Migron — leave their baggage at Michmash — lodge at Geba. 
 Now he describes what the places themselves do — Ramah trembles — Gibeah 
 of Saul flees. Ramah was a city of Benjamin, near Gibeah, but further 
 from Jerusalem. It is still in existence as Er-ram, which is the masculine 
 form of the one here used, with the Arabic article prefixed. It is about half 
 a mile nearly due west of Jeba, but hidden from it by intervening heights 
 (Robinson, vol. 2. pp. 108 — 114). It is two hours north of Jerusalem, on 
 the eastern side of the road to Nablus. Eusebius and Jerome describe it as 
 a small village, six Roman miles from Jerusalem. The identity of this 
 place with the ancient Ramah was long lost sight of, but has been clearly 
 ascertained by Smith and Robinson. Ramah trembles (or is afraid) at the 
 enemy's approach, a strong and beautiful personification, or the place may 
 be simply put for its inhabitants, as in the Targum. The trembling and 
 flight of these towns is naturally represented as occurring while the enemy 
 was resting at Geba. It may imply either that Ramah was not in the 
 direct line of the march, but within sight and hearing of it, or on the con- 
 trary, that it was the next place to be reached, and trembling in apprehen- 
 sion of it. A still stronger metaphor is used as to the next place. Gibeah 
 of Saul — so called because it was his birth-place and residence, and to dis- 
 tinguish it from others of the same name — is fled. There is here a rapid 
 but marked climax. While Ramah trembles, Gibeah flees. 
 
 V. 30. To terror and flight he now adds an audible expression of dis- 
 tress, representing one place as crying, another as listening, and according 
 to some writers, a third as responding. At the same time he exchanges the 
 language of description for that of direct personal address. Cry aloud daugh- 
 ter Gallim (or daughter of Gallim), hearken Laishah, ah poor Anathoth ! 
 The site of Gallim is no longer known, but it was no doubt somewhere in the 
 neighbourhood of Gibeah. The personification is made more distinct by the 
 
214 ISAIAH. CHAP. X. 
 
 use of the word daughter, whether employed simply for that purpose and ap- 
 plied to the town itself, as explained by J. D. Michaelis (Stadt Gallim) and 
 Rosen muller (oppidum Gallim), with or without allusion to its beauty (Barnes) 
 — or, as in many other cases, to the population, as an individual. The Targum 
 and Augusti read the name Bath-gattim. Grotius and others render nrt *&tffpft 
 cause it (thy voice) to be heard to Laish (with n directive), i. e. to the north- 
 ern extremity of the country, where stood the town of Dan, anciently called 
 Laish, and often coupled with Beersheba to express the whole extent of 
 Canaan — or to Laish, a town near the others here mentioned, but no longer 
 in existence. Others suppose the name to be Laishah, and govern it di- 
 rectly by the verb — cause Laishah to hear — but tf*6p1 always means to 
 listen. Luther, Lowth, Augusti, Henderson and Umbreit, suppose an apos- 
 trophe to Laishah itself — hearken oh Laishah ! Cocceius, Vitringa, Mau- 
 rer, and DeWette : hearken to (or towards) Laish, which is then supposed 
 to be crying itself, and the call to listen is addressed to Gallim or the 
 next place mentioned, which implies a close proximity. Anathoth, now 
 Anata, a sacerdotal city of Benjamin, built upon a broad ridge, an hour and 
 a quarter from Jerusalem. Ecclesiastical tradition has assigned another site 
 to Anathoth, between Jerusalem and Ramleh ; but the true site has been 
 clearly ascertained and fixed by Robinson and Smith (vol. 2. p. 109). There 
 are still remains of an ancient wall of hewn stone, old foundations, and frag- 
 ments of columns. It commands an extensive view, and from it the travel- 
 lers just mentioned beheld several of the places here enumerated. Lowth 
 and Ewald take sr^s as a verb with a suffix, Hendewerk or a verb with a 
 paragogic letter, meaning answer or answer her, oh Anathoth ! Lowth sup- 
 poses t an allusion to the primary meaning of the name, viz. answers, i. e. 
 echoes or reverberations from the hills by which the city was surrounded. 
 Hitzig takes KW as a proper name with ft*2i left out or understood before it, 
 of which ellipsis there are several examples, and denoting Bethany, now 
 called Elaziriy ah (or the town of Lazarus) and situated on the eastern de- 
 clivity of the Mount of Olives. (See Robinson's Palestine, vol. 2. p. 101.) 
 But the majority of writers, old and new, make H*$*, as in other places 
 where it occurs, the feminine of ^,poor, afflicted, miserable, and descriptive, 
 not of its ordinary state, as a poor mean village, but of the Prophet's sym- 
 pathy in view of the danger with which Anathoth was threatened. The 
 introduction of the epithet in this case only may perhaps be ascribed to a 
 designed paronomasia between the cognate forms fpss and rvir52. The posi- 
 tion of the adjective, though certainly unusual, is not unparalleled, there 
 being instances enough to justify its explanation as a case of emphatic in- 
 version. These two words are construed as an independent clause by Doe- 
 derlein (misera est Anathoth), which Gesenius thinks admissible, although 
 he prefers the vocative construction of the Vulgate (paupercula Anathoth!). 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 215 
 
 V. 31. Madmenah wanders (or removes from her place), the inhabitants 
 of Gebim flee (or cause to flee i. e. carry off their goods). These places are 
 no longer in existence, nor are they mentioned elsewhere. The Madmen 
 spoken of by Jeremiah (48: 2), was a town of Moab, and Madmannah 
 (Josh. 15: 21) was too far south. In this verse, for the first time, the in- 
 habitants are expressly mentioned and distinguished from the place itself. 
 But Hiller (in his Onomasticon) makes *%Q* a part of the proper name 
 (Joshcbehaggebim), and Jerome, on the contrary, makes Q^aa an appellative 
 (inhabitants of the hills). — The Vulgate renders sirrn by confortamini, 
 deriving it apparently from tts, and a similar version is given in the Peshito. 
 The English Version , gather themselves to flee, is substantially the same 
 with that of Calvin and Junius. According to Vitringa, it means to flee 
 with violence and haste. Gesenius, in his Commentary, gives it the simple 
 sense of fleeing ; but in the second edition of his German Version, and in 
 his Thesaurus, he explains it as a causative, in which he is followed by Hit- 
 zig, Maurer, and Knobel. 
 
 V. 32. This verse conducts him to the last stage of his progress, to a 
 point so near the Holy City that he may defy it thence. Yet to-day in i\o& 
 (he is) to stand (and there) will he shake his hand (a gesture of menace 
 and defiance) against the mountain of the house (or daughter) of Zion (i. e. 
 Mount Zion itself), the hill of Jerusalem. — Nob was a sacerdotal city of 
 Benjamin near Anathoth (Neh. 11 : 32), and according to the Talmud 
 and Jerome, within sight of Jerusalem. Robinson and Smith explored the 
 rid^e of Olivet for traces of this town, but without success. The Nob here 
 mentioned is no doubt the same that Saul destroyed, although there was 
 another in the plain towards Lydda, which Jerome seems to identify with 
 this. — The first clause has been variously explained, according to the sense 
 put upon "rc2 as signifying rest or arrival, and upon ffNrj as an indefinite 
 expression for a day, or a specific one for this day or to-day. Joseph Kim- 
 chi, J. D. Michaelis, and Rosenmuller, understand the clause to mean that 
 yet to-day (but no longer, it will be safe for the inhabitants) to stay in Nob. 
 Maurer and Henderson explain it to mean yet a day (or one day longer, he 
 is) to remain in Nob. Of these and other constructions which have been 
 proposed, the best is that which makes the clause mean that to-day (before 
 to-morrow) he shall stand (i. e. arrive) in Nob — or that which makes it 
 mean yet this day (he is) to stand (i. e. rest) in Nob (before commencing 
 his attack). This last, which is given by the latest writers, is supposed to 
 be most in accordance with the usage of the Hebrew verb. — According to the 
 common explanation of the phrase Y&1 rz as meaning Jerusalem itself (vide 
 supra, ch. 1:8), the mountain of the daughter of Zion coincides exactly 
 with the parallel phrase, hill of Jerusalem. The kethib |V»s n^a can only 
 
216 ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 
 
 mean the temple, taking Zion in the widest sense as meaning the whole 
 eminence on which Jerusalem was built. This reading is sustained by none 
 of the ancient versions but the Targum, and although nvn rrn yn is no un- 
 usual combination, the phrase jv«at mn V does not occur elsewhere. — In this 
 verse the Targum introduces a description of Sennacherib's army, and a 
 soliloquy of Sennacherib himself, neither of which has the slightest foundation 
 in the original. 
 
 V. 33. To the triumphant march and proud defiance now succeeds 
 abruptly the tremendous downfall of the enemy himself, in describing 
 which the Prophet resumes the figure dropped at v. 19, and represents the 
 catastrophe as the sudden and violent prostration of a forest. Behold, the 
 Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, (is) lopping (or about to lop) the branch (of this 
 great tree) with terror (or tremendous violence), and the (trees) high of 
 stature (shall be) felled, and the lofty ones brought low. According to 
 Knobel, the excision of the ornamental crown or head-dress of the tree is 
 mentioned first, because the destroying power is to be conceived as darting 
 down from heaven like a thunderbolt, not creeping upwards from the earth, 
 like the spreading fire in v. 17, and in the same verse of the foregoing chapter. 
 Jerome applies these two last verses to the death of Christ, and the conse- 
 quent downfall of the Jewish state ; Calvin, Cocceius, and J. D. Michaelis, 
 to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But these interpre- 
 tations, although recommended by a seeming coherence with the following- 
 chapter, are at variance with the foregoing context, where Sennacherib's 
 invasion is described, and with the scope of the whole passage, which is to 
 console the Jews in view r of that event. — iisn, when followed by an active par- 
 ticiple, commonly indicates a proximate futurity, at least with respect to the 
 perceptions of the writer. — According to Kimchi, the divine names introduced 
 imply that Sennacherib had hitherto supposed himself to be without a mas- 
 ter, but was now to learn his error. — Hendewerk supplies appears before 
 S]30a ; but it is simpler and therefore better to supply the present of the 
 verb to be. — rnaa (from inb to adorn) means an ornamental branch, or the 
 branches considered as the beauty of the tree. — ns'isa properly means 
 terror, and in this case sudden and terrific violence. It is more vigor- 
 ously rendered by Henderson (a tremendous blow), and Lowth (a dread- 
 ful crash). The a denotes not so much the manner as the means, not 
 only violently, but by violence. Lofty of stature is not to be applied to 
 men directly, as descriptive either of their pride or their appearance, but to 
 trees, as representing the Assyrians in general or their chief men in particu- 
 lar. For the same cause, dtiaa should not be rendered haughty, an epithet 
 which cannot be applied to trees, but high or lofty. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X. 217 
 
 V. 34. And he (Jehoyah) skill cut down (or away) the thickets of the 
 forest (the Assyrian army) with iron, (i.e. with an instrument of iron, as 
 an axe), and this Lebanon (this wooded mountain, this enormous forest, 
 still referring to the host of the Assyrians) with (or by) a mighty one. It 
 it is clear that the iron of this verse and the fire of v. 17 denote one and 
 the same thing, both implying that the forest was to perish, not by slow 
 decay, but by sudden violence, which shows the absurdity of giving a spe- 
 cific sense to all the particulars in such a picture. Thus the thickets are 
 probably mentioned only to complete the picture of a forest totally destroyed, 
 though Kimchi understands this as an emblem of Sennacherib's counsellors, 
 by whose devices he had been entangled, while Grotius, Vitringa, and 
 others, make it signify the common soldiers, as distinguished from the chiefs, 
 before described as trees, and Hitzig applies it to the whole mixed multi- 
 tude of the Assyrians. The general figure of a forest is made more specific 
 by referring to Lebanon, a mountain celebrated for its woods. Ezekiel 
 represents Sennacherib himself as a cedar of Lebanon (Ezek. 31 : 3). The 
 name is not here put for the land of Israel, of which Mount Lebanon was 
 the northern boundary, nor for Jerusalem or the temple, in allusion to the 
 cedar-wood employed in their construction. — Calvin and others understand 
 "nnxa as an adverbial phrase, meaning mightily or violently ; but most 
 interpreters explain it to mean by a mighty one. This is applied by Gese- 
 nius and Maurer to God himself — by Cocceius, Schmidius, Alting and J. D. 
 Michaelisj to Nebuchadnezzar — by Grotius, to the son of Sennacherib who 
 slew him — by several of the Rabbins to the destroying angel — by Rosen- 
 muller and Hitzig to the Messiah — by Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis to the 
 Messiah and the angel considered as identical. To these interpretations 
 may be added, as a mere suggestion, that 'WMJ is possibly an epithet descrip- 
 tive of bpa in the preceding clause — and he shall cut down the thickets of 
 the forest ivith iron (i. e. with the axe), and this Lebanon shall fall by a 
 mighty one (i. e. by a mighty axe). This would be perfectly in keeping 
 with the figurative cast of the whole sentence, while at the same time it 
 would leave the application of the terms as open as it can be upon any 
 other supposition. — r^3 is taken as a passive form by Luther, J. D. Michae- 
 lis, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette, Ewald. Its agreement with the plural 
 ■;2D may in that case either be resolved into a common license of Hebrew 
 syntax, or explained by supposing the agreement to be really with -15?. It 
 is best, however, to take c^a as a Piel of less usual form (Nordheimer 
 <§> 238) governing ^0 and indefinitely construed (one shall cut), or agree- 
 ing with Jehovah understood. 
 
218 ISAIAH. CHAP. XI. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 This chapter is occupied with promises of restoration and deliverance, 
 external safety and internal peace, to God's own people, as contrasted with 
 the ruin previously threatened to their enemies. Borrowing his imagery 
 from the fall of the Assyrian forest, just before predicted, the Prophet repre- 
 sents a shoot as springing from the prostrate trunk of Jesse, or rather from 
 his roots, and invested by the Spirit of Jehovah with all the necessary 
 attributes of a righteous judge and ruler, vs. 1-4. The pacific effect of the 
 Messiah's reign is then described by the beautiful figure of wild and domestic 
 animals dwelling and feeding together, and of children unhurt by the most 
 venomous reptiles ; to which is added an express prediction that all mutual 
 injuries shall cease in consequence of the universal prevalence of the know- 
 ledge of Jehovah, vs. 5-9. To these figures borrowed from the animal 
 creation, the Prophet now adds others from the history of Israel, but in- 
 tended to express the same idea. The Messiah is here represented as a 
 signal set up to the nations, gathering the outcasts of his people from all 
 quarters, and uniting them again into one undivided body, free from all 
 sectional and party animosities, vs. 10-13. Under figures of the same kind, 
 the triumph of the church is then represented as a conquest over the old 
 enemies of Israel, especially those nearest to the Holy Land ; while the 
 interposition of God's power to effect this and the preceding promises is 
 vividly described as a division of the Red Sea and Euphrates, and a deliver- 
 ance from Egypt and Assyria, vs. 14-16. 
 
 The evidently figurative character of some parts of this chapter seems to 
 furnish a sufficient key to the interpretation of those parts which in them- 
 selves would be more doubtful.' 
 
 V. 1. The figure of the preceding verse is continued but applied to a 
 new subject, the downfall of the house of David and the Jewish state, 
 which is contrasted with the downfall of Assyria. The Assyrian forest was 
 to fall forever, but that of Judah was to sprout again. And there shall 
 come forth a twig (or shoot) from the stock (or stump) of Jesse, and a 
 branch from his roots shall grow. According to Aben Ezra, Hendewerk 
 and others, this refers to Hezekiah exclusively, and according to Grotius as 
 a type of Christ. But Hezekiah was already born, and the house from 
 which he sprang was not in the condition here described. Others refer it 
 to Zerubbabel, and others to the Maccabees, who were not even descend- 
 ants of Jesse. The Targum explicitly applies it to the Messiah (ss^e 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 219 
 
 MTOft). Eichhorn, Bauer, Rosenmiillc -r, Gesenius, DeWettc, Hitzig, Ewald, 
 a No apply it to an ideal Messiah whom Isaiah looked for. The modern 
 Jews of course suppose it to be yet unfulfilled. The only application of 
 the passage that can be sustained is that to Jesus Christ, who sprang from 
 the family of Jesse when reduced to its lowest estate, and to whom alone 
 the subsequent description is literally applicable. Abarbenel objects that 
 Christ was not a descendant of Jesse unless he was really the son of 
 Joseph. But even if Mary had been of another tribe, her marriage would 
 entitle her offspring to be reckoned as a Son of David ; much more when 
 she herself was of the same lineage. It is enough to know, however, that 
 the fact of Christ's descent from David is not only repeatedly affirmed, but 
 constantly presupposed in the New Testament, as a fact too notorious to be 
 called in question or to call for proof. — *ta is not the seed (Aben Ezra) nor 
 the root (Septuagint) nor even the trunk or whole stem of a tree (Gesenius, 
 Hitzig, Hendewerk), but the stump or part remaining above ground when 
 the tree is felled, as translated by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion 
 (y.onuov), and explained by Kimchi (nfo ir t»d ]V ifaSO vv). Together 
 with the parallel term roots, it is an emblem not of mere descent or deriva- 
 tion, as alleged by Hitzig and Hendewerk, but of derivation from a reduced 
 and almost extinct family, as explained by Calvin, Cocceius, Vitringa, Heng- 
 stenberg, Ewald and Umbreit. Jesse is supposed by Hitzig and Hende- 
 werk to be named instead of David for the purpose of excluding the latter, 
 or of intimating a correlative descent from the same ancestor. According 
 to Kimchi, he is named as the last progenitor before the family attained to 
 royal rank ; according to Umbreit, simply to indicate the antiquity of the 
 house. Vitringa's explanation is more probable, viz. because Jesse resided 
 at Bethlehem where Christ was to be born, and because the family is here 
 considered as reduced to the same obscure condition in which Jesse lived, 
 as contrasted with that to which David was exalted, and which the mention 
 of the latter would naturally have recalled to mind. This last reason is 
 also given by Calvin and Hengstenberg. 
 
 V. 2. The person, whose origin and descent are metaphorically de- 
 scribed in the preceding verse, is here described by his personal qualities, 
 as one endowed with the highest intellectual and moral gifts by the direct 
 influences of the Holy Spirit. And upon him shall rest the Spirit of Jeho- 
 vah, a Spirit of wisdom and understanding, a Spirit of counsel and 
 strength, a Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah. The Targum 
 seems to explain rrjn'j n«n as the first item in the catalogue, meaning the 
 spirit of prophecy or inspiration. Gataker takes it as the cause of which 
 the others are effects. But Kimchi more correctly understands it as a 
 general designation of the self-same spirit which is afterwards described in* 
 
220 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 detail. So Saadias and Aben Ezra understand it — c the Spirit of Jehovah 
 which is a Spirit of wisdom' etc. Hengstenberg understands the Spirit of 
 Jehovah, a stronger expression than the Spirit of God, the former having more 
 explicit reference to the government and edification of the church. Gese- 
 nius, as usual, explains the Spirit of Jehovah as an influence, but it obvi- 
 ously means a person. The following genitives do not denote qualities but 
 effects of the Spirit. The Spirit of Jehovah is not here described as being 
 himself wise etc. but as the author of wisdom in others. This is evident 
 from the last clause, where the fear of Jehovah cannot be an attribute of his 
 Spirit, but must be a fruit of his influence. The qualities enumerated are 
 not to be confounded as mere synonymes, nor on the other hand distin- 
 guished with metaphysical precision. That the latter process must be an 
 arbitrary one, may be seen by a comparison of any two or more attempts to 
 define the terms precisely. On the same etymological basis have been 
 founded the most opposite interpretations. Thus the gift of prophetic in- 
 spiration is supposed to be intended both by the Spirit of Jehovah (Vitrin- 
 ga) and the Spirit of counsel (Reinhard), both suppositions being perfectly 
 gratuitous. When Hengstenberg, who takes a just view of the principle on 
 which the passage ought to be interpreted, departs so far from it in practice 
 as to attempt a precise discrimination between ftgsn and n^a, he proposes 
 one directly opposite to that proposed by Hendewerk, though both agree 
 that one relates to theoretical and the other to practical wisdom. The 
 truth is that none of these terms is entirely exclusive of the others. Wis- 
 dom, understanding, the knowledge of God, the fear of God, are all familiar 
 scriptural descriptions of religion or piety in general. Wisdom and under- 
 standing are often joined as equivalent expressions. The latter, according 
 to its etymology, strictly denotes the power of discernment or discrimination. 
 Both are applied to theoretical and practical wisdom, and especially to 
 moral and religious subjects. Counsel and strength are the ability to plan 
 and the ability to execute, neither of which can avail without the other. 
 The knowledge of God does not in itself mean the love of him (Vitringa), 
 although it may infer it as a necessary consequence. The correct know- 
 ledge of him certainly produces godly fear or holy reverence, and the two 
 are probably put here for religion in the general, and are so explained in 
 the Septuagint (jvcoaecog y.al evasfisiag) and Vulgate (scientiae et pietatis). 
 The six attributes here enumerated are grouped in three distinct pairs, the 
 first and last of which, as Hengstenberg supposes, have respect to personal 
 qualities, the second to such as are official ; but Ewald distinguishes the 
 first as theoretical, the second as practical, the third as spiritual or religious. 
 Hendewerk ingeniously and earnestly maintains that all these epithets relate 
 to Hezekiah and are verified in his history — the wisdom in 2 Kings 18:7, 
 he acted wisely (^su)" 1 ) whithersoever he went — the spirit of counsel and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 221 
 
 might in 2 Kings 18: 20, and in his subduing the Philistines (2 Kings 18: 8) 
 etc. The simple statement of this exposition is sufficient to refute it. The 
 only person in whom the terms of this prediction have been verified is Jesus 
 Christ, whose wisdom displayed itself in early life and is expressly ascribed 
 to a special divine influence ; who proved himself a discerner of the thoughts 
 and intents of the heart ; whose ministry was not only characterized by forti- 
 tude and boldness, but attested by miracles and mighty deeds ; whose 
 knowledge - of divine things far surpassed that of all other men ; and who 
 was himself a living model of all piety. This application is maintained, 
 not only by the older Christian writers, and by Hengstenberg and Hender- 
 son, but also by Umbreit. It is an old opinion that the seven spirits of the 
 Apocalypse have reference to the sevenfold rvn of this passage. 
 
 V. 3. The Messiah is now described as taking pleasure in true piety 
 and recognizing its existence by an infallible sagacity or power of discerning 
 good and evil, which would render him superior to the illusions of the senses 
 and to every external influence. This faculty is figuratively described as an 
 exquisite olfactory perception, such as enables its possessor to distinguish be- 
 tween different odours. And his sense of smelling (i. e. his power of per- 
 ception, with a seeming reference to the pleasure it affords him) shall be ex- 
 ercised in (or upon) the fear of Jehovah (as an attribute of others), and 
 (being thus infallible) not by the sight (or according to the sighf) of his 
 eyes shall he judge, and not by the hearing of his ears shall he decide. The 
 Septuagint (followed by J. D. Michaelis, Doederlein, Hensler, Koppe, 
 Kuinol, Cube) takes irmn as a preterite with a suffix, and explains the verb 
 as meaning to fill with the Spirit or inspire. Forerius, Clericus, Herder, 
 Vanderpalm, Hendewerk and Ewald, make it mean to breathe. ' His 
 breath is in the fear of Jehovah.' Nihil nisi pietatem spirabit (Fore- 
 rius). Reinhart makes it mean to blow, as an expression of anger. But 
 the only sense confirmed by usage is to smell— his smell is in the fear of 
 Jehovah. Schmidius applies this to the sweet-smelling savour of our Lord's 
 atoning sacrifice, and J. H. Michaelis to his sacerdotal functions. Sanctius 
 and Paulus understand it to denote his odour as perceived by others. But 
 it rather denotes actively his smelling or olfactory perception. This is un- 
 derstood by Jarchi, Kimchi, Eichhorn, Henderson and Umbreit, as a figure 
 for discernment or discrimination between false and true religion ; and by 
 Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, DeWette, Barnes and Knobel, for 
 the act of taking pleasure as the sense does in a grateful odour. But these 
 two meanings are perfectly consistent, and the phrase is therefore best ex- 
 plained by Cocceius, Vitringa, Lowth and Hengstenberg, as comprehending 
 an infallible discernment and a feeling of complacency. He shall take de- 
 light in goodness, and be able to distinguish it without fail from its counter- 
 
222 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 feits. Gataker understands hWWV»a as denoting that this power of dis- 
 cernment should be exercised in sacred, not in secular affairs ; Junius, Pis- 
 cator, and Vatablus, that it should be joined with or attended by the fear of 
 God. But the a is really a connective, which the verb min commonly 
 takes after it, and adds no more to the meaning of the phrase than the Eng- 
 lish prepositions when we speak of smelling to or ofd. thing instead of simply 
 smelling it. The meaning therefore must be that the fear of God or piety 
 in others would itself be the object upon which this faculty was to exert 
 itself. Grotius, Clericus, Gesenius, and Henderson, understand by the 
 heaiing of his ears reports or rumours, Hitzig and others complaints and 
 arguments before a judge, both which interpretations are too much restricted. 
 The sight of the eyes and the hearing of the ears are put for the testimony 
 of those senses by which men are chiefly governed in their judgments. The 
 same erroneous view of the passage, which led Hitzig to restrict the 
 hearing of the ear to forensic litigation, has led Barnes and Umbreit to 
 apply the whole of the last clause to judicial partiality or respect of persons. 
 Hendewerk extends this application only to the sight of the eye, and makes the 
 hearing of the ear relate to actual deception of the judge by arguments or testi- 
 mony. All this is implicitly included in the text, but it includes much more. 
 It is no doubt true that as a judge the Messiah would be equally exempt from 
 all disposition to favour the rich and the great at the expense of the poor, 
 and from all liability to imposition ; but it is also true, and here declared, 
 that he should not judge of character at all by the senses, but by an infallible 
 sagacity or power of discerning good and evil. — According to Cocceius, 
 the mention of eyes and ears implies the real humanity of the Messiah. 
 Aben Ezra explains the clause to mean that he would rely upon the 
 sense of smelling rather than that of sight or hearing, and Kimchi 
 even says instead of sight and hearing. This interpretation is connected 
 with an old Jewish notion, that the Messiah may be known, when he 
 appears, by his power to distinguish moral character through the sense of 
 smell. In this way the famous false Messiah Bar Kokba (son of a star), is 
 said to have been proved an impostor, and his name changed to Bar Kozba 
 (son of a lie). The original authorities are cited by Gill in his Commentary 
 on this place. Traces of this opinion have been found by some in the New 
 Testament (Luke 7 : 39. John 1 : 49), but on very insufficient grounds. 
 Grotius applies the verse to Hezekiah in the following manner. His conso- 
 lation ('in'HSi) shall be in the fear of the Lord (i. e. afforded by religion). 
 He shall not judge according to the sight of his eyes (i. e. shall not despair 
 even under the most discouraging appearances). He shall not reason (n^si" 1 ) 
 according to the hearing of his ears (i. e. he shall draw no conclusions from 
 the rumours that may reach him, but believe the declarations of the Pro- 
 phets). Thus explained, the passage is certainly an accurate description 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 of that good king's conduct during the time of the Assyrian invasion, fa 
 the English Version and hy Lowth, n^i-> is explained as meaning to 
 reprove — by Luther, Junius, Clericus and llengstenberg, to punish — hy the 
 Septuagint, Vulgate, Calvin, Cocceius, and Vitringa, to convince or convict 
 — but by J. H. Michat -lis, Gesenius, Ewald, and others, to decide — and as 
 this includes the others, and makes the parallelism more exact, it is undoubt- 
 edly to be preferred. 
 
 V. 4. The Messiah, as a righteous judge, is now exhibited in contrast 
 with the unjust magistrates of Judah, as described in ch. 1 : 23. 10 : 2. 5: 
 23. And he shall judge in righteousness the weak (or poor) and do justice 
 with equity (or impartiality) to the meek of the earth, and shall smite the 
 earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall slay 
 the wicked. — By the earth to be smitten, Gesenius and others understand 
 the inhabitants of the earth. But the expression seems at least to include 
 the smiting of the earth itself, which is elsewhere represented as the object of 
 God's wrath, and is here described as cursed on man's account. By a 
 breath of his lips, some understand a sentence of death, or command to 
 kill (Cocceius, Clericus, Hitzig, Hendewerk) — others a natural expression 
 of anger (Gesenius, DeWette) — others a secret, imperceptible influence, 
 producing conviction (Kimchi, Abarbenel, Vitringa). But the true sense 
 seems to be the one expressed by Calvin and Ewald — a mere word, or 
 a mere breath, as something even less than a word, and yet sufficient to 
 effect his purpose. The Targum adds to sis^ the word biVwa, used by 
 the old Jews to denote the last great enemy of their religion, who is to kill 
 Messiah the son of Joseph, but to be killed by Messiah the son of David. 
 Paul, in 1 Thess. 2 : 8, applies these words, with little change, to the 
 destruction of Antichrist at the coming of Christ. It does not follow, how- 
 ever, that this is a specific and exclusive prophecy of that event, but only 
 that it comprehends it, as it evidently does. If one of the Messiah's works 
 is to destroy his enemies, it cannot be fulfilled without the destruction of the 
 last and greatest of those enemies to whom the Scriptures make allusion. 
 But as Hengstenberg observes, if the promise in the first clause is of general 
 import, the threatening in the last must be coextensive with it. 
 
 V. 5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithful- 
 ness the girdle of his reins, i. e. he shall be clothed or invested with these 
 attributes, and they shall adhere closely to him. The metaphor of putting 
 on or clothing one's self with moral attributes is not unfrequent in the Scrip- 
 tures. The girdle is mentioned as an essential part of oriental dress, and 
 that which keeps the others in their proper place, and qualifies the wearer 
 for exertion. Calvin supposes a particular reference to decoration, and 
 
224 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 Hendewerk to the military use of the girdle as a sword-belt. Lowth 
 imagines TWK in one of the clauses to be an error for ^n, because all the 
 ancient versions vary the expression except that of Symmachus, and because 
 the common text is an inelegant tautology. But Gesenius gives a number 
 of analogous examples from this very book, and the recurrence of the word 
 has in fact a good effect, and none the less because the other words are 
 varied. According to Hendewerk, the insertion of nian would do violence 
 to usage, because that is a generic term for all belts or girdles, including the 
 -nts or military sword-belt, the "nap or female sash, and the usnx or sacer- 
 dotal cincture. These distinctions are not noticed in the lexicons. The 
 Septuagint takes *iH** in both clauses as a passive participle ("^tn) agreeing 
 with the subject of the verb (i^mafisvog). The Chaldee paraphrase of this 
 verse makes it mean, that the Messiah would be constantly surrounded by 
 just and faithful men. 
 
 V. 6. Here, as in ch. 2 : 4 and 9 : 5, 6, universal peace is represented 
 as a consequence of the Messiah's reign, but under a new and striking 
 figure. — And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie 
 down with the Jcid, and the calf and young lion and failing together, and 
 a little child shall lead them. The W, so called from its spots, includes 
 the leopard and the panther, and perhaps the tiger. The TO* is a lion old 
 enough to roar and raven. The RB^* 1 , rendered ox by the Septuagint and 
 Peshito, and explained to be a particular kind of wild ox by Aben Ezra and 
 Bochart, denotes more probably any fatted beast, and may here be men- 
 tioned because beasts of prey select such as their victims. The wolf is 
 introduced as the natural enemy of the lamb, and the leopard, as Bochart 
 tries to prove from Aelian, sustains the same relation to the kid. "fla does 
 not mean to dwell in general, but to sojourn as a stranger or a guest, and 
 implies that the lamb should, as it were, receive the wolf into its home. 
 The verb y^ft is specially appropriated to express the lying down of sheep 
 and other animals. Here it may denote that the leopard, accustomed to 
 crouch while waiting for its prey, shall now lie down peaceably beside it ; 
 or there may be an allusion to the restlessness and fleetness of the wild 
 beast, now to be succeeded by the quiet habits of the ruminating species. 
 The unusual construction tm Sftb has led some to take a in the sense 
 of among, and others to regard arta as a noun meaning leader or conductor. 
 But the truth is that the insertion of 3 between words which seem to cohere 
 most closely, is a common idiom of Hebrew syntax. (Vide supra, ch. 9 : 
 1, 2.) *ri3 is properly to lead, but may include the idea of driving, as a 
 shepherd does his flock. — Some supply the substantive verb with tjrn — 
 shall be together — but a simpler construction is to connect it with the verb 
 in the preceding clause — the leopard and the kid shall lie down together, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 828 
 
 the calf, the young lion, and the fatted beast together. — Jerome speaks of 
 the Jews and some judaizing Christians as believing that a literal change in 
 the nature of wild beasts is here predicted. Kimchi regards it as a promise 
 of immunity from \\ r ild beasts, to be enjoyed by the Jews alone in the days of 
 the Messiah. Most Christian writers, ancient and modern, with Aben 
 Ezra and Maimonides among the Jews, explain the prophecy as wholly 
 metaphorical, and descriptive of the peace to be enjoyed by God's people — 
 according to Grotius, after Sennacherib's retreat — but according to the rest, 
 under the new dispensation. Cocceius and Clericus apply the passage to 
 the external peace between the church and the world, but it is commonly 
 regarded as descriptive of the change wrought by Christianity in wicked 
 men themselves. Vitringa gives a specific meaning to each figure in the 
 landscape, making the lamb, the calf, and the fatted beast, denote suc- 
 cessive stages in the Christian's progress, the lion open enemies, the leopard 
 more disguised ones, the wolf treacherous and malignant ones, the little 
 child the ministry. This kind of exposition not only mars the beauty but 
 obscures the real meaning of the prophecy. Calvin and Hengstenberg 
 suppose the passage to include a promise of a future change in the material 
 creation, restoring it to its original condition (Rom. 8: 19-22), while they 
 agree with other writers in regarding the pacific effects of true religion as 
 the primary subject of the prophecy. 
 
 V. 7. And the cow and the bear shall feed — together shall their young lie 
 down — and the lion like the ox shall eat straw. According to Vitringa, there 
 is here a climax, not in form but in sense ; not only shall the nobler lion be 
 at peace with the domesticated animals, but even the less generous and 
 more ferocious bear. The Septuagint and Peshito repeat tin^ in which 
 they are followed by most interpreters, and Lowth inserts it in the text. 
 But according to Hitzig, the wonder is not that the bear grazes with the 
 cow, but that it grazes at all, the cow being mentioned only to show what 
 kind of pasture is intended. The sense will then be simply that the bear 
 grazes like the coiv, the very form of expression used in the last clause with 
 respect to the lion. He mentions straw as a common kind of fodder — 
 hordei stipulam bubns gratissimam — palea plures gentium profoeno utuntur. 
 (Pliny, Nat. Hist, xviii. 30.) The lion's eating straw implies not only 
 cohabitation with domestic cattle, but a change of his carnivorous habits. 
 Vitringa carries out his allegorical hypothesis by making the cow the repre- 
 sentative of Christians who have reached the point of giving as well as 
 receiving instruction, of yielding milk as well as drinking it. He apologizes 
 for the use of straw as an emblem of divine truth or the gospel, on the 
 ground that its doctrines are so simple and uninviting to fastidious appetites. 
 The arbitrary character of such interpretations is betrayed by Gill's remark 
 
 15 
 
226 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 that straw here means true doctrine, elsewhere false (1 Cor. 3: 12). The 
 truth is that neither the straw nor the lion means any thing by itself; but 
 the lion's eating straw denotes a total change of habit, and indeed of nature, 
 and is therefore a fit emblem for the revolution which the gospel, in propor- 
 tion to its influence, effects in the condition of society, with some allusion 
 possibly, as before suggested, to the ultimate deliverance of the yaiaig or 
 irrational creation from that bondage of corruption, to which, for man's sake, 
 it is now subjected. 
 
 V. 8. To express the idea still more strongly, venomous serpents are 
 represented as innoxious, not to other beasts, but to the human species, and 
 to the most helpless and unthinking of that species. And the sucking child 
 shall play on (or over) the hole of the asp, and on the den of the basilisk (or 
 cerastes) shall the weaned child stretch (or place) its hand. — *>n is omitted 
 by the Septuagint, and explained by Ewald as denoting the feelers of a 
 horned snake, and the same sense is ascribed to rnsiaa by J. D. Michaelis. 
 But both words really denote a hole or cavity, ttyvfo properly a light- 
 hole or aperture admitting light. Gesenius in his commentary follows 
 Bochart in deriving it by permutation from mis« ; but in his Thesaurus, 
 he admits the derivation from "VNft. Aben Ezra and Kimchi make it mean 
 the eye of the serpent itself, and Hitzig the shield between the eyes of the 
 basilisk. The precise discrimination of the species of serpents here referred 
 to, is of no importance to the exegesis. All that is necessary to a correct 
 understanding of the verse is that both words denote extremely venomous 
 and deadly reptiles. The weaned child means of course a child just 
 weaned, which idea is expressed in translation by Vitringa (nuper depulsus a 
 lacte), Lowth (the new-weaned child), and Gesenius (der kaum Entwohn- 
 te). The parallel terms are rendered by Henderson the suckling and 
 the weanling. According to Jerome, this verse predicts the casting out of 
 devils by our Lord's disciples ; according to Vitringa, the conversion or 
 destruction of heretical teachers ; while Cocceius makes it a specific pro- 
 phecy of Luther, Calvin, and Huss, as the children who were to thrust their 
 hands into the den of the antichristian serpents. It is really a mere con- 
 tinuation of the metaphor begun in v. 7, and expresses, by an additional 
 figure, the change to be effected in society by the prevalence of true reli- 
 gion, destroying noxious influences and rendering it possible to live in safety. 
 
 V. 9. The strong figures of the foregoing context are now "resolved into 
 literal expressions. They (indefinitely, men in general) shall not hurt nor 
 destroy in all my holy mountain, because the land is full of the knowledge 
 of Jehovah (literally, of knowing him) like the waters covering the sea. — 
 Aben Ezra seems to think that the verbs in the first clause must agree with 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 22* 
 
 the nouns in the preceding verse — they (the animals just mentioned) shall 
 not hurt, etc. But the absence of the copulative shows that this is not so 
 much a direct continuation of the previous description as a summary expla- 
 nation of it. The true construction, therefore, is indefinite. Rosenmuller 
 distinguishes the two verbs as meaning to injure others and to injure them- 
 selves;- but they are evidently used as mere equivalent expressions. My 
 holy mountain does not mean the whole land of Israel, so called as being 
 higher than all other countries (Kimchi) — nor the mountainous part of it 
 (Jahn), to which there could be no reason for specially alluding, and of 
 which the singular form ■#] is not descriptive — but Zion, or Moriah, or the 
 city built upon them, not considered simply as a capital city, in which a 
 reformation was particularly needed (Hitzig), but as the seat of the true 
 religion, and at that time the local habitation of the church. What was 
 true of the church there is true of the church everywhere. The first clause 
 clearly shows that the foregoing description is to be figuratively understood. 
 That the wolf and the lamb should lie down together, means in other words, 
 that none should hurt or destroy in the Messiah's kingdom. The reason is 
 given in the last clause, y^x may mean the land of Israel as the abode of 
 the true religion, and the whole earth so far as the church was to become 
 coextensive with it. For the syntax of the verbal noun with the accusa- 
 tive, see Gesenius <§> 130. 1. The sea, according to Kimchi and Gesenius ; 
 means the bottom or the basin of the sea. The construction of this clause 
 by Luther and Augusti (as if covered with the waters of the sea) is very 
 inexact. The b is used instead of the more usual bs. The strict sense of 
 the words is, covering with respect to the sea. The point of comparison is 
 not the mere extent of surface (Vatablus) nor the depth (Vitringa), but the 
 fulness of the land to the extent of its capacity. This passage is descriptive 
 of the reign of the Messiah, not at any one period, but as a whole. A 
 historian, as Vitringa well observes, in giving a general description of the 
 reign of David, would not use language applicable only to its beginning. 
 The prophecy is therefore one of gradual fulfilment. So far as the cause 
 operates, the effect follows, and when the cause shall operate without 
 restraint, the effect will be complete and universal. The use of the future 
 in the first clause and the preterite in the second may imply, that the pre- 
 valence of the knowledge of Jehovah must precede that of universal peace. 
 It is not till the land has been filled with that knowledge, that men will 
 cease to injure and destroy. — It will be sufficient to record without com- 
 ment, that according to Cocceius the holy mountain is the reformed church, 
 as the basilisk's den was the church of Rome, and that the reconciliation 
 here predicted is a mere external one between the people of God and their 
 oppressors. 
 
228 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 V. 10. Having described the Messiah's reign and its effects, he now 
 brings his person into view again. And in that day shall the root of Jesse 
 which (is) standing (or set up) be for a signal to the nations — unto him 
 shall the gentiles seek, and his rest (or residence) shall be glorious. — Al- 
 most all interpreters take IW] in the indefinite sense, it shall be or come to 
 pass, as a mere idiomatic introduction to what follows, leaving tthto to be 
 construed as a nominative absolute. But Ewald makes efcjtt itself the sub- 
 ject of fi^rt, which is a simpler construction. — The root of Jesse is explained 
 by Kimchi and most other writers to be put by metonymy for that which 
 grows out of his roots and therefore equivalent to *Wi and *iS3 in v. 1. 
 So the gfca dafiid of Rev. 5 : 5 and 22 : 16 is explained by Stuart as mean- 
 ing " not root of David, but a root-shoot from the trunk or stem of 
 David." But Vitringa supposes the Messiah -to be called the root of Jesse, 
 because by him the family of Jesse is sustained and perpetuated ; Cocceius, 
 because he was not only his descendant but his Maker and his Saviour. 
 Hitzig understands by the root that in which the root is reproduced and 
 reappears. But Umbreit takes the word in its proper sense, and understands 
 the prophecy to mean that the family of Jesse now under ground should 
 reappear and rise to the height of a 03, not a military standard, but a sig- 
 nal, especially one raised to mark a place of rendezvous, for which purpose 
 lofty trees are said to have been sometimes used. A signal of the nations 
 then is one displayed to gather them. ^£3 describes it as continuing or 
 permanently fixed. The reference is not to Christ's crucifixion, but to his 
 manifestation to the gentiles through the preaching of the gospel, dibs is 
 here used as a synonyme of b^ti, meaning not the tribes of Israel but 
 other nations. To seek to is not merely to inquire about, through curiosity — 
 or to seek one's favour in the general — or to pay religious honours — but 
 more specifically to consult as an oracle or depository of religious truth. 
 By his rest we are not to understand his grave — or his death — or his sab- 
 bath — or the rest he gives his people — but his place of rest, his residence. 
 There is no need of supplying a preposition before glory, which is an abstract 
 used for a concrete — glory for glorious. The church, Christ's home, shall 
 be glorious from his presence and the accession of the gentiles. Forerius and 
 J. D. Michaelis needlessly read i^na^ his offering. 
 
 V. 1 1 . And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day — not the days of 
 Hezekiah (Grotius), nor the days of Cyrus and Darius (Sanctius), nor the 
 days of the Maccabees (Jahn), but the days of the Messiah — the Lord shall 
 add his hand (or add to apply his hand) a second time — not second in reference 
 to the overthrow of Pekah and Rezin (Sanctius), or the return from Baby- 
 lon (Forerius), or the first preaching of the gospel to the Jews (Cocceius), 
 but to the deliverance from Egypt. rn$«{ is not pleonastic (Gesenius) but 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X !. 229 
 
 emphatic. His hand — not his arm (Hitzig) — as a symbol of Strength 
 (Targum) — not in apposition with the Lord, the Lord even his hand 
 (Hitzig, Hendewerk), nor governed by show understood (701; dtifeut), nor 
 qualifying rvupb (Grotius), but either governed by rfy^s understood (Luther, 
 ausstrecken), or directly by cpov< (Vulg. adjiciet manum). rrtSp is not the 
 infinitive of wj? (LXX. fyXaoai, Clericus), but of K5£, It does not mean 
 merely to possess (Vulgate) but to acquire (Luther), especially by pur- 
 chase, and so to redeem from bondage and oppression (Vitringa), as "ob is 
 to subject them to it (Gesenius), although the true opposite of the latter 
 verb seems to be rris (Hendewerk). The remnant of his people — not the 
 survivors of the original captives (Aben Ezra, Hendewerk) — but those liv- 
 ing at the time of the deliverance, or still more restrictedly, the remnant 
 according to the election of grace (Calvin). — From Assyria etc. to be 
 construed not with mjpb (Abarbenel), but with "ixirn, as appears from 
 v. 16. The countries mentioned are put for all in which the Jews should 
 be scattered. — There is no importance to be attached to the order in which 
 they are enumerated (Cocceius), nor is the precise extent of each material. 
 Assyria and Egypt are named first and together, as the two great foreign 
 powers, with which the Jews were best acquainted. Pathros is not Par- 
 thia (Calvin), nor Arabia Petraea (Forerius), nor Pharusis in Ethiopia 
 (Grotius), nor Patures, in the Delta of the Nile (Brocard, Adrichomius). 
 but Thebais or Upper Egypt, as appears not only from a comparison of 
 Scriptures (Bochart), but also from the Egyptian etymology of the name 
 (Jablonsky), as denoting the region of the south (Gesenius). It is distin- 
 guished from Egypt by the classical writers also. — B^Srt is a dual form, 
 properly denoting either upper and lower or middle and lower Egypt. — 
 Cush is not merely Ethiopia proper (Gesenius), or the land of Midian 
 (Bochart), or Babylonia (Septuagint), or India (Targum), but Ethiopia, 
 perhaps including part of Arabia, from which it appears to have been 
 settled (Calvin, J. D. Michaelis). — Shinar is properly the plain in which 
 Babylon was built, thence put for Babylonia. Elam is not the rising 
 of the sun (Septuagint), but Elymais, a province of Persia, contiguous 
 to Media, sometimes put for the whole country. Hamath is not Arabia 
 (Septuagint), but a city of Syria on the Orontes. (Vide supra, ch. 10: 9.) 
 Islands of the sea, not regions (Henderson) which is too vague, nor 
 coasts in general (J. D. Michaelis), nor islands in the strict sense (Clericus). 
 but the shores of the Mediterranean, whether insular or continental, and 
 substantially equivalent to Europe (Cocceius), meaning the part of it 
 then known, and here put last, according to Cocceius, as being the most 
 important. — This prophecy does not relate to the gentiles or the Christian 
 church (Cocceius), but to the Jews (Jerome). The dispersions spoken of 
 are not merely such as had already taken place at the date of the prediction 
 
230 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 (Gesenius), but others then still future (Hengstenberg), including not only 
 the Babylonish exile but the present dispersion. The prophecy was not 
 fulfilled in the return of the refugees after Sennacherib's discomfiture (Gro- 
 tius), nor in the return from Babylon (Sanctius), and but partially in the 
 preaching of the gospel to the Jews. The complete fulfilment is to be 
 expected when all Israel shall be saved. The prediction must be figura- 
 atively understood, because the nations mentioned in this verse have long 
 ceased to exist. The event prefigured is, according to Keith and others, 
 the return of the Jews to Palestine ; but according to Calvin, Vitringa, and 
 Hengstenberg, their admission to Christ's kingdom on repentance and recep- 
 tion of the Christian faith. 
 
 V. 12. And he (Jehovah) shall set up a signal to the nations, and 
 shall gather the outcasts of Israel, and the dispersed of Judah shall he 
 bring together from the four wings of the earth. — pg is not necessarily a 
 banner (Luther) but a sign or signal (LXX. oijueiov, Vulg. signum) dis- 
 played for the purpose of assembling troops or others at some one point. — 
 To the nations, not among them (Luther), nor for them (English Version), 
 which though essentially correct, is not so simple and exact as to the nations, 
 i. e. in their sight. The nations thus addressed are not the Jews but the 
 gentiles, and, as most interpreters suppose, those gentiles among whom the 
 Jews were scattered, and who are summoned by the signal here displayed 
 to set the captives free, or to assist them in returning, or, according to the 
 rabbins, actually to bring them as an offering to Jehovah, a figure elsewhere 
 used in this same book (ch. 66 : 19,20). Hitzig indeed with double 
 assurance pronounces that passage to be not only written by another hand 
 but founded upon a misapprehension of the one before us. But the very 
 same idea is expressed in ch. 14 : 2. 49 : 22. There is, however, another 
 view of the passage, which supposes the nations or gentiles to be here men- 
 tioned as distinct from the Jews, and unconnected with them. The verse 
 then contains two successive predictions, first, that the gentiles shall be 
 called, and then that the Jews shall be restored, which agrees exactly with 
 Paul's account of the connexion between these events. Blindness in part 
 is happened to Israel until the fulness of the gentiles be come in (Rom. 11 : 
 25, 26). On this hypothesis, the signal is displayed to the gentiles, not 
 that they may send or bring the Jews back, but that they may come them- 
 selves, and then the gathering of Israel and Judah is added, as a distinct 
 if not a subsequent event. This last interpretation is favoured by the 
 analogy of a New Testament prophecy, the first by an analogous prophecy 
 of Isaiah himself. — Israel and Judah are put together to denote the race in 
 general. Outcasts and dispersed are of different genders. The latter, 
 which is feminine in form, is supposed by the older writers to agree with 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. X I. 231 
 
 some word understood — such as souls (Pagninus), members (Junius), sheep 
 (Piscator), families (Clericus), women (Gataker) — implying that no sex or 
 rank would be passed by. According to Gesenius, the construction is an 
 idiomatic one, both predicates belonging to both subjects, the exiled men of 
 Israel and the scattered women of Judah, meaning the exiled men and 
 scattered women both of Israel and Judah. (For other examples of 
 this merismus or parallage elliptica, see ch. 18: 6. Zech. 9: 17. Prov. 
 10: 1.) At the same time he regards it as an example of another idiom 
 which combines the genders to express totality. (Vide supra, ch. 3 : 1.) 
 But these two explanations are hardly compatible, and Henderson, with 
 more consistency, alleges that there is no distinct allusion to the sex of the 
 wanderers, and that the feminine form is added simply to express universa- 
 lity. Ewald, on the contrary, makes the distinction of the sexes prominent 
 by adding to the participles man and wife. ?$3 is properly the wing of a 
 bird, then the skirt or edge of a garment, then the extremity of the earth, 
 in which sense it is used both in the singular and plural. The same idea 
 is expressed by the four winds, with which in the New Testament are 
 mentioned the four corners, and this last expression is used even here by 
 Clericus and in the old French version. The reference of course is to the 
 cardinal points of the compass, as determined by the rising and setting of 
 the sun. — If this verse be understood as predicting the agency of the gen- 
 tiles in restoring the Jews, it may be said to have been partially fulfilled in 
 the return from Babylon under the auspices of Cyrus, and again in all 
 efforts made by gentile Christians to convert the Jews ; but its full accom- 
 plishment is still prospective, and God may even now be lifting up a signal 
 to the gentiles for this very purpose. — Hendewerk's notion that this pro- 
 phecy was fulfilled when many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, 
 and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was lifted up (xr:*-) 
 in the sight of all nations from thenceforth (2 Chron. 32: 23), neither 
 requires nor admits of refutation. The same may perhaps be said of Coc- 
 ceius's opinion, that this verse relates wholly or chiefly to the healing of 
 divisions in the Christian church. 
 
 V. 13. And the envy of Ephraim shall depart (or cease), and the 
 enemies of Judah shall be cut off. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and 
 Judah shall not vex (oppress or harass) Ephraim. Jacob, in his prophetic 
 statement of the fortunes of his sons, disregards the rights of primogeniture 
 and gives the pre-eminence to Judah and Joseph (Gen. 49: 8-12. 22-26), 
 and in the family of the latter to the younger son Ephraim (Gen. 48: 19). 
 Hence from the time of the exodus, these two were regarded as the leading 
 tribes of Israel. Judah was much more numerous than Ephraim (Num. 1 : 
 27, 33) — took precedence during the journey in the wilderness (Num. 
 
232 ISAIAH, CHAP. XL 
 
 2:3. 10 : 14) — and received the largest portion in the promised land. But 
 Joshua was an Ephraimite (Num. 13 : 8), and Shiloh, where the tahernacle 
 long stood (Jos. 18 : 1. 1 Sam. 4 : 3), was probably within the limits of 
 the same tribe. The ambitious jealousy of the Ephraimites towards other 
 tribes appears in their conduct to Gideon and Jephtha (Judges 8 : 1. 12: 
 1). Their special jealousy of Judah showed itself in their temporary 
 refusal to submit to David after the death of Saul — in their adherence to 
 Absalom against his father — and in the readiness with which they joined in 
 the revolt of Jeroboam, who was himself of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings 
 11 : 26). This schism was, therefore, not a sudden or fortuitous occur- 
 rence, but the natural result of causes which had long been working. The 
 mutual relation of the two kingdoms is expressed in the recorded fact, that 
 there ivas war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and between Asa and 
 Baasha, all their days (1 Kings 14 : 30. 15 : 16). Exceptions to the 
 general rule, as in the case of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, were rare, and a 
 departure from the principles and ordinary feelings of the parties. The 
 ten tribes, which assumed the name of Israel after the division, and per- 
 haps before it, regarded the smaller and less warlike state with a con- 
 tempt which is well expressed by Jehoash in his parable of the cedar 
 and the thistle (2 Kings 14 : 9), unless the feeling there displayed be rather 
 personal than national. On the other hand, Judah justly regarded Israel 
 as guilty, not only of political revolt, but of religious apostasy (Ps* 78 : 
 9—11), and the jealousy of Ephraim towards Judah would of course be 
 increased by the fact that Jehovah had forsaken the tabernacle of Shiloh 
 (Ps. 78: 60), that he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the 
 tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he 
 loved (ib. vs. 67, 68). To these historical facts Gesenius refers, as showing 
 the incorrectness of DeWette's assertion, that the hatred and jealousy 
 existed only on the part of Judah — a paradox which may indeed be looked 
 upon as neutralized by the counter-paradox of Hitzig, that they existed only 
 on the part of Ephraim ! They were no doubt indulged on both sides, but 
 with this difference, that Ephraim or Israel was in the wrong from the 
 beginning, and as might have been expected, more malignant in its en- 
 mity. This view of the matter will serve to explain why it is that when the 
 Prophet would foretell a state of harmony and peace, he does so by declaring 
 that the hereditary and proverbial enmity of Judah and Israel should cease. It 
 also explains why he lays so much more stress upon the envy of Ephraim 
 than upon the enmity of Judah, viz. because the latter was only an indul- 
 gence of unhallowed feeling, to which, in the other case, were superadded 
 open rebellion and apostasy from God. Hence the first three members of 
 the verse before us speak of Ephraim's enmity to Judah, and only the fourth 
 of Judah's enmity to Ephraim ; as if it had occurred to the Prophet, that 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 233 
 
 although it was Ephraim whose disposition needed chiefly to be changed, 
 yet Judah also had a change to undergo, which is therefore intimated in the 
 last clause, as a kind of afterthought. The envy of Ephraim against Judah 
 shall depart — the enemies of Judah (in the kingdom of the ten tribes) shall 
 be cut off — Ephraim shall no more envy Judah — yes, and Judah in its turn 
 shall cease to vex Ephraim. There is indeed another construction of the 
 verse, ancient* and sanctioned by very high authority, which makes the 
 Prophet represent the parties as precisely alike, and predict exactly the 
 same change in both. This construction supposes rnirn ^Tnil to mean, not 
 the enemies of Judah (whether foreign, as Cocceius thinks, or in the sister 
 kingdom), but the enemies (of Ephraim) in Judah, or those of Judah who are 
 enemies to Ephraim. This construction, which is copied by Rosenmiiller and 
 Gesenius from Albert Schultens, is really as old as Kimchi, who remarks upon 
 the clause, for of old there were in Judah enemies to Ephraim. Against it 
 may be urged, not only the general principle of Hebrew syntax, that a noun in 
 regimen with an active participle denotes the object of the action, but the 
 specific usage of this very word. Haman is called di*Wj*tj Tji, the enemy 
 (or oppressor) of the Jeivs (Esther 3: 10), and Amos (5 : 12) speaks of 
 those who treat the righteous as an enemy (P^s *yf£)* In all the cases 
 where a different construction of the participle with a noun has been alleged, 
 either the usual one is precluded by the connexion or the nature of the 
 subject, or the syntax is more doubtful than in the case before us (e. g. Ex. 
 5: 14. 1 Sam. 19: 29. 1 Kings 2: 7. 5 : 32). Knobel's assertion that the 
 participle is used as a noun, and does therefore signify the object of the 
 action, is contradicted by the usage of ■Vjfc, already stated. A still more 
 arbitrary method of attaining the same end is that proposed by Seeker and 
 approved by Lowth, who read *y\l as an abstract meaning enmity, or the 
 modification suggested by Gesenius, of taking the active participle itself as 
 an abstract noun. These constructions are so violent, and the contrary usage 
 so plain, that the question naturally arises, why should the latter be departed 
 from at all ? The answer is, because the favourite notion of exact paral- 
 lelism requires it. All the writers who maintain this opinion assume that the 
 second clause must express the same idea with the first, and in the same 
 order. Luther indeed was satisfied with an inverted order, and by giving to 
 the first phrase the sense of envy against Ephraim (which is not more unau- 
 thorized than to make the other mean enemies in Judah), has contrived to 
 make the first clause correspond to the fourth, and the second to the third 
 (und der Neid wider Ephraim wird aufhoren, u. s. w.). But the modern 
 writers must have a parallelism still more exact, and to this rhetorical 
 chimera both the syntax and the true sense of the passage must be sacrificed. 
 In this case we are able to produce an instance from another prophet, an 
 older contemporary of Isaiah, in which the structure of the sentence coincides 
 
234 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 precisely with the one before us, that is to say, there are several successive 
 clauses relating to one of the parties mentioned, and then a final one relating 
 to the other. This example is found in Hos. 3 : 3, And I said to her, thou 
 shalt abide for me many days — thou shalt not play the harlot — and thou 
 shall not be another maris — and I will also (act thus) to thee. So here, 
 the jealousy of Ephraim shall cease — the enemies of Judah among them 
 shall be cut off — Ephraim shall then no longer envy Judah- 5 — and Judah in 
 return shall no longer be the enemy of Ephraim. The objection that the 
 passage in Hosea is mere prose, is not only gratuitous, but concedes the 
 liberty of assuming the same thing in the case before us. The influence 
 exerted on interpretation by this theory of perfect parallels is clear in this 
 case, from the fact that Hengstenberg follows Gesenius without any hesitation, 
 and that Ewald (though he modifies the meaning of tifc) adopts the same 
 construction, in direct opposition to his own authority, (Heb. Gr. § 208), 
 which Hitzig had cited in defence of the true interpretation. The tendency 
 of this theory is moreover apparent from the conclusion to which Hitzig 
 himself comes, that although rrtWTJ "n^'s can only mean the enemies of 
 Judah, the second clause evidently puts the other sense upon it, and is there- 
 fore an interpolation ! Umbreit alone of the recent German writers has the 
 good sense and taste to reject at once this wanton mutilation of the text and 
 the forced construction of the sentence, and to understand the sentence in 
 the simple and obvious meaning put upon it by the ancient versions and by 
 the older writers who have not been mentioned. — The fulfilment of this 
 prophecy is found by Hendewerk in Hezekiah's efforts to reclaim the 
 Israelites to the worship of Jehovah (2 Chron. 30). That it was not ful- 
 filled in the return from exile, is sufficiently notorious. That it had not 
 been fulfilled when Christ came, is plain from the continued enmity between 
 the Jews, Samaritans, and Galileans. The only fulfilment it has ever had 
 is in the abolition of all national and sectional distinctions in the Christian 
 church (Gal. 3 : 27, 29. 5 : 6), to which converted Jews as well as others 
 must submit. Its full accomplishment is yet to come, in the re-union of the 
 tribes of Israel under Christ their common head (Hos. 1: 11). — Jarchi 
 explains the verse to mean that Messiah the son o Joseph and Messiah the 
 son of Judah shall not envy one another — Aben Ezra, that Ephraim shall 
 not be jealous because the Messiah is to come of Judah. Cocceius applies 
 the prophecy exclusively to future reconciliations in the Christian church. — 
 Tj* is not to envy, as Schultens argues from the Arabic analogy, nor to be 
 turbulent, as Ewald gives it, but to treat in a hostile manner. rn& is 
 strictly to depart, i. e. cease or be removed, as in ch. 10 : 27. 
 
 V. 14. Instead of assailing or annoying one another, they are repre- 
 sented as making common cause against a common enemy. And they 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 235 
 
 (Ephraim and Judah, undivided Israel) shall fly (lik< a bin] of prey) upon 
 the shoulder of the I'hilistincs towards the sea (or westwards) — together 
 they shall spoil the sons of the cast (the Arabians and perhaps the Syrians) 
 — Edam and Moab the stretching out of their hand (i. e. the object of that 
 action) and the children of Amnion their obedience (i. e. their subjects). 
 All the names are those of neighbouring nations with whom the Hebrews 
 were accustomed to wage war. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, may be 
 specially named for an additional reason, viz. that they were nearly related 
 to Israel, and yet among his most inveterate enemies. The Jews 
 explain this as a literal prediction having respect to the countries formerly 
 possessed by the races here enumerated. Most Christian writers understand 
 it spiritually of the conquests to be achieved by the true religion, and sup- 
 pose the nations here named to be simply put for enemies in general, or 
 for the heathen world ; this method of description being rendered more em- 
 phatic by the historical associations which the names awaken. — To fly upon 
 means here to fly at, or, as Henderson expresses it, to pounce upon, the 
 6gure being that of an eagle or other bird of prey. The almost innumerable 
 meanings put upon this verse and its peculiar expressions, may be found in 
 Pool, Rosenmuller, and Gesenius. 
 
 V. 15. To the destruction of the enemies of Israel is added a prediction 
 that all obstacles, even the most formidable, to the restoration of God's 
 people, shall be overcome or taken away by his almighty power. This 
 idea is naturally expressed by the dividing of the Red Sea and Euphrates, 
 because Egypt and Assyria are the two great powers from which Israel had 
 suffered and was yet to be delivered. And Jehovah will destroy (by 
 drying up) the tongue (or bay) of the sea of Egypt (i. e. the Red Sea), 
 and he will wave his hand (as a gesture of menace or a symbol of miracu- 
 lous power) over the river (Euphrates), in the violence of his wind (or 
 breath), and smite it (the Euphrates) into seven streams, and make (his 
 people) tread (it) in shoes (i. e. dry-shod). The meaning of ennn is not 
 to split, divide (Knobel), for which there is nothing but an Arabic analogy 
 and a doubtful interpretation of onn Lev. 21 : 18 — but properly to consecrate 
 by an irrevocable vow, and then by implication to destroy, which in this 
 case could be done only by drying up. This last idea, therefore, is 
 included, but there is no need of reading :mnn, as Houbigant, Lowth, 
 and Rosenmuller do, on the authority of the ancient versions. — Tongue, 
 which is applied in other languages to projecting points of land, is here 
 descriptive of a bay or indentation in a shore. The sea of Egypt is not 
 the Nile, as some suppose, although the name sea has been certainly applied 
 to it from the earliest times — but the Red Sea, called the Sea of Egypt 
 for the same reason that it is called the Arabian Gulf. The tongue of this sea 
 
236 ISAIAH, CHAP. XI. 
 
 is the narrow gulf or bay in which it terminates to the north-west near Suez, 
 called by the old writers the Sinus Her oopolit anus, to distinguish it from the 
 Sinus Elaniticus, the north-east extremity. Through the former the 
 Israelites passed when they left Egypt, and it is now predicted that it shall 
 be utterly destroyed, i. e. dried up. At the same time the Euphrates is to 
 be smitten into seven streams, and so made fordable, as Cyrus is said to 
 have reduced the Gyndes by diverting its water into 360 artificial channels. 
 Vitringa supposes a specific overthrow of Egypt and Assyria to be here 
 predicted; Grotius, the division of the latter into several kingdoms. But 
 the terms are probably strong figures drawn from the early history and expe- 
 rience of Israel. Gesenius, in the last edition of his lexicon, appears to 
 favour the reading of ess for d^2? (in the strength of his wind), suggested by 
 Luzzatto, on the ground of the resemblance between ■* and s in the old He- 
 brew alphabet. The other reading, which occurs only here, is commonly 
 explained to mean violent heat, and then secondarily violence in general. 
 
 V. 16. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of my people, 
 which shall be left, from Assyria, as there was for Israel, in the day of his 
 coming up from the land of Egypt. This verse admits of two intepretations. 
 According to one, it is a comparison of the former deliverance from Egypt 
 with the future one from Assyria and the neighbouring countries, where 
 most Jewish exiles were to be found. According to the other, it is a repe- 
 tition of the preceding promise, that previous deliverances, particularly those 
 from Egypt and Assyria, should be repeated in the "future history of the 
 church. The fulfilment has been sought by different interpreters, in the 
 return from Babylon, in the general progress of the gospel, and in the future 
 restoration of the Jews. The first of these can at most be regarded only as 
 a partial or inchoate fulfilment, and against the last lies the obvious objec- 
 tion, that the context contains promises and threatenings which are obviously 
 figurative, although so expressed as to contain allusions to remarkable events 
 in the experience of Israel. Such is the dividing or drying up of the tongue 
 of the Red Sea, which must either be figuratively understood, or supposed 
 to refer to a future miracle, which last hypothesis is certainly not necessary, 
 and therefore can be fully justified by nothing but the actual event. — «"^&^ 
 is not simply a way, as the ancient versions give it, nor a fortified way as 
 Cocceius explains it (via munita), but a highway .as explained by Junius 
 (agger) and Henderson (causey), an artificial road formed by casting up the 
 earth (from bbo to raise), and thus distinguished from a path worn by the feet 
 ($&% or ^^P?)* Knobel and some other of the later writers suppose an allu- 
 sion to the desert after the crossing of the water, whereas all the older writers 
 understand a way through the water itself. Grotius and Knobel connect 
 "WB813 with sn|p», others with ^«T»ft, as in v. 11. The ambiguity of the 
 Hebrew construction is skilfully retained in the English Version. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XII. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Taking occasion from the reference to Egypt and the exodus in the 
 close of the preceding chapter, the Prophet now puts into the mouth of 
 Israel a song analogous to that of Moses, from which some of the expressions 
 are directly borrowed. The structure of this Psalm is very regular, con- 
 sisting of two parts, in each of which the Prophet first tells the people what 
 they will say, or have a right to say, when the foregoing promises are 
 verified, and then addresses them again in his own person and in the usual 
 language of prediction. In the first stanza, they are made to acknowledge 
 the divine compassion and to express their confidence in God as the source 
 of all their strength, and therefore the rightful object of their praise, vs. 1—3. 
 In the second stanza, they exhort one another to make known what God has 
 done for them, not only at home but among all nations, and are exhorted by 
 the Prophet to rejoice in the manifested presence of Jehovah, vs. 4-6. 
 
 Ewald rejects this chapter, as an addition made by some reader or 
 transcriber of Isaiah later than the exile. His reasons are, that the prophecy 
 is wound up and complete at the close of the eleventh chapter, and that the 
 style, phraseology, and tone, are not those of Isaiah. The first of these 
 reasons he refutes himself by saying that the reference to Egypt in ch. 1 1 : 
 16, probably suggested this addition to the later writer ; a hypothesis 
 which we are equally at liberty to apply to Isaiah himself, unless the 
 passage is manifestly from another hand. This reduces Ewald's arguments 
 to one, and to that one Umbreit gives a sufficient answer when he says that 
 the Prophet, intending to wind up his prophecy with a composition in the 
 nature of a psalm, adopts of course the general style, which from the time 
 of David had been used for that purpose. That he did not rather copy the 
 manner of Moses, may be explained, not only on the ground that the other 
 style had now become familiar to the people, but also on the ground that 
 such an imitation might have made the comparison with Egypt and the 
 exodus too prominent for the Prophet's purpose, which was to express 
 thanksgiving in a manner appropriate to all the deliverances of the church 
 from evil, whether natural or spiritual. Hence too the indefiniteness of the 
 language, and a seeming want of intimate connexion with the foregoing 
 prophecy. 
 
 V. 1. And thou — Israel, the people of God — shalt say in that day — 
 when the foregoing promise is accomplished — J ivill praise thee — strictly, 
 acknowledge thee as worthy, and as a benefactor — for thou wast angry with 
 
238 ISAIAH, CHAP. XII. 
 
 me, but thine anger is turned away and thou comfortest me. — The English 
 version renders ^3 though, but according to the masoretic interpunction, it 
 must be read with the preceding words. The apparent incongruity of 
 thanking God because he was angry, is removed by considering that the 
 subject of the thanksgiving is the whole complex idea expressed in the 
 remainder of the verse, of which God's being angry is only one element. 
 It was not simply because God was angry that the people praise him, but 
 because he was angry and his anger ceased. The same idea is expressed 
 by the English Version in another form, by intimating early in the sentence 
 the relation of its parts, whereas it is characteristic of the Hebrew style to 
 state things absolutely first, and qualify them afterwards. The same mode of 
 expression is used by Paul in Greek, when he says (Romans 6 : 17), God be 
 thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have from the heart obeyed 
 etc. This view of the matter precludes the necessity of taking tfli» in the 
 sense of I acknowledge thee to have been just in being angry at me. The 
 force of the particle at the beginning of the second clause can be fully 
 represented only by the English but. — s&5; is the abbreviated form of the 
 future, commonly used to express a wish or a command, in which sense 
 some explain it here, taking this clause as a prayer for deliverance. But 
 this would confine the expression of thanksgiving to God's being angry, the 
 very incongruity which has just been shown not to exist. It must be taken 
 either as a poetical substitute for awJj with a present meaning, or as con- 
 tracted for s^3*i in a past sense, which is given in most versions. The 
 force of the verb in this connexion is enhanced by a comparison with chap. 
 10 : 4, and the parallel verses of the foregoing context, where it is said 
 repeatedly that God's wrath had not turned back or away (pv &6). Thou 
 comfortest me, not by words only but by deeds, which may seem to justify 
 the version thou hast mercy on me, given by some writers. 
 
 V. 2. Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust, and not be afraid ; 
 for my strength and song is Jah Jehovah, and he is become my salvation. 
 Some exchange the abstract for the concrete, my Saviour, but with a great 
 loss of strength in the expression. The first verb may be rendered in the 
 present (1 trust), as describing an actual state of mind ; but the future form, 
 while it sufficiently implies this, at the same time expresses a fixed deter- 
 mination, I will trust, be confident, secure. The next words contain a 
 negative expression of the same idea. In certain connexions, ts> seems to 
 denote power as an element of glory, an object of admiration, and a subject 
 of praise. Hence Gesenius and others assign praise as a secondary mean- 
 ing of the word itself, which is pushing the deduction and distinction of 
 senses to extremes. Jarchi observes that *vrs, with 6 in the first syllable, is 
 never used except in combination with 1^3% the orthography elsewhere 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XII. 239 
 
 being always m:?. Thi> variation may, however, be euphonic, and ha 
 no connexion with a difference of meaning. My praise and my song gives 
 a good sense, but no hitter, and assuredly no stronger, than my strength 
 and my sojig, i. e. the source of my protection and the subject of my praise. 
 Kimrhi and others regard r~V., here and in the parallel passages, as an 
 abbreviation of T^T; but the modern writers make it a collateral or cog- 
 nate form of fvyp, and supply the suffix from the preceding word. — Coc- 
 ceius derives WJ from nsp to be suitable, becoming, and considers it an 
 abstract denoting the divine perfection. It is much more probably an ab- 
 breviation of njn^, and as such occurs at the end of many compound 
 proper names. In the song of Moses, from which this expression is bor- 
 rowed, hjrrj is omitted (Ex. 15: 2), as also in Ps. 118: 14, which is 
 copied from the same. Nor does the combination IrtltJ fp occur elsewhere, 
 except in Isai. 26 : 4. Some of the modern writers, therefore, have con- 
 tended that rn'rn is superfluous. But the fact of its occurrence in another 
 passage of this very book precludes this emendation in the absence of ex- 
 ternal evidence. There is really nothing more surprising in the combination 
 than in the frequent accumulation of the other divine names. 
 
 V. 3. And ye shall draw water with joy from the springs of salvation. 
 — This is a natural and common figure for obtaining and enjoying divine 
 favour. There is no need of supposing a particular allusion to the doctrines 
 of religion. By this verse the Talmudists explain and justify the custom 
 of pouring out water from the fountain of Siloam at the feast of tabernacles, 
 a ceremony no doubt long posterior to the time of Isaiah. 
 
 V. 4. And ye shall say (to one another) in that day, praise (or give 
 thanks to) Jehovah, call upon his name (proclaim it), make known among 
 the nations his exploits (or achievements), remind (them) that his name is 
 exalted. Some take nwwri in the sense of praising, celebrating, and trans- 
 late "'s for, because, in which case what follows is not the subject but the 
 reason of the praise. The English Bible has make mention ; but the strict 
 sense of the Hiphil as a causative is perfectly appropriate and suits the context. 
 Name is here used in the pregnant sense of that whereby God makes him- 
 self known, including explicit revelation and the exhibition of his attributes 
 in all. On the usage of this word in the Psalms, see Hengstenberg on 
 Ps. 8: 1. 
 
 V. 5. Praise Jehovah (by singing, and perhaps with instruments) be- 
 cause he has done elevation (or sublimity, i. e. a sublime deed). Known is 
 this (or be this) in all the earth. — *iet means properly to play upon stringed 
 instruments, then to sing with an accompaniment, then to sing in general, 
 
240 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII, XIV. 
 
 then to praise by singing or by music generally. In this last sense it may 
 govern the noun directly. — The English Version, excellent things, is too inde- 
 finite for the singular form WW». — The Kethib W»a is the Pual, -the Keri 
 nywa the Hophal participle, of 2>n"> to Jcnoiv. Both forms are causative and 
 passive, made known, caused to be known. Knobel conjectures that Wgjin 
 may have been a noun, synonymous with n??ta, and analogous in form to 
 r^sia from SS*. — The English Version supplies it, and makes the last 
 clause an appeal to the whole world for the truth of the thing celebrated. 
 Most of the recent versions make it an imperative expression, exhorting to 
 a general diffusion of the truth. 
 
 V. 6. Cry out and shout (or sing), oh inhabitant of Zion (the people 
 or the church personified as a woman), for great in the midst of thee 
 (residing in thee by a special manifestation of his presence) is the Holy 
 One of Israel (that Holy Being who has bound himself to Israel, in a pecu- 
 liar and extraordinary manner, as their covenant God). 
 
 CHAPTERS XIII, XIV. 
 
 Here begins a series of prophecies (chap. XIII — XXIII) against certain 
 foreign powers, from the enmity of which Israel had been more or less a 
 sufferer. The first in the series is a memorable prophecy of the fall of the 
 Babylonian empire and the destruction of Babylon itself (chap. XIII, XIV) 
 The Medes are expressly named as the instruments of its subjection, and 
 the prophecy contains several other remarkable coincidences with history 
 both sacred and profane. Hence it was justly regarded by the older writers, 
 both Jews and Christians, as an extraordinary instance of prophetic fore- 
 sight. As such, even J. D. Michaelis defends it against the hypothesis 
 (then a novel one) of an ex post facto prophecy invented for the purpose of 
 inducing Cyrus to befriend the Jews. He argues conclusively against this 
 supposition, on the ground that the literary merit of the passage is too exqui- 
 site for such an origin, and that the writer, in the case supposed, could not 
 have represented the destruction of Babylon as total without defeating his 
 own purpose. The last objection also lies against Eichhorn's supposition 
 of a prophecy written after the event but without any fraudulent design, 
 the form of prediction being merely a poetical costume. Rosenmuller holds 
 that it was written towards the close of the Babylonish exile, while the 
 events which it describes were in progress, or so near at hand as to be 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII, XIV. 241 
 
 readily foreseen. This view of the matter is also taken by Gesenius and 
 the later German writers on Isaiah. The arguments in favour of it, as 
 recently stated by Knobel, may be reduced to three — (1) a spirit unworthy 
 of Isaiah, i. e. one of bitter hatred and desire of revenge — (2) a want of 
 resemblance in the style and diction to the genuine writings of Isaiah, and 
 a strong resemblance to some later compositions — (3) a constant allusion 
 to historical events and a state of things which did not exist for ages after 
 Isaiah. The answer to the first reason is that it is false. Such is not the 
 natural impression which the prophecy would make on an unbiassed reader. 
 This perversion has been unintentionally aided by a rhetorical mistake of 
 Calvin and other Christian interpreters in representing the fourteenth chap- 
 ter as taunting and sarcastic in its tone, which on the contrary is character- 
 ized by pathos. But even on this erroneous supposition, there is nothing 
 to justify the charge of bitter vengefulness, brought for the first time by the 
 latest German writers, with an obvious design to strengthen their weak 
 arguments derived from other sources. The second argument is unsound in 
 principle and precarious in application. On the ground that every writer 
 always writes alike, only one composition of any author can be certainly 
 proved genuine. The Satires of Horace must be spurious because he was 
 a lyric poet — the Georgics of Virgil because he was an epic poet — 
 the Plaideurs of Racine because he was a tragic poet. One half of Aris- 
 tophanes and Shakspeare might be thus made to prove the other half a for- 
 gery. This mode of criticism is peculiarly German and will never com- 
 mend itself to the general taste and judgment of the learned world. The 
 same thing may be said of the attempt to ascertain the age of ancient 
 writings by a comparison of words and phrases. One critic singles out 
 whatever, taken by itself, appears to favour his own foregone conclusion, and 
 leaves the rest unnoticed. Another, with another end in view, might prove 
 the contrary by the self-same process. This is not only possible but actu- 
 ally done. Thus Gesenius and Hitzig prove that Isaiah could not have 
 written the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, by an enumeration of 
 diversities in diction, phraseology, grammatical construction, style etc. 
 Hendewerk just as clearly proves, by a specification of minute but remark- 
 able coincidences, that Isaiah must have been the author. Admitting that 
 the second demonstration is worth no more than the first, they may at least 
 serve to cancel one another, and to show the fallacy of all such reasoning. 
 This argument proves nothing by itself because it proves, or may be made 
 to prove, too much. The true strength of the doctrine now in question 
 lies not in the moral or philological arguments which have been no- 
 ticed, but in the historical one, that these chapters contain statements and 
 allusions which imply a knowledge of what happened long after Isaiah's 
 
 16 
 
242 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII, XIV. 
 
 death. Hitzig says expressly that a prophecy against Babylon before the 
 time of Jeremiah is impossible. This of course is tantamount to saying that 
 prophetic inspiration is impossible. And this is after all the only question 
 of importance. If there cannot be prophetic foresight, then of course a 
 reference to subsequent events fixes the date of the writing which contains 
 it. If, on the other hand, there is such a thing as inspiration and prophetic 
 foresight, there is nothing to weaken the presumption created by a uniform 
 tradition, the immemorial position of this prophecy, and the express terms 
 of a title not less ancient than the text, of which, according to oriental 
 usage, it is really a part. The point at issue therefore between Christian and 
 infidel interpreters has reference not to words and phrases merely but to the 
 possibility and reality of inspiration. Assuming this, we can have no hesita- 
 tion in regarding the prophecy before us as a genuine production of Isaiah. — 
 Of those who take this ground, Cocceius seems to stand alone in questioning 
 the literal application of the prophecy to Babylon in the proper sense. 
 He refers it partly to ancient Israel, partly to Antichrist, a theory which 
 condemns itself as equally arbitrary and inconsistent. Grotius as usual goes 
 to the opposite extreme of supposing that this is a hyperbolical description 
 of evils which were to be experienced by Babylon before it reached the 
 zenith of its greatness under Nebuchadnezzar, a hypothesis as arbi- 
 trary as the other, and moreover chargeable with contradicting history. 
 Some particular absurdities of both these schemes will be brought to view 
 in the exposition. The great majority of Christian writers understand these 
 chapters as a specific prophecy of the downfall of the Babylonian empire 
 occasioned by the conquests of the Medes and Persians. To this event 
 there are repeated unequivocal allusions. There are some points, however, 
 in which the coincidence of prophecy and history, on this hypothesis, is not 
 so clear. This is especially the case with respect to the total destruction 
 and annihilation of the city itself, which was brought about by a gradual 
 process through a course of ages. The true solution of this difficulty is that 
 that the prediction is generic, not specific ; that it is not a detailed account 
 of one event exclusively, but a prophetic picture of the fall of Babylon con- 
 sidered as a whole, some of the traits being taken from the first and some 
 from the last stage of the fatal process, while others are indefinite or com- 
 mon to all. The same idea may be otherwise expressed by saying, 
 that the king of Babylon, whose fall is here predicted, is neither Nebuchad- 
 nezzar nor Belshazzar, but the kings of Babylon collectively, or rather an 
 ideal king of Babylon, in whom the character and fate of the whole empire 
 are concentrated. Some of the terms applied to him may therefore be liter- 
 ally true of one king, some of another, some individually of none, although 
 descriptive of the whole. This hypothesis, while it removes all discrepan- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII, XIV. 243 
 
 cies, still retains the wonderful coincidences of the prophecy with history, 
 and makes them more remarkable by scattering them through so vast a field. 
 Even if the allusions to the conquest of Cyrus could be resolved into con- 
 jecture or contemporary knowledge, how shall we account for a description 
 of the fate of the great city, not once for all, but down to the present mo- 
 ment ? Even supposing that the writer of this prophecy lived at the time 
 of Cyrus, how will the infidel interpreter account for his prediction of that 
 total desolation, which was not consummated for ages afterwards, but which 
 now exists to the full extent of the prophetic description in its strongest sense. 
 On the one hand, we have only to believe that Isaiah was inspired of God. 
 On the other, we must hold that a writer of the very highest genius either 
 personated the Prophet or was confounded with him by the ancient Jews, 
 and that this anonymous writer, whose very name is lost, without any 
 inspiration, uttered a prediction which then seemed falsified by the event, 
 but which has since been accidentally fulfilled ! — It is universally admitted 
 that the thirteenth chapter, and the greater part if not the whole of the 
 fourteenth, constitute a single prophecy. The division of the chapters is, 
 however, not a wrong one. Both parts relate to the destruction of Babylon, 
 setting out from God's decree and winding up with the threatening of total 
 desolation. Ch. XIV is therefore not a mere continuation of ch. XIII, but 
 a repetition of the same matter in another form. The difference of form is 
 chiefly this, that while ch. XIII is more historical in its arrangement, ch. XIV 
 is dramatic or at least poetical. Another point of difference is that in ch. 
 XIII the downfall of Babylon is represented rather as an act of divine ven- 
 geance, in ch. XIV as a means of deliverance to Israel, the denunciations of 
 divine wrath being there clothed in the form of a triumphant song to be 
 sung by Israel when Babylon is fallen. — Cocceius, as we have already seen, 
 applies this part of the prediction secondarily but strictly to the fall of Anti- 
 christ. Many other of the older writers make this the mystical or secondary 
 sense of the whole prophecy, because they understand it to be so explained 
 in the Apocalypse. The truth, however, seems to be, first, that the down- 
 fall of Babylon, as a great antitheocratic power, an opponent and persecutor 
 of the ancient church, affords a type or emblem of the destiny of all oppos- 
 ing powers nnder the New Testament ; and secondly, that in consequence 
 of this analogy, the Apocalyptic prophecies apply the name Babylon to the 
 Antichristian power. But these Apocalyptic prophecies are new ones, not 
 interpretations of the one before us. 
 
244 ISAIAH. CHAP. XIII. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 After a title, the prophecy opens with a summons to the chosen instru- 
 ments of God's righteous judgments upon Babylon, who are described as 
 mustered by the Lord himself, and then appearing, to the terror and amaze- 
 ment of the Babylonians, who are unable to resist their doom, vs. 1-9. The 
 great catastrophe is then described in a series of beautiful figures, as an 
 extinction of the heavenly bodies, and a general commotion in the frame of 
 nature, explained by the prophet himself to mean a fearful visitation of 
 Jehovah, making men more rare than gold, dispersing the strangers resident 
 at Babylon, and subjecting the inhabitants to the worst inflictions at the 
 hands of the Medes, who are expressly mentioned as the instruments of the 
 divine vengeance, and described as indifferent to gain and relentless in their 
 cruelty, vs. 1-18. From this beginning of the process of destruction, we 
 are then hurried on to its final consummation, the completeness of which 
 is expressed by a comparison with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 and by a prediction that the site of Babylon shall not be frequented even by 
 the wandering Arab, or by shepherds and their flocks, but only by solitary 
 animals whose presence is itself a sign of utter desolation, vs. 19-22. 
 
 V. 1. The Burden of Babylon (or threatening prophecy respecting it), 
 which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw (received by revelation). There are two 
 interpretations of stSs, both very ancient. The one makes it simply mean a 
 declaration (from abj to utter), or more specifically a divine declaration, a 
 prophecy, oracle, or vision. The Septuagint translates it by ooaaig or Soapa 
 and sometimes by tfpfi* (from Ktoa to receive). The Vulgate has visio. 
 This interpretation is adopted by Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, 
 Lowth, and all the recent German writers. Henderson has sentence. The 
 other explanation gives the word the sense of a minatory prophecy. So 
 Luther, Calvin, and in our own day Hengstenberg, who denies that the 
 word is ever applied to any prediction but a minatory one, even Zech. 
 12: 1 being no exception. (See his exposition of Zech. 9: 1, in his 
 Christologie, vol. 2. p. 102.) He also alleges that the word is never 
 joined like d£a with the name of God or of any other person but the 
 subject of the prophecy. For these reasons, and because Ktoa in other 
 connexions always means a burden, it is best to retain the common expla- 
 nation, which is also given by Barnes. This word occurs in the titles of all 
 the distinct prophecies of this second part. The one before us is rejected 
 by Hitzig and Ewald, as the addition of a copyist or compiler, but without 
 the least external evidence or sufficient reason. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 245 
 
 V. 2. The attack of the Modes and Persians upon Babylon is now fore- 
 told, not in the proper form of a prediction, nor even in that of a description, 
 which is often substituted for it, but in that of an order from Jehovah to his 
 ministers to summon the invaders, first by an elevated signal, and then as 
 they draw nearer by gestures and the voice. Upon a bare hill (i. e. one 
 with a clear summit, not concealed by trees) set up a signal, raise the voice, 
 (shout or cry aloud) to them (the Medes and Persians), and let them enter 
 (he gates of the (Babylonian) nobles. — Forerius takes heed as the proper 
 name of a mountain, dividing Chaldea from Persia and Media. The 
 Vulgate renders it caliginosum, which Jerome applies to the spiritual dark- 
 ness of the Babylonians, and Grotius to the fogs and mists arising from the 
 marshy situation of the city. The Targum paraphrases the expression as 
 denoting a city secure and confident of safety. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, 
 and most of the early Christian writers, with Augusti, Barnes, and Lee, in 
 later times, give it the sense of lofty. But the latest lexicographers and 
 commentators seem to be agreed that the true sense is that of bare or bald. 
 The Septuagint version (oqov$ nedirov) is explained by Gesenius as descriptive 
 of a mountain with a flat or level top, but the older writers understand it as 
 denoting a mountain surrounded by a plain, a metaphorical description of 
 Babylon. It is not, however, a description of the city, but an allusion to 
 the usual method of erecting signals on a lofty and conspicuous spot. As 
 the expression is indefinite — a mountain — there is no need of supposing with 
 Vitringa a particular allusion to the Zagrian mountains between Media and 
 Babylonia. — Jerome and Cocceius suppose the angels to be here addressed ; 
 Knobel and others, the captive Jews ; but it is best to understand the words 
 indefinitely as addressed to those whose proper work it was to do the thing 
 commanded. Jehovah being here represented as a military leader, the 
 order is of course to be conceived as given to his heralds or other officers. 
 They are not commanded to display a banner as a sign of victory (Cyril), 
 but to erect a signal for the purpose of collecting troops. There is no need 
 of supposing with Vitringa and Henderson that V>ip means the sound of the 
 trumpet. The subjunctive construction of ix^i given by most writers (that 
 they may enter), is not only unnecessary but much less expressive than the 
 obvious construction which supposes the command to be continued. The 
 nobles are not those of Media and Persia, to whose doors Clericus supposes 
 the soldiers to be summoned for the purpose of enlisting in this service, but 
 those of Babylon. The specific sense of tyrants, which Gesenius and the 
 later Germans put upon this word, is wholly unauthorized by the analogy 
 of Job 21 : 28, unless we assume that parallel terms must always be synony- 
 mous. Other constructions of the last clause have been given by the 
 Septuagint («yo/£«r£ oi fSgprrfff) — the Vulgate (ingrediantur portas duces) 
 — Schmidius (ut veniant portae principum) — Koppe (voluntarii portas 
 
246 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 aperite) — Doderlein (ut veniant enses evaginati vol unta riorum) — J. D. 
 Michaelis (dass meine Freywillige sich vor meiner Pforte versammlen) etc. 
 All these involve a change of text or a harshness of construction. Lowth 
 omits drt, as of no use and rather weakening the sentence. On the con 
 trary it strengthens it by an abrupt reference to the invaders without naming 
 them, as being too well known already. 
 
 V. 3. The enemies thus summoned are described as chosen, designated 
 instruments of the divine vengeance, and as already exulting in the certainty 
 of their success. I (myself) have given command (or a commission) to my 
 consecrated (chosen and appointed instruments). Yes (literally, also), I 
 have called (forth) my mighty ones (or heroes) for (the execution of) my 
 wrath, my proud exulters. — The insertion of *5& is not an idiom of the later 
 Hebrew, as explained by Gesenius (Lehrg. p. 801), but as Maurer has 
 correctly stated, an emphatic designation of God as the sole efficient agent, 
 I myself, or I even I. 'Wpa has no reference to the moral character or pur- 
 pose of the instruments, but simply to God's choice and preparation of them 
 for their work. The Chaldee paraphrase makes the last of these ideas, 
 that of preparation, too exclusively prominent. Henderson and Knobel 
 suppose a special reference to the religious ceremonies practised before going 
 out to war (1 Sam. 7 : 9. 13 : 9. 2Chron. 13 : 12. Comp. Gen. 14 : 14). 
 But as this would not be strictly applicable to the Medes and Persians, it 
 seems more natural to suppose that tt)*ip is here used in its primary and 
 proper sense of separating^ setting apart, or consecrating to a special use or 
 service. The W at the beginning of the second clause is arbitrarily omitted 
 by Gesenius and DeWette, but retained by Ewald and Umbreit. To call 
 out is here explained by Rosenmuller as denoting specially a call to military 
 service. It may, however, have the general sense of summoning or calling 
 upon by name. ^"HSS is commonly regarded as simply equivalent to ^lmpia ; 
 but Knobel understands the former as a specific epithet of chiefs or officers. 
 Augusti, Barnes, and most of the older writers, understand the last words of 
 the verse as meaning those ivho exult in my greatness, or in my great plan 
 (Barnes,) Kimchi and Jarchi ; those by whom I glorify myself. But the 
 other modern writers have adopted the construction of Cocceius and Vitringa, 
 who refer the suffix to the first word or the whole phrase, a common Hebrew 
 idiom (Gesen. <§> 119. 5) — my exulters of pride, i. e. my proud exulters. 
 This may be understood as a description of the confidence with which they 
 anticipated victory ; but most interpreters suppose an allusion to the natural 
 character of the Persians as described by Croesus in Herodotus (cpvory 
 sovteg v@Qi(J7ai) — by Herodotus himself (vofxl^ovtsg savrovg shai av&Q(07Z(ov 
 liaxQW ia navta aQiazovg) — by iEschylus (v7ieQX0[i7T0i ayav) — and by Am- 
 mianus Marcellinus (abundantes inanibus verbis insanumque loquentes et 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 247 
 
 ferum, magnidici et graves ac tctri, mlnaces juxta in adversis rebus ac pros- 
 peris, callidi, superbi). The same idea is expressed by the Septuagint 
 version (jafyortee ufta xu\ vftniXovrt*). 
 
 V. 4. The Prophet, in his own person, now describes the enemies of 
 Babylon who had just been summoned, as actually on their way. He hears 
 a confused noise, which he soon finds to be that of confederated nations 
 forming the army of Jehovah against Babylon. The voice (or sound) of a 
 multitude in the mountains ! the likeness of much people ! the sound of a 
 tumult of kingdoms of nations gathered (or gathering themselves) / Jehovah 
 of Hosts mustering (i. e. inspecting and numbering) a host of battle (i. e. a 
 military host) ! The absence of verbs adds greatly to the vividness of 
 the description. The sentence really consists of a series of exclamations, 
 describing the impressions made successively upon the senses of an eye and 
 ear-witness. The expression is weakened by supplying is heard (Junius) 
 or there is (Cocceius). Gesenius and Ewald insert hark ! at the beginning 
 of the sentence, which is better, though unnecessary. By the mountains 
 some suppose Media to be meant, to which Henderson adds Armenia and 
 the other hilly countries from which Cyrus drew his forces. This supposes 
 the movement here described to be that of the levy or conscription. But 
 it seems more natural to understand it, as most writers do, of the actual 
 advance of the invaders. The mountains then will be those dividing Baby- 
 lonia from Media or Persia. — The symbolical interpretation of mountains as 
 denoting states and kingdoms (Musculus), is entirely out of place here. 
 rwofi is commonly explained here as equivalent to as or like ; but J. D. 
 Michaelis and Rosenmiiller seem to take it in its proper sense of likeness or 
 similar appearance, and refer to the indistinct view of a great multitude 
 approaching from a distance. The reference to sound before and after- 
 wards, makes the reference of this clause to the sense of sight improbable. — 
 The rendering of V^'^ ^P tumultuous noise is not only a gratuitous departure 
 from the form of the original, but a weakening of the description. The 
 object presented is not a tumultuous noise merely, but the noise of an actual 
 tumult. — Calvin, -Gesenius, and others, separate kingdoms from nations, as 
 distinct particulars. The construction kingdoms of nations, which is retained 
 by Ewald, is the one required by the Masoretic accents, and affords a better 
 sense. — The Niphal participle may be taken in a reflexive sense, in which 
 case the description would refer to the original assembling of the troops. There 
 is no necessity however for departing from the ordinary usage, according to 
 which it describes the nations as already assembled. — It is commonly agreed 
 that there is here a direct reference to the mixture of nations in the army of 
 Cyrus. Besides the Persians and the Medes, Xenophon speaks of the Arme- 
 nians, and Jeremiah adds the names of other nations (Jer. 50: 9. 51 : 27). 
 
243 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Most interpreters suppose the event here predicted to be subsequent in date to 
 the overthrow of Croesus, while Knobel refers it to the first attack of Cyrus 
 upon Babylonia, recorded in the third book of the Cyropedia. But these 
 distinctions seem to rest upon a false view of the passage as a description of 
 particular marches, battles etc., rather than a generic, picture of the whole 
 series of events which ended in the downfall of Babylon. For a just view 
 of the principles on which such prophecies should be explained, with par- 
 ticular reference to that before us, see Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. 2, 
 p. 143. The title Jehovah of Hosts, may here seem to be used unequivo- 
 cally in the sense of God of Battles, on account of the obvious allusion to 
 the word host following. But as this explanation of the title is not justified 
 by scriptural usage (vide supra, ch. 1 : 9), it is better to understand the 
 words as meaning that the Lord of the Hosts of Heaven is now mustering 
 a host on earth. Lowth, on the authority of a single manuscript, reads 
 nvnhsbfor the battle or for battle. But the last word appears to be added 
 simply for the purpose of limiting and qualifying that before it. This was 
 the more necessary as the same word had been just used in another sense. 
 He who controls the hosts of heaven is now engaged in mustering a host of 
 tear, i. e. an army. The Septuagint and Vulgate construe these last words 
 with the following verse — the Lord of Hosts has commanded an armed 
 nation to come etc. — which is a forced and ungrammatical construction. — 
 The substitution of the present for the participle in the English Version 
 (mustereth) and most others, greatly impairs the force and uniformity of the 
 expression by converting a lively exclamation into a dispassionate assertion. 
 Hendewerk carelessly omits the last clause altogether. 
 
 V. 5. Coming from a distant land (literally, a land of distance) , from 
 the (visible or apparent) end of the heavens — Jehovah and the instruments 
 (or weapons) of his wrath — to lay waste (or destroy) the whole land (of 
 Babylonia). — Junius and most of the later writers construe n^xn as a present 
 (they come etc.). It is better to make it agre^e with xss as a collective, 
 and to continue the construction from the foregoing verse, as above. — The 
 end of heaven is of course regarded by Gesenius as a proof of ignorance in 
 the # writer. Others more reasonably understand it as a strong but natural 
 hyperbole. The best explanation is that given by J. D. Michaelis and 
 Barnes, who suppose the Prophet to refer to the horizon or bounding line of 
 vision. He is not deliberately stating from what region they set out, but 
 from what point he sees them actually coming, viz. from the remotest point 
 in sight. This view of the expression, not as a geographical description, 
 but as. a vivid representation of appearances, removes the necessity of 
 explaining how Media or Persia could be called a distant land or the 
 extremity of heaven. Schmidius evades this imaginary difficulty by 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 249 
 
 applying the terms to the distant nations from which Cyrus drew his forces 
 — Clericus by referring distant not to Babylonia but Judea, and supposing 
 the Prophet to be governed in his use of language by the habitual associa- 
 tions of his Jewish readers. Cocceius, partly for this very reason, under- 
 stands the whole passage as a threatening against Judah. — Jehovah and 
 the weapons of his wrath. According to the Michlol Jophi, and is here 
 put for with, and some translators actually make the substitution, which is 
 wholly unnecessary. The host which Jehovah was before said to be mus- 
 tering is now represented as consisting of himself and the weapons of his 
 wrath. This intimation of his presence, his co-operation, and even his 
 incorporation, with the invading host, adds greatly to the force of the 
 threatening. The Hebrew word a^a corresponds to our implements in its 
 widest sense, as including instruments and vessels. It has here the active 
 sense of weapons, while in Rom. 9: 22, Paul employs a corresponding 
 Greek phrase in the passive sense of vessels. Weapons of wrath are the 
 weapons which execute it, vessels of wrath the vessels which contain it. — 
 The ambiguous phrase pun bs is explained by the Septuagint as meaning 
 the whole world (naaav i\v olxov[itvTji) , and this interpretation is approved 
 by Umbreit, on the ground that Babylon was a type or symbol of human 
 opposition to divine authority. In its primary import it no doubt denotes 
 the land of Babylonia or Chaldea. Cocceius alone understands the land of 
 Israel or Judah to be meant, in accordance with his singular hypothesis 
 already mentioned. 
 
 V. 6. Howl (ye Babylonians, with distress and fear),ybr the day of 
 Jehovah (his appointed time of judgment) if near. Like might (i. e. a 
 mighty stroke or desolation) from the Almighty it shall come. — Calvin 
 points out a lusus verborum in the combination of ^&5 almighty, and ntt deso- 
 lation or destruction, both derived from *njb. As if he had said, you shall 
 know with what good reason God is called *iflj. This is described by 
 Calvin as a concinna allusio ad etymologiam, by Barnes as a " paronomasia 
 or pun, a figure of speech quite common in the Scriptures." Paronomasia 
 and pun are not synonymous, and the application of the latter term in this 
 case, if not irreverent, is inexact. Gesenius denies that it is even a parono- 
 masia in the proper sense. He also take a as a caph veritatis — ' like a 
 destruction from the Almighty (as it is).' But Hendewerk takes it in its 
 proper sense — a destruction as complete and overwhelming as if it were an act 
 of reckless violence. Kimchi explains the clause to mean, as a destruction 
 (not from man, but) from a mighty one who cannot be resisted or avoided. 
 Vitringa labours to explain and justify the derivation of a divine name from 
 a root of evil import like *fW to plunder or destroy. But this etymological 
 difficulty is removed by the later lexicographers, who give the root the 
 
250 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 general sense of being strong or mighty, as in Arabic. The specific sense 
 of tempest or destructive storm, which Gesenius puts upon Itt here and in 
 Joel 1 : 15, is perfectly gratuitous. Jehovah's days are well defined by 
 Cocceius : in genere dies Domini dicuntur diviniius constitutae opportunities 
 quibus judicium suum exercet. (Vide supra, ch. 2 : 12.) This day is said 
 to be near, not absolutely with respect to the date of the prediction, but 
 relatively, either with respect to the perceptions of the Prophet, or with 
 respect to what had gone before. For ages Babylon might be secure ; but 
 after the premonitory signs just mentioned should be seen, there would be no 
 delay. The words of the verse are supposed to be uttered in the midst of 
 the tumult and alarm of the invasion. 
 
 V. 7. Therefore (because of this sudden and irresistible attack) all 
 hands shall sink (fall down, be slackened or relaxed), and every heart of 
 man shall melt. Clericus supposes an allusion to the etymology of WSk as 
 denoting frailty or infirmity (omne aegrorum mortalium cor) ; but most in- 
 terpreters explain the phrase as simply meaning every mortal heart or the 
 heart of every mortal. Cocceius understands by the sinking of the hands 
 the loss of active power, and by the melting of the heart, the fear of coming 
 evil. Junius supposes an antithesis between the hands or body and the 
 heart or mind. But both the clauses, in their strict sense, are descriptive of 
 bodily effects, and both indicative of mental states. Each of the figures is 
 repeatedly used elsewhere. (See Jos. 7 : 5. Ps. 22 : 13. Jer. 50: 43. Job 
 4: 3.) Knobel quotes from Ovid the analogous expression, cecidere illis 
 animique manusque. 
 
 V. 8. And they (the Babylonians) shall be confounded — pangs and 
 throes shall seize (them) — like the travailing (woman) they shall writhe — 
 each at his neighbour, they shall wonder — faces of flames (shall be) their 
 faces. — The Vulgate, Peshito, and Lowth, connect the first word with the 
 verse preceding, which is, to say the least, unnecessary. — The translation 
 fear or tremble, is too weak for i^nns, which includes the ideas of violent 
 agitation and extreme perplexity. The Septuagint strangely gives to a^-vs 
 here the sense of ambassadors or messengers (vide infra, ch. 18 : 2. 57 : 9), 
 which is precluded by the whole connexion, and especially by the combi- 
 nation with a^nn. — Solomon ben Melech explains ", in )vnn* as an anoma- 
 lous suffix used instead of b. Lowth as usual corrects the text by reading 
 turnx" 1 , on the alleged authority of the Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito, 
 which supply the suffix. Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald and Knobel, adopt a 
 construction mentioned by Kimchi, which makes pangs and throes the 
 object not the subject of the verb — they shall take pangs and throes — as we 
 speak of a house taking fire or a person taking a disease, and as Livy says 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 251 
 
 capere mctum. This form of expression occurs, not only in Arabic, but in 
 Job 18: 20. 21:6. The construction is also recommended by its render- 
 ing the suflix unnecessary, and by its giving to )1!W the same subject with 
 the verbs before and after it. The objection to it, strongly urged by Hende- 
 werk, is that the construction, even in Job, is Arabic not Hebrew, the idiom 
 of the latter beins clear from other cases where the same verb and nouns 
 are combined (Isai. 21: 3. Jer. 13: 21), or the same nouns with other 
 verbs (1 Sam. 4: 19. Isai. 66 : 7. Jer. 22 : 23. Dan. 10:16. Hos. 13:13), 
 or other nouns and verbs of kindred meaning (Ex. 15: 14. Isai. 35: 10. 
 Deut. 28: 2), but in all without exception the noun is the subject not the 
 object of the verb. The construction thus proved to be the common one, 
 may at least be safely retained here, the rather as the collocation of the 
 words is evidently in its favour. — The sense of trembling given to *pWP by 
 several of the recent writers is too weak. The best translation seems to be 
 that of Henderson — they shall writhe — i. e. with pain. The expression 
 wonder at each other occurs once in historical prose (Gen. 43 : 33). It 
 seems here to denote not simply consternation and dismay, but stupefaction 
 at each other's aspect and condition — q. d. each man at his friend shall 
 stand aghast. — The last clause is referred by J. H. Michaelis to the Medes 
 and Persians, and explained as a description of their violence and fierceness, 
 in which sense the same figures are employed in Isaiah 66: 15 and Rev. 
 9: 17. It is commonly and much more naturally understood as a continued 
 description of the terror and distress of the Chaldeans. Aben Ezra men- 
 tions an interpretation of fc^hb as the proper name of an African race 
 descended from Mizraim the son of Ham (Gen. 10: 13. 1 Chron. 1 : 11), 
 and probably the same with the Lubim (2 Chron. 16:8) or Libyans. 
 1 Their faces shall be (like) the faces of Africans ' i. e. black with horror 
 and despair. This explanation is approved by Gataker ; but all other 
 writers seem to take firb as the plural of -nb a flame. The point of 
 comparison, according to Kimchi, is redness, here referred to as a natural 
 symptom of confusion and shame. But as this seems inappropriate in the case 
 before us, Hitzig and Knobel understand the aspect indicated to be one of 
 paleness, as produced by fear. Calvin, Gesenius, and many others, under- 
 stand the glow or flush produced by anguish and despair to be intended. 
 For the classical usage of fire and flame as denoting a red colour, see 
 Gesenius's Thesaurus, torn. 2, p. 743. In the last edition of his Lexicon by 
 Robinson, the phrase before us is explained to mean " ruddy and burning 
 with eagerness," an expression applicable only to the conquerors. Instead 
 of eagerness, the Thesaurus has internum animi acstum. — Cocceius refers 
 this, as well as the preceding verses, to the Assyrian and Babylonian inva- 
 sions of the Holy Land. He also makes the verbs descriptive presents, in 
 
252 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 which he is followed by J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans. There is, 
 however, no need of departing from the strict sense of the future. 
 
 V. 9. All this must happen and at a set time — for behold the day of 
 Jehovah » cometh — terrible — and wrath and heat of anger — to 'place (or 
 make) the land a waste — and its sinners he (or it, the day) will destroy 
 from it (or out of it). — According to Cocceius, the mention of Jehovah 
 throughout this 'passage, sometimes in the first person, sometimes in the 
 third, has reference to the plurality of persons in the Godhead. — He also 
 renders **it3K as an abstract noun (immanitas), in which he is followed by 
 Vitringa, while Ewald gives it an adverbial sense (grausamer Art), but most 
 interpreters regard it as an adjective synonymous with m&H. The applica- 
 tion of this term to God, or to his judgments, seems to have perplexed inter- 
 preters. Crudelem diem vocat (says Jerome) non merito sui sed populi. 
 Non est enim crudelis qui crudeles jugulat, sed quod crudelis patientibus 
 esse videatur. Nam et htro suspensus paiibulo crudelem judicem putat. 
 " The word (says Barnes) stands opposed here to mercy, and means that 
 God would not spare them." It is dubious, however, whether the word in 
 any case exactly corresponds to the crudelis of the Vulgate or the English 
 cruel. The essential idea is rather that of vehemence, destructiveness, etc. 
 It is rendered accordingly in various forms, without any implication of a moral 
 kind, by the Septuagint (avlatos), Lowth (inexorable), Gesenius (furchtbar), 
 and others. — The following words, as well as ^t=a, are construed by Coc- 
 ceius as in apposition with rw? ftp — the day itself being described as cruelty, 
 wrath etc. Gesenius, in his commentary, repeats d*p, fearful, and (a day 
 of) wrath etc. In his translation he supplies another word — full of anger 
 etc. Ewald and others supply a preposition — with wrath etc. Another 
 possible construction would be to suppose a change of subject — c The day 
 of Jehovah is coming and (so is) his wrath etc.' In that case, JW 1 is of 
 course the subject of VWB*. Upon the other supposition it may agree with 
 &\\ but without a change of meaning. The most vigorous though not the 
 most exact translation of these epithets is Luther's (grausam, grimmig, zor- 
 nig.) Most interpreters, from Jarchi downwards, understand "pan to be 
 Babylonia ; but the Septuagint makes it mean the earth or world (oocoi;- 
 ftevqv) as in v. 5. This explanation is revived by the three latest writers 
 whom I have consulted, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, the last of whom 
 understands the term as an allusion to the universal sway of the Babylonian 
 empire. — The moral causes of the ruin threatened are significantly intimated 
 by the prophet's calling the people of the earth or land its sinners. As the 
 national offences here referred to, Vitringa enumerates pride (v. 11. 14: 11. 
 47: 7, 8), idolatry (Jer. 50: 38), tyranny in general (14: 12, 17), and 
 oppression of God's people in particular (47 : 6). — In the laying of the land 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 253 
 
 waste, Junius supposes a particular allusion to the submerging of the Baby- 
 lonian plains, by the diversion of the waters of Euphrates. 
 
 V. 10. The day of Jehovah is now described as one of preternatural 
 and awful darkness, in which the very sources of light shall be obscured. 
 This natural and striking figure for sudden and disastrous change is of fre- 
 quent occurrence in Scripture (see Isai. 24 : 23. 34 : 4. Ezek. 32 : 7, 8. 
 Joel 2: 10. 3: 15. Amos 8: 9. Matth. 24: 29). Well may it be called 
 a day of wrath and terror — for the stars of the heavens and their signs (or 
 constellations) shall not shed their light — the sun is darkened in his going 
 forth — and the moon shall not cause its light to shine. — It can only be from 
 misapprehension of the connexion between this verse and the ninth, that 
 Lowth translates ^s yea ! — According to Hitzig and Knobel, the darkening 
 of the stars is mentioned first, because the Hebrews reckoned the day from 
 sunset. — Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis understand the image here presented 
 to be that of a terrific storm, veiling the heavens, and concealing its lumi- 
 naries. But grand as this conception is, it falls short of the Prophet's vivid 
 description, which is not that of transient obscuration but of sudden and 
 total extinction. — The abrupt change from the future to the preterite and 
 back again, has been retained in the translation, although most modern ver- 
 sions render all the verbs as presents. From simply foretelling the extinc- 
 tion of the stars, the Prophet suddenly describes that of the sun as if he saw 
 it, and then adds that of the moon as a necessary consequence. — Clericus 
 explains c^oa as a synonyme of boa in the sense of hope or confidence, 
 and refers the suffix to the Babylonians, who were notoriously addicted to 
 astrology and even to astrolatry. The stars of heaven which are (literally, 
 and or even) their confidence etc. This ingenious exposition seems to have 
 commended itself to no other writer, though Malvenda does likewise sup- 
 pose a special allusion to the astrological belief and practice of the Baby- 
 lonians. Theodotion and Aquila retain the Hebrew word (/eaiXea^). 
 Jerome gives the vague sense splendour, the Peshito that of strength or host. 
 Calvin and others render it by sidera. Vitringa makes it mean the planets, 
 Junius the constellations, as distinguished from the stars. Rabbinical and 
 other writers make b^bs the name of a particular star, but differ as to its 
 identity. The latest writers have gone back to the version of the Septua- 
 gint (6 'QqIwv) and Luther (sein Orion), except that they restore the plural 
 form of the original. The proofs of the identity of Nimrod and Orion, as 
 hunters transferred to the heavens, in the oriental and classical mythology, 
 have been arrayed, with a minuteness of detail and a profusion of learning 
 out of all proportion to the exegetical importance of the subject, by J. D. 
 Michaelis, in his Supplement ad lexx. Hebr. p. 1319 seq. — Gesenius on the 
 passage now before us — and Lee on Job 9:9. It is commonly agreed that 
 
254 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 the word, which occurs elsewhere only in the singular (Job 9: 9. 38: 31. 
 Amos 5 : 8), is here used in the plural to give it a generic sense. Orions 
 i. e. Orion and other brilliant constellations. To express this idea most of 
 the recent versions exchange the proper name for an appellative. The word 
 Bilder used by the latest German writers seems to have reference to the 
 signs of the Zodiac. Ewald alone retains the primary meaning (seine 
 Orionen). In this, as in many other cases, the spirit of the passage is no 
 where more felicitously given than in Luther's energetic paraphrase. Die 
 Sterne am Himmel una 1 sein Orion scheinen nicht helle ; die Sonne gehet 
 finster auf und der Mond scheinet dunkel. 
 
 V. 11. The Prophet according to his custom (vide supra, ch. 1 : 22. 
 5: 7. 11 : 9), now resolves his figures into literal expressions, showing that 
 the natural convulsions just predicted are to be understood as metaphorical 
 descriptions of the divine judgments. And I will visit upon the world (its) 
 wickedness (i. e. manifest my presence for the purpose of punishing it) — and 
 upon the wicked their iniquity — and I will cause to cease the arrogance of pre- 
 sumptuous sinners — and the pride of tyrants (or oppressors) J will humble. 
 The primary meaning of ^nn is retained in the versions of Junius (orbis 
 habitabilis) and Cocceius (frugiferam terram), who regards the use of this 
 word as a proof that the prophecy relates to Israel (populus per verbum 
 Dei cultus.) It is no doubt a poetical equivalent to "pa, and is here ap- 
 plied to the Babylonian empire, as embracing most of the known world. 
 Thus the Roman empire, as Lowth shows, was called universus orbis Roma- 
 nus, and Minos, in Ovid, speaks of Crete as meus orbis. Hitzig makes ^sn 
 hsi mean the evil world, but the parallel expression which immediately fol- 
 lows, and the analogy of Jer. 23 : 2. Ex. 20 : 5, are decisive in favour of the 
 usual construction. — The Septuagint makes t^x^s synonymous with ts nta it 
 Cimeprjcpdvwv) , and the Vulgate makes it simply mean the powerful (fortium). 
 But active violence is an essential part of the meaning. The English Ver- 
 sion and some others adopt the sense of terrible (from jnS to terrify) ; but 
 the latest interpreters prefer the meaning given by Calvin, Clericus, and 
 others (tyrannorum). 
 
 V. 12. To the general description in the foregoing verse he now adds a 
 more specific threatening of extensive slaughter, and a consequent diminu- 
 tion of the population, expressed by a strong comparison. I will make man 
 more scarce (or rare) than pure gold, and a human being than the ore of 
 Ophir. — TBiaa and tia cannot here denote a difference of rank, as la^tf and 
 tna sometimes do, because neither of them is elsewhere used in the distinct- 
 ive sense of vir or artjo. They are really poetical equivalents, like man 
 and mortal or human being, which last expression is employed by Henderson. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 tb is regarded as a proper name by Bochart, who applies it to the Coro- 
 mandel coast, and by Huet, who supposes it to be a contraction of tt*.x, and 
 this a variation of VBi«. Gill speaks of some as identifying tB with Fez, 
 and vbix with Peru. tB and era are either poetical synonymes of -fit, or 
 emphatic expressions for the purest, finest, and most solid gold. The Sep- 
 tuagint version of the last words is 6 XiOog 6 tv 2ovqi'(), instead of which the 
 Arabic translation founded on it has the stone which (comes) from India. 
 The disputed question as to the locality of Ophir, although not without his- 
 torical and archaeological importance, can have no effect upon the meaning 
 of this passage. Whether the place meant be Ceylon, or some part of con- 
 tinental India, or of Arabia, or of Africa, it is here named simply as an 
 Eldorado, as a place where gold abounded, either as a native product or an 
 article of commerce, from which it was brought, and with which it was 
 associated in the mind of every Hebrew reader. For the various opinions 
 and the arguments by which they are supported, see the geographical works 
 of Bochart and Rosenmuller, Winer's Realworterbuch, Gesenius's Thesau- 
 rus, and Henderson's note upon the verse before us. — Instead of making 
 rare or scarce, the meaning put upon Tpix by Jerome and by most modern 
 writers, some retain the original and strict sense of making dear or costly, 
 with allusion to the impossibility of ransoming the Babylonians from the 
 Medes and Persians. This interpretation, which Henderson ascribes to 
 Grotius, was given long before by Calvin, and is indeed as old as Kimchi. 
 Barnes, and some older writers, understand the words as expressive of the 
 difficulty with which defenders could be found for the city. Henderson 
 speaks of some as having applied the verse, in an individual sense, to Cyrus 
 and to the Messiah. The latter application is of Jewish origin and found 
 in the book Zohar. Jarchi explains the verse as having reference to the 
 honour put upon the prophet Daniel as the decipherer of the writing on the 
 wall. The Targum makes it a promise of protection to the godly and 
 believing Jews in Babylon. Cocceius, while he gives the words the sense 
 now usually put upon them, as denoting paucity of men in consequence of 
 slaughter, still refers them to the small number of Jews who were carried 
 into exile. — From the similar forms -ppix and vaiit at the beginning and 
 the end of the sentence, Gesenius infers that a paronomasia was intended 
 by the writer, which as usual he imitates, with very indifferent success, by 
 beginning his translation with seltener and ending it with seltene Schdize. 
 Henderson, with great probability, denies that the writer intended any 
 assonance at all. On the modern theory of perfect parallelisms, it would be 
 easy to construct an argument in favour of understanding vbix as a verb, 
 and thereby rendering the clauses uniform. Such a conclusion, like many 
 drawn from similar premises in other cases, would of course be worthless. 
 
256 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 V. 13. The figurative form of speech is here resumed, and what was 
 before expressed by the obscuration of the heavenly bodies is now denoted 
 by a genera] commotion of the frame of nature. Therefore I will make the 
 heavens tremble, and the earth shall shake (or be shaken) out of its place 
 in the wrath of Jehovah of Hosts and in the day of the heat (or fierceness) 
 of his anger, Henderson translates "jS"^? because, which is not only incon- 
 sistent with the usage of the words, but wholly unnecessary. Therefore 
 may either mean because of the wickedness mentioned in v. 11, or for the 
 purpose of producing the effect described in v. 12. In the last clause, some 
 give a the sense of by or on account of in both members. Others explain 
 the first a thus, but take the other in its proper sense of in. It is highly 
 improbable, however, that the particle is here used in two different senses, 
 and the best construction, therefore, is the one which lets the second n 
 determine the meaning of the first — in the wrath i. e. during (or in the 
 time of) the wrath. 
 
 V. 14. And it shall be (or come to pass, that) like a roe (or antelope) 
 chased (or driven by the hunters) and like sheep with none to gather them 
 (literally, like sheep and there is no one gathering) — each to his people, 
 they shall turn — and each to his country, they shall flee. — The English 
 Version seems to make the earth the subject of ri^fi, with which, however, 
 it does not agree in gender. Gesenius and Hitzig make the verb indefinite, 
 one shall be. Aben Ezra and Jarchi supply Babylon or the Babylonians. 
 The best construction is that given by DeWette, Umbreit, and Knobel, who 
 take rnri in its common idiomatic sense of coming to pass, happening. 
 Kimchi refers the verse to the foreign residents in Babylon ("?cf> "?d:d Oi?D 
 ^333) — what Jeremiah calls the mingled people (50 : 37) and iEschylus 
 the ndfifiixTov ofiov of Babylon. Calvin supposes an allusion not to foreign 
 residents but mercenary troops or allies. Clericus applies the last clause 
 to these strangers, and the first to the Babylonians themselves, which is 
 needless and arbitrary. The *3Xj according to Bochart and Gesenius, is a 
 generic term including all varieties of roes and antelopes. The points of 
 comparison are their timidity and fleetness. The figure of scattered sheep, 
 without a gatherer or shepherd, is a common one in Scripture. Junius con- 
 nects this verse with the twelfth, and throws the thirteenth into a parenthe- 
 sis, a construction complex in itself and so little in accordance with the 
 usage of the language, that nothing short of exegetical necessity can warrant 
 its adoption. 
 
 V. 15. The flight of the strangers from Babylon is not without reason, 
 for every one found (there) shallbe stabbed (or thrust through), and every one 
 joined (or joining himself to the Babylonians) shall fall by the sword. All 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 257 
 
 interpreters agree that I general massacre is here described, although they 
 differ as to the precise and connexion of the clauses. Some suppose 
 
 a climax. Thus Junius explains the verse to mean that not only the robust 
 but the decrepit (nop: from meo to consume) should be slain, and the 
 same interpretation is mentioned by Kimchi. Hitzig takes the sense to be 
 that every one, even he who joins himself (i. e. goes over to the enemy), 
 shall perish ; they will give no quarter. Others suppose an antithesis, 
 though not a climax. Gesenius in the earlier editions of his lexicon explains 
 the verse as meaning that he who is found in the street, and he who with- 
 draws himself into the house, shall perish alike. Lowth makes the anti- 
 thesis between one found alone and one joined with others. Umbreit 
 supposes an antithesis not only between Nsras and nsoa, but also between 
 np*p and mm biB -1 — the one clause referring to the first attack with spears, 
 the other to the closer fight with swords hand to hand. J. D. Michaelis 
 changes the points, so as to make the contrast between him who remains 
 and him who flees, and Henderson extracts the same sense from the com- 
 mon text, avowedly upon the ground that riEDa must denote the opposite of 
 a«ES3. But even the most strenuous adherent of the theory of perfect paral- 
 lelisms must admit that they are frequently synonymous and not invariably 
 antithetical. In this case there is no more need of making the participles 
 opposite in meaning than the nouns and verbs. And as all except Umbreit 
 (and perhaps Knobel) seem agreed that to be thrust through and to fall by 
 the sword are one and the same thing, there is every probability that both 
 the clauses have respect to the same class of persons. Upon this most 
 natural and simple supposition, we may either suppose airsa and nstJi to 
 denote the person found and the person caught, as Ewald and Gesenius do, 
 or retain the old interpretation found in Kimchi, which connects the verse 
 directly with the one before it, and applies both clauses to the foreigners in 
 Babylon, every one of whom still found there, and still joined with the 
 besieged, should be surely put to death. 
 
 V. 16. The horrors of the conquest shall extend not only to the men, 
 but to their wives and children. And their children shall be dashed to 
 pieces before their eyes, their houses shall be plundered and their wives 
 ravished. The same thing is threatened against Babylon in Ps. 137 : 9, 
 in retaliation for the barbarities practised in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 36 : 17, 
 Lam. 5: 11). The horror of the threatening is enhanced by the addition 
 of before their eyes. (Compare ch. 1 : 7 and Deut. 28 : 3 1 , 32.) Hitzig coolly 
 alleges that the last clause of this verse is copied from Zech. 14 : 2, to 
 which Knobel adds, that the spoiling of the houses is here out of place. — 
 For the textual reading ruten the Keri, here and elsewhere, substitutes 
 fi523tt>n as a euphemistic emendation. 
 
 17 
 
258 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 V. 17. The Prophet now, for the first time, names the chosen instru- 
 ments of Babylon's destruction. Behold I (am) stirring up against them 
 Madai (Media or the Medes), who will not regard silver, and (as for) gold, 
 they will not take pleasure in it (or desire it). Here, as in Jer. 51 : 11, 28, 
 the Medes alone are mentioned, as the more numerous and hitherto more 
 powerful nation, to which the Persians had long been subject, and were 
 still auxiliary. Or the name may be understood as comprehending both, 
 which Vitringa has clearly shown to be the usage of the classical historians, 
 by citations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch. Indeed, all the 
 names of the great oriental powers are used, with more or less latitude and 
 license, by the ancient writers, sacred and profane. As the Medes did not 
 become an independent monarchy till after the date of this prediction, it 
 affords a striking instance of prophetic foresight, as J. D. Michaelis, Keith, 
 Barnes, and Henderson, have clearly shown. It is chiefly to evade such 
 proofs of inspiration that the modern Germans assign these chapters to a 
 later date. — *jb is properly the name of the third son of Japhet, from whom 
 the nation was descended. At the date of this prediction they formed a 
 part of the Assyrian empire, but revolted at the time of the Assyrian inva- 
 sion of Syria and Israel. Their first king Dejoces was elected about 700 
 years before the birth of Christ. His son Phraortes conquered Persia, and 
 the united Medes and Persians, with the aid of the Babylonians, subdued 
 Assyria under the conduct of Cyaxares I. The conquest of Babylon was 
 effected in the reign of Cyaxares II. by the Median army, with an auxiliary 
 force of thirty thousand Persians, under the command of Cyrus, the king's 
 nephew. — In the last clause of the verse Hitzig and Knobel understand the 
 Medes to be described as so uncivilized as not to know the value of money. 
 Others suppose contempt of money to be mentioned as an honourable trait 
 in the national character, and Vitringa has pointed out a very striking coin- 
 cidence between this clause and the speech which Xenophon ascribes to 
 Cyrus. "Av§Q£$ Mqdoi, xctt 7zdvzsg ol naqovtzq, fya vpag olSa oayaig, on ovze 
 XQrjfidrcov fcopevoi avv tfiol shifters v.. 1. 1. The most natural interpretation is, 
 however, that the thirst of blood would supersede the thirst of gold in the 
 conquerors of Babylon, So that no one would be able to secure his life by 
 ransom. Even Cocceius admits that this verse relates to the conquest of 
 Babylon, but only, as he thinks, by a sudden change of subject, or at least 
 a transition from God's dealings with his people to his dealings with their 
 enemies. 
 
 V. 18. And bows shall dash boys in pieces — and the fruit of the womb 
 they shall not pity — on children their eye shall not have mercy. — Augusti 
 needlessly continues the construction from the foregoing verse — ' they shall 
 not delight in gold, but in bows which etc' The Septuagint has the bows 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 259 
 
 of the young men (to£tvuata vturiv/.m) wliich is inconsistent with the form 
 of the original. The Vulgate, Luther, and Calvin, ' with their hows they 
 shall dash in pieces. ' But the feminine form njtftrjR must agree with 
 fvinrifl, as Aben Ezra has observed. Clericus and Knobel think that bows 
 are here put for bowmen, which is a forced construction and unnecessary. 
 Hendewerk supposes the bow to be mentioned, as in many other cases, as 
 one of the most common and important weapons. Other interpreters appear 
 to be agreed, that there is special allusion to the large bows and skilful 
 archery of the ancient Persians, as described by Herodotus, Xenophon, and 
 Ammianus Marcellinus. Kimchi's extravagant idea that the Medes are here 
 described as shooting children from their bows instead of arrows, is strangely 
 copied by some later writers. There is more probability in the opinion, 
 that they are represented as employing their large massive bows instead of 
 clubs. There is no serious objection, however, to the common supposition, 
 that the effect described is that of arrows or of bows used in the ordinary 
 manner. The strong term dash in pieces is employed instead of one more 
 strictly appropriate, with evident allusion to its use in v. 16. There is no 
 need of giving n^nrs the sense of young men. It rather denotes children of 
 both sexes, as D^n does when absolutely used. Hendewerk and some older 
 writers understand by the fruit of the womb the unborn child (see Hos, 
 14: 1. Amos 1: 13. 2 Kings 8: 12, 15, 16). Gesenius and others make 
 it simply equivalent to children, as in Gen. 30 : 2. Deut. 7 : 13. Lam. 2 : 20. 
 The cruelty of the Medes seems to have been proverbial in the ancient 
 world. Diodorus Siculus makes one of his characters ask, " What destroyed 
 the empire of the Medes ?" Their cruelty to those beneath them." 
 Compassion is ascribed to the eye, says Knobel, because it is expressed in 
 the looks. Kimchi observes that this is the only case in which the future 
 of wn has u instead of o. 
 
 V. 19. From the very height of splendour and renown, Babylon shall 
 be reduced not only to subjection but to annihHation. And Babylon, the 
 beauty (or glory) of kingdoms, the ornament, the pride, of the Chaldees, 
 shall be like God y s overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah — i. e. shall be 
 totally destroyed in execution of a special divine judgment. According ta 
 Kimchi, "vas means delight ("fB"), and nisbEE n 3^ that in which the nations 
 delighted. It is now agreed, however, that its meaning, as determined both 
 by etymology and usage, is beauty. The same Hebrew word is applied as a 
 distinctive name to a class of animals remarkable for grace of form and 
 motion. (Vide supra, v. 14.) The beauty of kingdoms is by most writers 
 understood comparatively as denoting the most beautiful of kingdoms, either 
 in the proper sense or in that of royal cities (see 1 Sam. 27: 5). But 
 Knobel understands the words more strictly as denoting the ornament of an 
 empire which included various tributary kingdoms. This agrees well with 
 
260 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 the next clause which describes the city as the ornament and pride of the 
 Chaldees. The origin of this name, and of the people whom it designates, 
 is doubtful and disputed. But whether the Chaldees were of Semitic origin 
 or not, and whether they were the indigenous inhabitants of Babylonia or a 
 foreign race imported from Armenia and the neighbouring countries, it is 
 plain that the word here denotes the nation of which Babylon was the 
 capital. For a statement of the archaeological question, see Gesenius's 
 Thesaurus, torn. 2. p. 719 — Winer's Realworterbuch, vol. 1. p. 253 — and 
 Henderson's note on Isaiah 23: 13. — By most interpreters jut) rvnasn are 
 construed together as denoting ornament of pride i. e. proud ornament. The 
 same sense, with a slight modification, is expressed in the Vulgate (inclyta 
 superbia) and by Luther (herrliche Pracht). Equally simple, and perhaps 
 more consistent with the Masoretic interpunction, is the separate construc- 
 tion of the words by Junius and Tremellius (ornatus excellentiaque), still 
 better expressed, without supplying and, by the Dutch Version (de heer- 
 lickheyt, de hoovaerdigheyt) — and in English by Barnes (the ornament, 
 the pride). — In the last clause, the verbal noun pOWwa is construed with the 
 subject in the genitive and the object in the accusative (Gesen. Lehrg. 
 p. 6S8). It has been variously paraphrased — as when God overthrew So- 
 dom and Gomorrah — like Sodom and Gomorrah which God overthrew — 
 like the overthrow with which God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah — like 
 the overthrow of God with which he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah — but 
 the exact sense of the Hebrew words is that already given — like God's 
 overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a common formula in Scrip- 
 ture for complete destruction, viewed as a special punishment of sin. (Vide 
 supra, ch. 1 : 7, 9.) The allegation of the Seder Olam, as cited both by 
 Jarchi and Kimchi, that Babylon was suddenly destroyed by fire from 
 heaven in the second year of Darius, is a Jewish figment designed to recon- 
 cile the prophecy with history. It is certain, however, that the destruction 
 of the city was by slow degrees, successively promoted by the conquests of 
 Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, Alexander the Great, Antigonus, Demetrius, the 
 Parthians, and the founding of the cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Strabo 
 calls Babylon fisydlr t v eQTjfAiav. Pausanias says that in his day ovfih hi ? t v 
 ri firj r£i%og. In Jerome's time this wall only served as the enclosure of a 
 park or hunting ground. From this apparent disagreement of the prophecy 
 with history, Cocceius seems disposed to infer that it relates not to the 
 literal but spiritual Babylon. The true conclusion is that drawn by Calvin, 
 that the prophecy does not relate to any one invasion or attack exclusively, 
 but to the whole process of subjection and decay, so completely carried out 
 through a course of ages, that the very site of ancient Babylon is now dis- 
 puted. This hypothesis accounts for many traits in the description which 
 appear inconsistent only in consequence of being all applied to one point of 
 time and one catastrophe exclusively. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 261 
 
 V. 20. ft shall not be inhabited forever (i. c. it shall never again or no 
 more be inhabited) and it shall not be dwelt in from generation to genera- 
 tion (literally, to generation and generation) — neither shall the Arab pitch 
 tent there — neither shall shepherds cause (their flocks) to lie there. The 
 conversion of a populous and fertile district into a vast pasture-ground, how- 
 ever rich and well frequented, implies extensive ruin, but not such ruin as 
 is here denounced. Babylon was not even to be visited by shepherds, nor 
 to serve as the encamping ground of wandering Arabs. The completeness 
 of the threatened desolation will be seen by comparing these expressions 
 with ch. 5: 5, 17. 7: 21. 17: 2, where it is predicted that the place in 
 question should be for flocks to lie down with none to make them afraid. 
 So fully has this prophecy been verified that the Bedouins, according to the 
 latest travellers, are even superstitiously afraid of passing a single night upon 
 the site of Babylon. The simplest version of the first clause would be, she 
 shall not dwell forever, she shall not abide etc. And this construction is 
 actually given by Calvin and Ewald. But the great majority of writers 
 follow the Septuagint and Vulgate in ascribing to the active verbs a passive 
 or intransitive sense. Kimchi explains this usage on the ground that the city is 
 made to represent its inhabitants — she dwells for her people dwell. This 
 intransitive usage of the verbs is utterly denied by Hengstenberg on Zecha- 
 riah 12: 6 (Christol. II. 286), but maintained against him by Gesenius in 
 his Thesaurus (II. 635). The result appears to be, that in a number of 
 cases, the intransitive version is required by the context. The only ob- 
 jection to it in the case before us is that it does not here seem absolutely 
 necessary. The choice therefore lies between the general usage of 2tty and 
 ptt as active verbs, and their special usage in connexion with prophecies of 
 desolation. The sense of sitting on a throne, ascribed to atr here by 
 Gataker, and elsewhere by Hengstenberg, does not agree so well with that 
 of the other verb and with the general import of the threatening. On the 
 whole, the passive or neuter construction, though not absolutely necessary, 
 is the most satisfactory and natural. — brn is explained by the rabbinical 
 interpreters as a contraction of &rnO, the Kal of which is used in the sense 
 of pitching a tent or encamping, Gen. 13: 12, 18. (See Gesenius § 67. 
 Rem. 2.) This explanation is adopted by most modern writers. Rosen- 
 miiller and Ewald, however, make the form a Hiphil one for b-ns\ Hitzio- 
 takes it likewise as a Hiphil, but from ^ns, to lead (flocks) to water, which 
 is also found connected with the Hiphil of fift in Ps. 23 : 2. Hendewerk 
 objects that although this verb is repeatedly used by Isaiah, it is always in 
 the Piel form (ch. 40: 11. 49: 10. 51 : 18). The Hiphil occurs nowhere 
 else, and the contraction assumed by Hitzig rarely if at all. The derivation 
 from ^nx is assumed in the Chaldee Paraphrase and Vulgate Version. — 
 Barnes applies this clause to the encampment of caravans, and supposes it 
 
262 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 to mean that wayfarers will not lodge there even for a night. But the men- 
 tion of shepherds immediately afterwards renders it more probable that the 
 allusion is to the nomadic habits of the Bedouins, who are still what Strabo 
 represents them, half shepherds and half robbers (oxqvirai hjajoixoi nvsg xal 
 7ioi/*H'tx< t), passing from one place to another when their plunder or their 
 pasture fails. Gesenius suggests that WJ may here be used generically to 
 denote this class of persons or their mode of life. There can be no doubt, 
 however, that Arabians, properly so called, do actually overrun the region 
 around Babylon with their flocks and herds, although, as we have seen, they 
 refuse to take up their abode upon the doomed site of the vanished city. 
 
 V. 21. Having excluded men and the domesticated animals from Baby- 
 lon, the Prophet now tells how it shall be occupied, viz. by creatures which 
 are only found in deserts, and the presence of which therefore is a sign of 
 desolation. In the first clause these solitary creatures are referred to in the 
 general ; the other clause specifies two kinds out of the many which are else- 
 where spoken of as dwelling in the wilderness. But there (instead of flocks) 
 shall lie down desert creatures — and their houses, (those of the Babylonians) 
 shall be filled with howls or yells — and there shall dwell the daughters of 
 the f ostrich — and shaggy beasts (or wild goats) shall gambol there. The 
 contrast is heightened by the obvious allusion in ism and "OS® to the *p£n 
 and ixw of v. 20. As if he had said, flocks shall not lie down there, but 
 wild beasts shall ; man shall not dwell there, but the ostrich shall. The 
 meaning evidently is that the populous and splendid city should become the 
 home of animals found only in the wildest solitudes. To express this idea, 
 other species might have been selected with the same effect. The endless 
 discussions therefore as to the identity of those here named, however laud- 
 able as tending to promote exact lexicography and natural history, have 
 little or no bearing on the interpretation of the passage. The fullest state- 
 ment of the questions in detail may be found in Bochart's Hierozoicon and 
 in Gesenius's Thesaurus, under the several words and phrases. Nothing 
 more will be here attempted than to settle one or two points of comparative 
 importance. Many interpreters regard the whole verse as an enumeration 
 of particular animals. Thus DM has been rendered wild-cats, monkeys, 
 vampyres ; c^nx owls, iveasels, dragons etc. etc. This has arisen from 
 the assumption of a perfect parallelism in the clauses. It is altogether 
 natural, however, to suppose that the writer would first make use of general 
 expressions and afterwards descend to particulars. This supposition is con- 
 firmed by the etymology and usage of 8**31, both which determine it to 
 mean those belonging to or dwelling in the desert. In this sense, it is 
 sometimes applied to men (Ps. 72 : 9. 74: 14), but as these are here 
 excluded by the preceding verse, nothing more was needed to restrict it to wild 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. iiihi 
 
 animals, to which it is also applied in ch. 34: 14 and Jer. 50: 39. This 
 is now commonly agreed to be the meaning, even by those who give to 
 D">nx a specific sense. The same writers admit that o^ns properly denotes 
 the howls or cries of certain animals, and only make it mean the animals 
 themselves, because such are mentioned in the other clauses. But if n*"- 
 baa the generic sense which all now give it, the very parallelism of the 
 clauses favours the explanation of dtix in its original and proper sense of 
 howls or yells, viz. those uttered by the d^e. The common version 
 (doleful creatures) is too indefinite on one of these hypotheses, and too 
 specific on the other. The daughter of the ostrich is an oriental idiom for 
 ostriches in general, or for the female ostrich in particular. The old trans- 
 lation owls seems to be now universally abandoned. The most interesting 
 poin^ in the interpretation of this verse has reference to the word en-:-. 
 The history of its interpretation is so curious as to justify more fulness of 
 detail than usual. It has never been disputed that its original and proper 
 sense is hairy, and its usual specific sense he-goats. In two places (Lev. 
 17 : 7. 2 Chron. 11 : 15), it is used to denote objects of idolatrous worship, 
 probably images of goats, which according to Herodotus were worshipped 
 in Egypt. In Chronicles especially this supposition is the natural one, 
 because the word is joined with D"bas calves. Both there and in Leviticus, 
 the Septuagint renders it [xaTatoig vain things, i. e. false gods, idols. But the 
 Targum on Leviticus explains it to mean demons (r T -), and the same inter- 
 pretation is given in the case before us by the Septuagint (daipona), Tar- 
 gum ("fTr), and Peshito (jijjk,). The Vulgate in Leviticus translates the 
 word daemonibus, but here pilosi. The interpretation given by the other 
 three versions is adopted also by the Rabbins, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, 
 etc. It appears likewise in the Talmud and early Jewish books. From 
 this traditional interpretation of bTWO, here and in ch. 34: 14, appears to 
 have arisen, at an early period, a popular belief among the Jews, that 
 demons or evil spirits were accustomed to haunt desert places in the shape 
 of goats or other animals. And this belief is said to be actually cherished 
 by the natives near the site of Babylon at the present day. — Let us now 
 compare this Jewish exposition of the passage with its treatment among 
 Christians. To Jerome, the combination of the two meanings goats, and 
 demons, seems to have suggested the Pans, Fauns, and Satyrs of the clas- 
 sical mythology, imaginary beings represented as a mixture of the human 
 form with that of goats, and supposed to frequent forests and other lonely 
 places. This idea is carried out by Calvin, who adopts the word satyri in 
 his version, and explains the passage as relating to actual appearances of 
 Satan under such disguises. Luther, in like manner, renders it Feldgeisier. 
 Vitringa takes another step, and understands the language as a mere conces- 
 sion or allusion to the popular belief, equivalent to saying, the solitude of 
 Babylon shall be as awful as if occupied by Fauns and Satyrs — there, if 
 
264 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 anywhere, such beings may be looked for. In explaining how B^Stt came 
 to be thus used, he rejects the supposition of actual apparitions of the evil 
 spirit, and ascribes the usage to the fact of men's mistaking certain shaggy- 
 apes (or other animals approaching to the human form) for incarnations of 
 the devil. Forerius and J. D. Michaelis understand the animals themselves 
 to be here meant. The latter uses in his version the word Waldteufel 
 (wood-devils, forest-demons), but is careful to apprize the reader in a note 
 that it is the German name for a species of ape or monkey, and that the 
 Hebrew contains no allusion to the devil. The same word is used 
 by Gesenius and others in its proper sense. Saadias, Cocceius, Clericus, 
 and Henderson, return to the original meaning of the Hebrew word, to 
 wit, wild goats. But the great majority of modern writers tenaciously 
 adhere to the old tradition. This is done, not only by the German neo- 
 logists, who lose no opportunity of finding a mythology in Scripture, but 
 by Lowth, Barnes, and Stuart, in his exposition of Rev. 11:2 and his Ex- 
 cursus on the Angelology of Scripture (Apocal. II. 403). The arguments 
 in favour of this exposition are (1) the exegetical tradition of the Jews — 
 (2) their popular belief, and that of the modern orientals, in such appari- 
 tions — (3) our Saviour's allusion (Matth. 12: 43) to the unclean spirit, as 
 walking through dry places, seeking rest and finding none — (4) the descrip- 
 tion of Babylon in Rev. 18: 2, as the abode of demons, and the hold (or 
 prison-house) of every foul spirit and of every unclean and hateful bird, 
 with evident allusion to the passage now before us. Upon this state of the 
 case, it may be remarked (L) that even on the supposition of a reference to 
 evil spirits, there is no need of assuming any concession or accommodation 
 to the current superstitions. If a^n*^B denotes demons, this text is a proof, 
 not of a popular belief, but of a fact, of a real apparition of such spirits 
 under certain forms. (2) The Jewish tradition warrants the application of 
 the Hebrew term to demons, but not to the fauns or satyrs of the Greek and 
 Roman fabulists. (3) The fauns and satyrs of the classical mythology 
 were represented as grotesque and frolicsome, spiteful and mischievous, but 
 not as awful and terrific beings, such as might naturally people horrid soli- 
 tudes. (4) The popular belief of the Jews and other orientals may be 
 traced to the traditional interpretation of this passage (see Stuart ubi supra), 
 and this to the Septuagint version. But we do not find that any of the 
 modern writers adopt the Septuagint version of nasi man ^aeiQ7]veg) or of 
 G^x in the next verse (ovoxEvravQoi). If these are mere blunders or con- 
 ceits, so may the other be, however great its influence on subsequent opinions. 
 (5) There is probably no allusion in Matth. 12 : 43 to this passage, and the 
 one in Rev. 18: 2 is evidently founded on the Septuagint version, which 
 was abundantly sufficient for the purpose of a symbolical accommodation. 
 What the Greek translators incorrectly gave as the meaning of this passage 
 might be said with truth of the spiritual Babylon. (6) The mention of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. 265 
 
 demons in a list of beasts and birds is at variance not only with the favourite 
 canon of parallelisms, but with the natural and ordinary usages of language. 
 Such a combination and arrangement as the one supposed — ostriches — de- 
 mons — wolves — jackals — would of itself be a reason for suspecting that the 
 second term must really denote some kind of animal, even if no such usage 
 existed. (7) The usage of c^iw, as the name of an animal, is perfectly 
 well defined and certain. Even in Lev. 17 : 7 and 2 Chron. 11 : 15, this, 
 as we have seen, is the only natural interpretation. — The result appears to 
 be that if the question is determined by tradition and authority, enrnr de- 
 notes demons ; if by the context and the usage of the word, it signifies wild 
 goats, or more generically hairy, shaggy animals. According to the principles 
 of modern exegesis, the latter is clearly entitled to the preference ; but even 
 if the former be adopted, the language of the text should be regarded, not 
 as " a touch from the popular pneumatology " (as Rev. 18: 2 is described 
 by Stuart in loc), but as the prediction of a real fact, which, though it 
 should not be assumed without necessity, is altogether possible, and there- 
 fore, if alleged in Scripture, altogether credible. The argument in favour 
 of the strict interpretation, and against the traditional and current one, is 
 presented briefly, but with great strength and clearness, in Henderson's note 
 upon the passage. 
 
 V. 22. And wolves shall howl in his (the king of Babylon's) palaces, 
 and jackals in the temples of pleasure. And near to come is her (Baby- 
 lon's) time, and her days shall not be prolonged. — The names d^k and 
 d^n have been as variously explained as those in v. 21. The latest writers 
 seem to be agreed that they are different appellations of the jackal, but in 
 order to retain the original variety of expression, substitute another animal 
 in one of the clauses, such as wolves (Gesenius), wild-cats (Ewald) etc. 
 As d^k, according to its etymology, denotes an animal remarkable for its 
 cry, it might be rendered hyenas, thereby avoiding the improbable assump- 
 tion that precisely the same animal is mentioned in both clauses. But 
 whatever be the species here intended, the essential idea is the same as in 
 the foregoing verse, viz. that Babylon should one day be inhabited exclu- 
 sively by animals peculiar to the wilderness, implying that it should become 
 a wilderness itself. The contrast is heightened here by the particular men- 
 tion of palaces and abodes of pleasure, as about to be converted into dens 
 and haunts of solitary animals. This fine poetical conception is adopted 
 by Milton in his sublime description of the flood — 
 
 And in their palaces, 
 Where luxury late reigned, sea-monsters whelped 
 And stabled. 
 
 The meaning of r^^x, in every other case where it occurs, is widows, 
 
266 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 in which sense some rabbinical and other writers understand it here. But 
 as it differs only in a single letter from rra&TO palaces, and as h and *i are 
 sometimes interchanged, it is now commonly regarded as a mere orthogra- 
 phical variation, if not an error of transcription. It is possible, however, 
 that the two forms were designedly confounded by the writer, in order to 
 suggest both ideas, that of palaces and that of widowhood or desolation. 
 This explanation is adopted in the English Version, which has palaces in 
 the margin, but in the text desolate houses. Henderson avoids the repeti- 
 tion of palaces, by rendering the second phrase temples of pleasure, which 
 affords a good sense, and is justified by usage. The older writers explain K» 
 as denoting a responsive cry ; but the latest lexicographers make answer a 
 secondary meaning of the verb, which they explain as properly denoting to 
 sing, or to utter any inarticulate sound, according to the nature of the sub- 
 ject. Hence it is here translated howl. — The last clause of the verse may 
 be strictly understood, but in application to the Jewish captives in the 
 Babylonian exile, for whose consolation the prophecy was partly intended. 
 Or we may understand it as denoting proximity in reference to the events 
 which had been passing in the Prophet's view. He sees the signals erected 
 — he hears a noise in the mountains — and regarding these as actually pre- 
 sent, he exclaims, her time is near to come! It may, however, mean, as 
 similar expressions do in other cases, that when the appointed time should 
 come, the event would certainly take place, there could be no postpone- 
 ment or delay. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 The destruction of Babylon is again foretold, and more explicitly con- 
 nected with the deliverance of Israel from bondage. After a general assur- 
 ance of God's favour to his people, and of an exchange of conditions 
 between them and their oppressors, they are represented as joining in a song 
 of triumph over their fallen enemy. In this song, which is universally 
 admitted to possess the highest literary merit, they describe the earth as again 
 reposing from its agitation and affliction, and then breaking forth into a shout 
 of exultation, in which the very trees of the forest join, vs. 1-8. By a still 
 bolder figure, the unseen world is represented as perturbed at the approach 
 of the fallen tyrant, who is met, as he enters, by the kings already there, 
 amazed to find him sunk as low as themselves and from a still greater height 
 of actual elevation and of impious pretensions, which are strongly contrasted 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 267 
 
 with his present condition, as deprived not only of regal honours but of decent 
 burial, vs. 9-20. Tin- threatening is then extended to the whole and 
 
 the prophecy closes as before with a prediction of the total desolation of 
 Babylon, vs. 21-23. 
 
 Vs. 24-27 are regarded by the latest writers as a distinct prophecy, 
 unconnected with what goes before, and misplaced in the arrangement of 
 the book. The reasons for believing that it is rather an appendix or conclu- 
 sion, added by the Prophet himself, will be fully stated in the exposition. 
 
 Vs. 28-32 are regarded by a still greater number of writers as a distinct 
 prophecy against Philistia. The traditional arrangement of the text, how- 
 ever, creates a strong presumption that this passage stands in some close con- 
 nexion with what goes before. The true state of the case may be, that the 
 Prophet, having reverted from the downfall of Babylon to that of Assyria, 
 now closes with a warning apostrophe to the Philistines who had also suf- 
 fered from the latter power, and were disposed to exult unduly in its over- 
 throw. If the later application of the name Philistia to the whole land of 
 Canaan could be justified by Scriptural usage, these verses might be under- 
 stood as a warning to the Jews themselves not to exult too much in their 
 escape from Assyrian oppression, since they were yet to be subjected to the 
 heavier yoke of Babylonian bondage. Either of these suppositions is more 
 reasonable than that this passage is an independent prophecy subjoined to 
 the foregoing one by caprice or accident. 
 
 V. 1. This verse declares God's purpose in destroying the Babylonian 
 power. For Jehovah will pity (or have mercy upon) Jacob, and will again (or 
 still) choose Israel and cause them to rest on their (own) land — and the stranger 
 shall be joined to them — and they (the strangers) shall be attached to the house 
 of Jacob. Jacob and Israel are here used for the whole race. The plural 
 pronoun them does not refer to Jacob and Israel as the names of different per- 
 sons, but to each of them as a collective. For the same reason ^nsos is plural 
 though agreeing with "irn. By God's still choosing Israel we are to under- 
 stand his continuing to treat them as his chosen people. Or we may render 
 Tis again, in which case the idea will be, that having for a time or in 
 appearance cast them off and given them up to other lords, he would now 
 take them to himself again. Gesenius gives two specimens in this verse of 
 his disposition to attenuate the force of the Hebrew words by needlessly 
 departing from their primary import. Because *iH3 is occasionally used 
 where we should simply speak of loving or preferring, and because the 
 Hiphil of rw to rest, is sometimes used to signify the act of laying down or 
 placing, he adopts these two jejune and secondary senses here. — In this he 
 is closely followed by DeWette. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Umbreit, have 
 the good taste to give ->na its distinctive sense, but Ewald alone among 
 
* 
 
 268 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 the later Germans has done full justice to the meaning of both words, by 
 translating the first choose and the other give them rest. The Vulgate takes 
 the a after "ina as a partitive (eliget de Israel), whereas it is the usual con- 
 nective particle between this verb and its object. It is allowable, but not 
 necessary, to give the Niphals in the second clause a reflexive meaning, as 
 some writers do. rnbs is followed by bs as in Numbers 18:2. Knobel 
 understands by *iih the surviving Canaanites, some of whom went into cap- 
 tivity with Israel (Ezek. 14: 7. 47: 22), and others remained in possession 
 of the land (Ezra 9 : 1 seq.) But there seems to be no reason for restrict- 
 ing the meaning of the word, especially as a general accession of the gentiles 
 is so often promised elsewhere. According to Cocceius and Gill, the maxim 
 of the Talmud, that proselytes are like a scab, is founded on the affinity of the 
 verb nsou with the noun nnsb. — Umbreit correctly understands this not as 
 a mere promise of temporal deliverance and increase to Israel as a nation, 
 but as an assurance that the preservation of the chosen people was a neces- 
 sary means for the fulfilment of God's purposes of mercy to mankind in 
 general. — The literal fulfilment of the last clause in its primary sense is clear 
 from such statements as the one in Esther 8: 17. 
 
 V. 2. And nations shall take them and bring them to their place — 
 and the house of Israel shall take possession of them on Jehovah's land for 
 male and female servants — and (thus) they (the Israelites) shall be the cap- 
 tors of their captors, and rule over their oppressors. The first clause is 
 rendered somewhat obscure by the reference of the pronoun them to different 
 subjects, first the Jews and then the gentiles. Umbreit renders ta^? tribes 
 (Stamme), and seems to refer it to the Jews themselves, and the first suffix 
 to the gentiles, thereby making the construction uniform. The sense will 
 then be, not that the gentiles shall bring the Jews home, but that the Jews 
 shall bring the gentiles with them. Most interpreters, however, are agreed 
 that the first clause relates to the part taken by the gentiles in the restora- 
 tion of the Jews. — To a Hebrew reader the word ibnsnn would convey the 
 idea, not of bare possession merely, but of permanent possession, rendered 
 perpetual by hereditary succession. The word is used in this sense, and 
 with special reference to slaves or servants, in Lev. 25 : 46. — It is curious 
 to observe the meanings put upon this promise by the different schools and 
 classes of interpreters. Thus Grotius understands it of an influx of foreign- 
 ers after Sennacherib's invasion in the reign of Hezekiah, an interpretation 
 equally at variance with the context and with history. Cocceius, as the 
 other pole or opposite extreme, applies it to the final deliverance of the 
 Christian Church from persecution in the Roman empire, and its protection 
 by Constantius and establishment by Constantine. Clericus and others find 
 the whole fulfilment in the number of foreign servants whom the Jews 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 269 
 
 brought back from exile (Kzra 2: 65). Calvin and others make the change 
 predicted altogether moral, a spiritual conquest of the true religion over 
 those who were oik c its physical oppressors. It is scarcely possible to 
 compare these lu>t interpretations without feeling the necessity of some exe- 
 getical hypothesis by which they may be reconciled. Some of toe worst 
 errors of interpretation have arisen from the mutual exclusion of hypotheses 
 as incompatible, which really agree, and indeed are necessary to complete 
 each other. The simple meaning of this promise seems to be that the 
 church or chosen people and the other nations should change places, the 
 oppressed becoming the oppressor, and the slave the master. This of course 
 admits both an external and internal fulfilment. In a lower sense and on a 
 smaller scale it was accomplished in the restoration of the Jews from exile ; 
 but its full accomplishment is yet to come, not with respect to the Jews as 
 a people, for their pre-eminence has ceased for ever, but with respect to the 
 church, including Jews and gentiles, which has succeeded to the rights and 
 privileges, promises and actual possessions, of God's ancient people. The 
 true principle of exposition is adopted even by the Rabbins. Jarchi refers 
 the promise to the future (TTsb), to the period of complete redemption. 
 Kimchi more explicitly declares that its fulfilment is to be sought partly in 
 the restoration from Babylon, and partly in the days of the Messiah. 
 
 V. 3. And it shall be (or come to pass) in the day of Jehovah? s causing 
 thee to rest from thy toil (or suffering), and from thy commotion (or dis- 
 quietude), and from the hard service which was wrought by thee (or imposed 
 upon thee). The precise construction of the last words seems to be, in 
 which (or with respect to which) it was wrought with thee i. e. they (inde- 
 finitely) wrought with thee, or thou wast made to work. The nominative 
 of -»23> is not tfiS-g nor the relative referring to it, but an indefinite subject 
 understood. This impersonal construction makes it unnecessary to account 
 for the masculine form of the verb as irregular. Aben Ezra refers ass and 
 iai to pain of body and pain of mind, Cocceius to outward persecutions and 
 internal divisions of the church. But they are much more probably equiva- 
 lent expressions for pain and suffering in general. In this verse and the follow- 
 ing context, the Prophet, in order to reduce the general promise of the fore- 
 going verse to a more graphic and impressive form, recurs to the downfall of 
 Babylon, as the beginning of the series of deliverances which he had pre- 
 dicted, and describes the effect upon those most concerned, by putting into 
 the mouth of Israel a song of triumph over their oppressor. This is uni- 
 versally admitted to be one of the finest specimens of Hebrew and indeed of 
 ancient composition. 
 
 V. 4. That thou shalt raise this song over the king of Babylon and 
 say, How hath the oppressor ceased, the golden (city) ceased ! The Vav at 
 
270 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 the beginning continues the construction from rnni in v. 3, and can only be 
 expressed in our idiom by that. — sto: is not merely to begin or to utter, but 
 to raise, as this word is employed by us in a musical sense, including the 
 ideas of commencement, utterance, and loudness. — fctja is not so called from 
 bid a to rule, but from ViJa to resemble or compare. Its most general sense 
 seems to be that of tropical or figurative language. The more specific 
 senses which have been ascribed to it are for the most part suggested by the 
 context. Here it may have a special reference to the bold poetical fiction 
 following. If so, it may warn us not to draw inferences from the passage 
 with respect to the unseen world or the state of departed spirits. Calvin's 
 description of the opening sentence as sarcastic has led others to describe 
 the whole passage as a satire, which is scarcely consistent with its peculiar 
 merit as a song of triumph. — Tpx is an exclamation of surprise, but at the same 
 time has its proper force as an interrogative adverb, as appears from the 
 answer in the following verse. — tow is properly a task-master, slave-driver, 
 or tax-gatherer. n^rna is derived by the Rabbins and many modern 
 writers from sri 1 ?, the Chaldee form of s^t gold, in which Junius sees a 
 sarcasm on the Babylonians, and Gesenius an indication that the writer 
 lived in Babylonia ! According to this etymology, the word has been 
 explained by Vitringa as meaning a golden sceptre — by others the golden 
 city — the place or repository of gold — the exactress of gold, taking the 
 word as a participial noun — the exaction of gold, taking it as an abstract — 
 or gold itself, considered as a tribute. From dubious Arabic analogies, 
 Schultens and others have explained it to mean the destroyer or the plun- 
 derer. J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans are disposed to read nnma 
 oppression, which is found in one edition, appears to be the basis of the 
 ancient versions, and .agrees well with the use of toab and fcflw in cb. 3 : 5. 
 Ewald gives it the strong sense of tyrannical rage. — The meaning of the 
 first clause is of course that Israel would have occasion to express such feel- 
 ings. There is consequently no need of disputing when or where the song 
 was to be sung. Equally useless is the question whether by the king of 
 Babylon we are to understand Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, or Belshaz- 
 zar. The king here introduced is an ideal personage, whose downfall repre- 
 sents that of the Babylonian monarchy. 
 
 V. 5. This verse contains the answer to the question in the one before 
 it. Jehovah hath broken the staff of the wicked, the rod of the rulers. The 
 meaning tyrants, given to the last word by Gesenius and the later Germans, 
 is implied but not expressed. The rod and staff are common figures for 
 dominion, and their being broken for its destruction. There is no need of 
 supposing a specific reference either to the rod of a task-master, with Gese- 
 nius, or to the sceptre of a king, with Ewald and the older writers. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 271 
 
 V. 6. Smiting nations in anger by a stroke without cessation — //// 
 nations in math by a rub without restraint — literally, which he (or one 
 indefinitely) did not restrain. — The participles may agree grammatically 
 either with the rod or with the kin<j who wields it. Junius and Tremellius 
 suppose the punishment of the Babylonians to be mentioned in both clauses. 
 * As for him who smote the nations in w rath, his stroke shall not be removed 
 — he that ruled the nations in anger is persecuted and cannot hinder it.' 
 The English Version, Lowth, Barnes, and others, apply the last clause only 
 to the punishment. But the great majority both of the oldest and the latest 
 writers make the whole descriptive of the Babylonian tyranny. Kimchi, 
 Calvin, and Vatablus, read the last clause thus — (if any one was) perse- 
 cuted, he did not hinder it. Dathe reads q"na as an active participle 
 (q^n^), and this reading sdims to be likewise supposed in the Chaldee, 
 Syriac, and Latin versions. Some make Bfifjn a verbal noun, meaning 
 persecution, though the passive form is singular, and scarcely accounted for 
 by Henderson's suggestion, that it means persecution as experienced rather 
 than as practised. All the recent German writers have adopted Doederlein's 
 proposal to amend the text by changing qma into rma, a construct form 
 like ns», and derived like it from the immediately preceding verb. Striking 
 a stroke without cessation, swaying a sway without restraint, will then cor- 
 respond exactly, as also the remaining phrases, peoples and nations, wrath 
 and anger. Of all the emendations founded on the principle of parallelism, 
 there is none more natural or plausible than this, the rather as the letters 
 interchanged are much alike, especially in some kinds of Hebrew writing, 
 and as the sense is very little affected by a change of persecution into domi- 
 nation. Henderson, however, though he admits the plausibility, denies 
 the necessity of this emendation. It may also be observed that a? general 
 application of this principle of criticism would make extensive changes 
 in the text. For although there may be no case quite so strong as this 
 there are doubtless many where a slight change would produce entire 
 uniformity. And yet the point in which the parallelism fails may sometimes 
 be the very one designed to be the salient or emphatic point of the whole 
 sentence. Such emendations should be therefore viewed with caution and 
 suspicion, unless founded on external evidence, or but slightly affecting the 
 meaning of the passage, as in the case before us. Umbreit, who adopts 
 Doederlein's suggestion, gives to mi and rvrra what is supposed to be 
 their primary sense, that of treading or trampling under foot. — Cocceius, 
 who applies this to the tyranny of Antichrist, explains me TO^S as a com- 
 pound noun (like f?nib ch. 10 : 15) meaning non-apostasy, and having refer- 
 ence to the persecution of true Christians on the false pretence of heresy, 
 schism, or apostasy. By the side of this may be placed AbarbenePs inter- 
 pretation of the whole verse as relating to God himself. 
 
^2 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 V. 7. At rest, quiet, is the whole earth. They burst forth into singing 
 (or a shout of joy). Jarchi seems to make the first clause the words of the 
 song or shout mentioned in the second. There is no inconsistency between 
 the clauses, as the first is not descriptive of silence, but of tranquillity and 
 rest. The land had rest is a phrase employed in the book of Judges (e. g. 
 ch. 5: 31) to describe the condition of the country after a great national 
 deliverance. — There is no need of supposing an ellipsis of rpnui^, to agree 
 with the plural wss, as Henderson does, since it may just as well be con- 
 strued with f ^n as a collective, or indefinitely, they (i. e. men in general) 
 break forth into singing. Ewald, who gives the whole of this b'&a in a 
 species of blank verse, is particularly happy in his version of this sentence. 
 {Nun ruht, nun rastet die ganze Erde, man bricht in Jubel aus.) The verb 
 to burst is peculiarly descriptive of an ebullition of joy long suppressed or 
 suddenly succeeding grief. Rosenmuller quotes a fine parallel from Terence. 
 Jamne erumpere hoc licet mihi gaudium ? The Hebrew phrase is beauti- 
 fully rendered by the Septuagint, §oa fisz evcppoovvyg. It is a curious illus- 
 tration of the worth of certain arguments, that while Gesenius makes the 
 use of this phrase a proof that this prediction was not written by Isaiah, 
 Henderson with equal right adduces it to prove that he was the author of 
 the later chapters, in which the same expression frequently occurs. 
 
 V. 8. Not only the earth and its inhabitants take part in this triumphant 
 song or shout, but the trees of the forest. Also (or even) the cypresses 
 rejoice with respect to thee — the cedars of Lebanon — (saying) now that thou 
 art fallen (literally lain down), the feller (or woodman, literally the cutter) 
 shall not come up against us. Now that we are safe from thee, we fear no 
 other enemy. The iBra has been variously explained to be the fir, the ash, 
 and the pine ; but the latest authorities decide that it denotes a species of 
 cypress. According to J. D. Michaelis, Antilibanus is clothed with firs, 
 as Libanus or Lebanon proper is with cedars, and both are here introduced 
 as joining in the general triumph. Vitringa makes W^j a noun with a 
 suffix, meaning our leaves or our tops (cacumina nostra). Among other 
 reasons, he alleges that Wji is not construed with feg elsewhere. But the 
 accents might have taught him that WJJflj is dependent on rt*>*£j and that 
 rvn'Sii is to be construed as a noun. Forerius reads on us, and supposes an 
 allusion to the climbing of the tree by the woodman, in order to cut off the 
 upper branches. Knobel refers the words in the same sense to the falling 
 of the stroke upon the trees. , It is much more natural, however, to regard 
 the words as meaning simply to us, or more emphatically against us. The 
 preposition in *$, here as elsewhere, strictly denotes general relation, as to, 
 with respect to. The specific sense of over or against, in all the cases 
 which Gesenius cites, is gathered from the context. Instead of liest Pag- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 273 
 
 oinua has ileepett, which might be metaphorically applied to death, but is not 
 
 n ally the meaning of the word, which denotes a sleeping posture but not 
 sleep itself. As to the meaning of the figures in this verse, there are three 
 distinct opinions. The first is that the trees are emblems of kings and other 
 great men. This is the explanation given in the Targum, and by Cocceius, 
 Vitringa, and other interpreters of that school. The second opinion is that 
 the trees, as such, are introduced rejoicing that they shall no more be cut 
 down to open roads or to supply materials for barricades or forts or for 
 luxurious buildings. This prosaic exposition, proposed by Aben Ezra and 
 approved by Grotius, is a favourite with some of the writers at the present day 
 who clamour loudest about Hebrew poetry, and insist most rigorously on the 
 application of the so-called laws of versification. The third opinion, and 
 the only one that seems consistent with a pure taste, is the one proposed by 
 Calvin, who supposes this to be merely a part of one great picture, repre- 
 senting universal nature as rejoicing. The symbolical and mechanical inter- 
 pretations are as much out of place here, as they would be in a thousand 
 splendid passages of classical and modern poetry, where no one yet has ever 
 dreamed of applying them. Both here and elsewhere in the sacred books, 
 inanimate nature is personified, and speaks herself instead of being merely 
 spoken of. 
 
 Ipsi laetitia voces ad siclera jactant 
 Intonsi montes ; ipsae jam carmina rapes, 
 Ipsa sonant arbusla. 
 
 The Septuagint version of n\>3£ as a preterite (avtfirj), which is followed 
 by all the early writers, is not only arbitrary and in violation of the usus 
 loquendi, but also objectionable on the ground that it implies too long an 
 interval between the utterance of the words and the catastrophe which called 
 them forth. The trees are not to be considered as historically stating what 
 has happened or not happened since a certain time, but as expressing, at 
 the very moment of the tyrant's downfall, or at least soon after it, a confi- 
 dent assurance of their future safety. In such a connexion txn corresponds 
 exactly to the English now thai. The present form given to both verbs 
 (now that thou liest, no one comes etc.) by Luther and most of the later 
 Germans, approaches nearer to the true construction, but is neither so 
 exact nor so poetical as the literal translation of the future given by Rosen- 
 muller and Ewald, and before them by the Vulgate (non ascendet qui suc- 
 cidat nos). It is characteristic of Cocceius and his whole scheme, that 
 he makes the firs and cedars mean not only great men in general, but 
 ecclesiastical rulers in particular, and in his exposition of the verse refers 
 expressly to the English bishops who became reformers, and to the case of 
 the Venetians when subjected to a papal interdict in 1606. Such exposi- 
 
 18 
 
274 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 tions have been well described by Stuart (Apocal. II. p. 147) as attempts 
 to convert prophecy into a syllabus of civil and church history. 
 
 V. 9. The bold personification is now extended from the earth and its 
 forests to the invisible or lower world, the inhabitants of which are repre- 
 sented as aroused at the approach of the new victim and as coming forth to 
 meet him. Hell from beneath is moved (or in commotion) for thee (i. e. on 
 account of thee) to meet thee (at) thy coming — it rouses for thee the giants 
 (the gigantic shades or spectres), all the chief ones (literally he-goats) of 
 the earth — it raises from their thrones all the kings of the nations. — bixd 
 has already been explained (vide supra, ch. 5 : 14) as meaning first a grave 
 or individual sepulchre, and then the grave as a general receptacle, indis- 
 criminately occupied by all the dead without respect to character, as when 
 we say, the rich and the poor, the evil and the good, lie together in the 
 grave, not in a single tomb, which would be false, but under ground and in 
 a common state of death and burial. The English word Hell, though now 
 appropriated to the condition or the place of future torments, corresponds, 
 in etymology and early usage, to the Hebrew word in question. Gesenius 
 derives it, with the German Hblle, from Hohle hollow, but the English 
 etymologists from the Anglo-Saxon helan to cover, which amounts to the 
 same thing, the ideas of a hollow and a covered place being equally appro- 
 priate. The modern English versions have discarded the word hell as an 
 equivocal expression, requiring explanation in order to be rightly understood. 
 But as the Hebrew word Sheol, retained by Henderson, and the Greek 
 word Hades, introduced by Lowth and Barnes, require explanation also, 
 the strong and homely Saxon form will be preferred by every unsophisti- 
 cated taste, not only to these Greek and Hebrew names, but also to the 
 periphrases of Gesenius (Schattenreich) and Hendewerk (Todtenreich), 
 and even to the simpler and more poetical expression (Unterwelt) employed 
 by Hitzig and DeWette. Ewald and Umbreit have the good taste to 
 restore the old word Holle in their versions. — Two expressions have been 
 faithfully transcribed by interpreters from one another, in relation to this 
 passage, with a very equivocal effect upon its exposition. The one is that 
 it is full of biting sarcasm, an unfortunate suggestion of Calvin's, which 
 puts the reader on the scent for irony and even wit, instead of opening his 
 mind to impressions of sublimity and tragic grandeur. The other, for which 
 Calvin is in no degree responsible, is that we have before us not a mere 
 prosopopoeia or poetical creation of the highest order, but a chapter from the 
 popular belief of the Jews, as to the locality, contents, and transactions of 
 the unseen world. Thus Gesenius, in his Lexicon and Commentary, gives 
 a minute topographical description of Sheol, as the Hebrews believed it to 
 exist. With equal truth a diligent compiler might construct a map of hell, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 275 
 
 as conceived of by the English Puritans, from the descriptive portions of 
 the Paradise Lost. The infidel interpreters of Germany regard the Scriptural 
 and classical mythology precisely in the same light. But when Christian 
 writers copy their expressions or ideas, they should take pains to explain 
 whether the popular belief, of which they speak, was true or false, and if 
 false, how it could be countenanced and sanctioned by inspired writers. 
 This kind of exposition is moreover chargeable with a rhetorical incongruity 
 in lauding the creative genius of the poet, and yet making all his grand 
 creations commonplace articles of popular belief. The true view of the 
 matter, as determined both by piety and taste, appears to be, that the pas- 
 sage now before us comprehends two elements and only two, religious 
 verities or certain facts, and poetical embellishments. It may not be easy 
 to distinguish clearly between these ; but it is only between these that we 
 are able or have any occasion to distinguish. The admission of a tertium 
 quid, in the shape of superstitious fables, is as false in rhetoric as in theology. 
 — Gesenius, in the earlier editions of his Lexicon, and in his Commentary on 
 Isaiah, derives o^nb") from MBn to be weak, and makes it a poetical descrip- 
 tion of the manes, shades, or phantoms of the unseen world. In the last 
 edition of his Lexicon, he derives it from kb~i to be still or quiet, a supposi- 
 titious meaning founded on an Arabic analogy. By this new derivation he 
 destroys the force of the argument derived from the expression in the next 
 verse, ' thou art become weak (n^n) as we,' to which it may also be 
 objected that if th^ author designed any such allusion he would probably 
 have used the word ms*! from nsi. The ancient versions and all the early 
 writers understand it to mean giants, to avoid which Gesenius makes tiftun 
 in the prose books a mere proper name derived from xbi or ttin the ances- 
 tor. But this last always has the article, and no exegetical tradition is more 
 uniform than that which gives to Rephaim the sense of giants. Its appli- 
 cation to the dead admits of several explanations, equally plausible with 
 that of Gesenius, and entitled to the preference according to the modern 
 laws of lexicography, because instead of multiplying they reduce the num- 
 ber of distinct significations. Thus the shades or spectres of the dead might 
 naturally be conceived as actually larger than the living man, since that which 
 is shadowy and indistinct is commonly exaggerated by the fancy. Or there 
 may be an allusion to the Canaan itish giants who were exterminated by 
 divine command and might well be chosen to represent the whole class of 
 departed sinners. Or in this particular case, we may suppose the kings 
 and great ones of the earth to be distinguished from the vulgar dead as 
 giants or gigantic forms. Either of these hypotheses precludes the necessitv 
 of finding a new root for a common word, or of denying its plain usage else- 
 where. As to mere poetical effect, so often made a test of truth, there can 
 be no comparison between the description of the dead as weak or quiet ones. 
 
276 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 and the sublime conception of gigantic shades or phantoms. — Aben Ezra 
 and Kimchi call attention to the fact that Wfctf, in this one verse is construed 
 both with a masculine and feminine verb. Hitzig explains this on the 
 ground that in the first clause Sheol is passive, in the second active ; 
 Maurer with more success upon the ground that the nearest verb takes the 
 feminine or proper gender of the noun, while the more remote one, by a 
 common license, retains the masculine or radical form, as in ch. 33 : 9. 
 (See Gesenius <§> 141. Rem. 1.) Another method of removing the anomaly- 
 is afforded by an ingenious conjecture of J. D. Michaelis, who detaches -5*03 
 from what precedes and makes it the subject of the verb vns. Thy coming 
 rouses the gigantic shades. This is also recommended by its doing away with 
 the somewhat harsh construction of "sin adverbially after T**ftp£. There is 
 nothing indeed to hinder the adoption of this simple change, but the general 
 expediency of adhering to the Masoretic interpunction wherever it is possi- 
 ble. Some of the older writers refer *v«P to the King of Hell, the objection 
 to which is not its inconsistency with Hebrew mythology, but its being 
 wholly arbitrary. — Because RRQt) is sometimes simply equivalent to nnn, 
 Gesenius here prefers this secondary and diluted meaning to the one 
 which he himself gives as the primary and proper one, and which is really 
 demanded by the figure of Hell's being roused and coming forth (or as it 
 were, coming up) to meet him. The appropriateness of the strict sense 
 here is recognized by Knobel, who renders it ' von unten her, namlich ent- 
 gegen dem von oben kommenden Chaldaer-konige.' — K^ngs are poetically 
 called tnfffi* as the leaders of the flocks. J. D. Michaelis adopts another 
 reading, on the ground that his readers might have laughed at the idea of 
 he-goats rising from their thrones. But as this combination is at variance 
 with the accents, the laugh might have been at the translator's own expense. 
 Hitzig indeed proposes to change the interpunction, but he translates tt+ W!$ 
 the mighty ones (Machtigen). — According to Clericus, the dead kings are 
 here represented as arising from their ordinary state of profound repose upon 
 their subterranean thrones, a supposition not required by the terms of the 
 description, though it adds to its poetical effect. The same may be said of 
 the opinion, that the kings here meant are specifically those whom the king 
 of Babylon had conquered or oppressed. Kimchi seems to think that they 
 are first represented as alarmed at the approach of their old enemy, but 
 afterwards surprised to find him like themselves. Sit^ however does not 
 necessarily imply fear, but denotes agitation or excitement from whatever 
 cause. — Cocceius of course finds a reference in this clause to the history of 
 the Reformation. 
 
 V. 10. All of them shall answer and say to thee — thou also art made 
 weak as we — to us art likened ! Calvin persists in saying haec sunt ludi- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 277 
 
 bria, and his successors in discovering severe taunts, bitter irony, and biting 
 sarcasm, in this natural expression of surprise that one so far superior to 
 themselves should now be a partaker of their weakness and disgrace. The 
 idiomatic use of answer, both in Hebrew and in Greek, in reference even to 
 the person speaking first, is so familiar that there can be no need of diluting 
 it to say with Calvin (loquentur), or transforming it into accost with Lowth 
 and Barnes, or commence with Henderson and the modern Germans. Nor 
 is it necessary to suppose, with CEcolampadius, that they answer his 
 thoughts and expectations of welcome with a taunting speech. Luther 
 seems to adopt the old interpretation of responsive or alternate speech 
 (um einander reden). Gesenius makes answer a secondary sense, but 
 a different deduction is proposed by Winer, who makes reference to 
 another person an essential part of the meaning. Pagninus translates it 
 here vociferabuntur. — The interrogative form given to the last clause by 
 Calvin and all the English versions is entirely arbitrary, and much less 
 expressive than the simple assertion or exclamation preferred by the oldest 
 and latest writers. Augusti supposes the words of the D^xsn to extend through 
 v. 11, Rosenmuller through v. 13, and some have even carried it through 
 v. 20 ; but Vitringa, Lowth, Gesenius, and the later writers, more correctly 
 restrict it to the verse before us, partly because such brevity is natural and 
 appropriate to the case supposed, partly because the termination is other- 
 wise not easily defined. It is perfectly conceivable, however, that in such 
 a piece of composition, the words of the chief speaker and of others whom 
 he introduces, might insensibly run into one another without altering the 
 sense. — As bwmz does not elsewhere take ba after it, Knobel supposes a 
 constructio praegnans (Gesen. <§> 138), ' thou art made like and actually 
 brought to us,' but this supposition is entirely gratuitous. 
 
 V. 11. Down to the grave is brought thy pride (or pomp) — the music 
 of thy harps — under thee is spread the ivorm — thy covering is vermin. 
 That fc'WB is here used in its primary sense of grave, is clear from the second 
 clause, fWd, like the English pride, may either signify an affection of the 
 mind or its external object. The size and shape of the c"b-a are of no 
 exegetical importance here, as the word is evidently put for musical instru- 
 ments or music in general, and this for mirth and revelry. (Vide supra, 
 ch. 5: 12.) Both the nouns in the last clause are feminine, while the verb 
 and participle are both masculine. This has led the latest writers to explain 
 -pos^ as a noun. Lowth reads yzz-z in the singular, on the authority of 
 several manuscripts, versions and editions. According to Gesenius and the 
 later Germans, -pos^ is itself a singular form peculiar to the derivatives of 
 rib roots. (See his Heb. Gr. Ȥ> 90.) But even if it be a plural, coverings 
 may as well be said as clothes. Luther makes ssi also a noun meaning 
 
378 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 bed. DeWette makes it an impersonal verb ; a bed is made under thee 
 with vermin (gebettet ist unter dir mit Gewiirm). Gesenius treats it as a 
 mere anomaly or idiomatic license of construction. (See his Heb. Gr. <§> 144. 
 a.) Kimchi's explanation is that collective nouns admit both of a mascu- 
 line and feminine construction. Junius and others suppose an allusion to 
 the practice of embalming ; but the words seem naturally only to suggest 
 the common end of all mankind, even the greatest not excepted. The 
 imagery of the clause is vividly exhibited in Gill's homely paraphrase — 
 c nothing but worms over him and worms under him, worms his bed and 
 worms his bed-clothes ' — or as Ewald expresses it, with a curious allusion 
 to the domestic usages of Germany, ' worms, instead of silk, become his 
 under and his upper bed.' — The expression is not strengthened but weak- 
 ened by Lowth's interrogations, which are besides entirely arbitrary. As 
 the Hebrew language has a form to express interrogation, it is not to be 
 assumed in the absence of this form without necessity. 
 
 V. 12. How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning 
 — felled to the ground, thou that didst lord it over the nations. In the two 
 other places where Wnri occurs (Ezek. 21 : 17. 11: 2), it is an impera- 
 tive signifying howl. This sense is also put upon it here by the Peshito, 
 Aquila, Jerome in his commentary, and J. D. Michaelis. c Howl son of 
 the morning for thy fall.' Von Colin makes the clause a parenthetical 
 apostrophe — ' How art thou fallen from heaven, oh king — howl son of the 
 morning for his fall ! The first construction mentioned was originally given 
 by Rosenmuller and Gesenius, both of whom afterwards adopted an- 
 other, found in all the ancient versions but the Syriac, in all the leading 
 Rabbins, and in most of the early Christian writers. This interpretation 
 makes the word a derivative of V&n to shine, denoting bright one, or more 
 specifically bright star, or according to the ancients more specifically still the 
 morning star or harbinger of daylight, called in Greek icoacpopog and in 
 Latin lucifer. The same derivation and interpretation is adopted by the 
 latest German writers, except that they read W^rt to avoid the objection, 
 that there is no such form of Hebrew nouns as bb h fi, and that where this 
 form does occur, as we have seen, it is confessedly a verb. Tertullian and 
 other Fathers, Gregory the Great, and the scholastic commentators, regard- 
 ing Luke 10: 18 as an explanation of this verse, apply it to the fall of 
 Satan, from which has arisen the popular perversion of the beautiful name 
 Lucifer to signify the Devil. Erroneous as this exposition is, it scarcely 
 deserves the severe reprehension which some later commentators give it who 
 receive with great indulgence exegetical hypotheses much more absurd. 
 In the last clause Knobel makes the Prophet represent the morning star as 
 cut out from the solid vault of heaven, a convincing proof, of course, that 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 279 
 
 the sacred writers entertained absurd ideas of the heavenly bodies. All 
 other writers seem agreed that in the last clause the figure of a prostrate tree 
 succeeds that of a fallen star. Clericus, Vitringa, and several other Latin 
 writers, introduce another verb between rs^M and "pxb (excisus dejectus in 
 terram) on the ground that these do not cohere. In our idiom, however, 
 there is no need of supplying any thing, to fell or cut down to the ground 
 being equally good Hebrew and English. Junius and Tremellius give to 
 tibin a passive or neuter sense, as in Job 14 : 10, and make the clause com- 
 parative — weakened above (i. e. more than) the nations. It is commonly 
 explained, however, as a description of the Babylonian tyranny. Hitzig 
 and Hendewerk understand the image to be that of a tree overspreading 
 other nations, as in Ezekiel 31 : 6, 17. Gesenius and Umbreit, with the 
 older writers, give irbn the sense of weakening, subduing, or discomfiting, as 
 in Ex. 17 : 13. The bs is then a mere connective like the English prepo- 
 sition in the phrase to triumph over or to lord it over. Cocceius regards it 
 as an elliptical expression for bs iw's — oppressing those who were over the 
 nations — and applies it to the tyranny of the papal see over the monarchies 
 of Europe, after specifying some of which he adds with great naivete, Ion- 
 gum esset in omnia ire. Vitringa adopts the same construction of bs ttfcn 
 but applies the verse to the literal king of Babylon. J. H. Michaelis takes 
 ©Vin as a noun (debilitator) which removes the difficulty as to the construc- 
 tion. The Peshito and J. D. Michaelis give to \rbn the unauthorized sense 
 of despising, looking down upon. Calvin adopts an ancient Jewish opinion 
 that it means casting lots upon the nations, as to the time or order of attack, 
 or as to the treatment of the conquered. 
 
 V. 13. His fall is aggravated by the impious extravagance of his pre- 
 tensions. And (yet) thou hadst said in thy heart (or to thyself) — the 
 heavens will I mount (or scale)— above the stars of God will I raise my 
 throne — and I ivill sit in the mount of meeting (or assembly) — in the sides 
 of the north. It is universally agreed that he is here described as aiming 
 at equality with God himself. Grotius understands by heaven the land of 
 Judah, and by stars the doctors of the law. Vitringa explains heaven to 
 be the sanctuary, and stars the priests. Cocceius applies the whole verse 
 to the usurpations of the Roman See. But most interpreters receive the first 
 clause in its natural meaning. As to the other, there are two distinct inter- 
 pretations, one held by the early writers, the other by the moderns since 
 John David Michaelis. According to the first, iris-nr; is analogous to 
 isirrbna, and denotes the mountain where God agreed to meet the people, 
 to commune with them, and to make himself known to them (Ex. 25 : 22. 
 29: 42, 43). Calvin indeed gives to iqrha the sense of testimony or cove- 
 Jiant, but does not differ from the rest as to the application of the phrase. 
 
280 ISAIAH. CHAP. XIV. 
 
 All the interpreters, who are now referred to, understand by l JBNo*Ui Mount 
 Zion or Mount Moriah. Those who adopt the former explanation are 
 under the necessity of explaining sides of the north by the assumption that 
 Zion lay upon the north side of Jerusalem, which is expressly taught by 
 Kimchi (©idT \)tih \vi '3)? Grotius, Junius, Clericus, and Lightfoot. 
 Others, admitting the notorious fact that Zion was on the south side of the 
 city, suppose the mountain meant to be Moriah, lying on the north side of 
 Zion. So Cocceius, Vitringa, Gataker, and others. On the same hypo- 
 thesis, both Zion and Moriah might have been included, one as the mount 
 of congregation and the other as the sides of the north, in reference to the 
 tabernacle and temple, as the places where God's presence was successively 
 revealed. According to this view of the passage, it describes the king of 
 Babylon as insulting God by threatening to erect his throne upon those 
 consecrated hills, or even affecting to be God, like Antichrist, of whom Paul 
 says, with obvious allusion to this passage, that he opposeth and exalteth 
 himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as 
 God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God (2 Thess. 
 2:4). To this interpretation three objections have been urged. I. The 
 first is that it involves an anticlimax unworthy of Isaiah. After threaten- 
 ing to ascend the heavens and surmount the stars, something equally or still 
 more aspiring might have been expected ; but instead of this, he simply 
 adds, I will sit upon Mount Zion and Mount Moriah north of it. This by 
 itself can have little weight, partly because it is a mere rhetorical objection, 
 partly because it supposes Zion and Moriah to be mentioned as mere hills, 
 whereas they are referred to as the residence of God, and by his presence 
 invested with a dignity equal at least to that of clouds and stars. 2. But in 
 the next place it is urged that although this allusion to the sacred mountains of 
 Jerusalem would be perfectly appropriate if uttered by a Jew, it is wholly 
 misplaced in the mouth of a heathen, the rather as Isaiah makes the heathen 
 speak elsewhere in accordance with their own superstitions, and not in the 
 language of the true religion. (See ch. 10 : 10. 36 : 18, 19. 37 : 12.) In 
 weighing this objection, due allowance should be made for the facts, that 
 the writer is himself a Hebrew, writing for the use of Hebrew readers, and * 
 that the conqueror, in uttering such a threat, would of course have reference 
 to the belief of the conquered, and might therefore naturally threaten to rival 
 or excel their God upon his chosen ground. 3. The third objection is that 
 the failure of these impious hopes is obviously implied, whereas the threaten- 
 ing to take possession of Mount Zion and Moriah was abundantly fulfilled 
 before the time at which we must suppose this song of triumph to be uttered. 
 This is 'true, so far as the mere possession of the ground is concerned, but 
 not true as to the equality with God which the conqueror expected to derive 
 from it, as the first clause clearly shows. He had said, I will sit upon the sacred 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 281 
 
 hills, ami thereby be the equal of Jehovah ; but instead of tin- In- is brought 
 down to the grave. Whether the weight of argument preponderates in 
 favour of the old interpretation or against it, that of authority is now altoge- 
 ther on the side of the new one. This, as originally stated by J. D. Michae- 
 lis, makes the Babylonian speak the language of a heathen, and with refer- 
 ence to the old and wide-spread oriental notion of a very high mountain in 
 the extreme north, where the gods were believed to reside, as in the Greek 
 Olympus. This is the Meru of the Hindoo mythology, and the Elborz or 
 Elborj of the old Zend books. The details of this belief are given by Ge- 
 senius in the first appendix to his Commentary. According to J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis, there is also an allusion to this figment in the mention of the stars, 
 which were supposed to rest upon the summit of the mountain. The mean- 
 ing of the clause, as thus explained, is, ' I will take my seat among or 
 above the gods upon their holy mountain.' This interpretation is supposed 
 to be obscurely hinted in the Septuagint Version («V oqei vyrjXcp, im ia oqtj 
 ra vxprjXa ia. nobg jionour) and in the similar terms of the Peshito. Theo- 
 doret remarks upon the verse, that the highest mountains upon earth are 
 said to be those separating Media and Assyria, meaning the highest summits 
 of the Caucasus. The Targum also, though it renders ^sia—in mountain of 
 the covenant, translates the last words X3ns:s ^D extremities of the north. 
 As the mythological allusion is in this case put into the mouth of a heathen, 
 there is not the same objection to it as in other cases where it seems to 
 be recognized and sanctioned by the writer. It may be made a question, 
 however, whether the difficulty of an anticlimax is not as real here as in the 
 other case. How is the oriental Olympus any more m keeping with the 
 skies and stars, than Zion and Moriah, considered as the dwelling of Jeho- 
 vah ? It may also be objected that the usual meaning of isia is here 
 departed from, and that according to Gesenius's own showing the sacred 
 mountain of the Zend and Hindoo books is not in the extreme north but 
 in the very centre of the earth. It might even be doubted whether *tOT 
 •jibs means the extreme north at all, were it not for the analogous expres- 
 sion in v. 15, which will be explained below. Notwithstanding these objec- 
 tions, all the recent writers have adopted this hypothesis, including Heng- 
 stenberg, who gives the same sense to "pB* ^rs"P in his commentary on Ps. 
 48 : 3. Ewald translates Igi ar ^ B the mountain of all the gods (im Berge 
 aller Gotter). The general meaning of the verse is of course the same on 
 either hypothesis. It is characteristic of Knobel's eagerness to convict the 
 sacred writers of astronomical blunders, that he makes the simple phrase 
 above the stars mean on the upper side of the vault as the stars are on the 
 under side. The expression stars of God does not merely describe them 
 as his creatures, but as being near him, in the upper world or heaven. 
 
282 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 V. 14. I will mount above the cloud-heights; I will make myself like 
 the Most High. This is commonly regarded as a simple expression of 
 unbounded arrogance ; but Knobel thinks there may be an allusion to the 
 oriental custom of calling their kings gods, or to the fact that Syrian and 
 Phenician kings did actually so describe themselves (Ezek. 28 : 2. 6. 9. 
 2 Mace. 9: 12). According to Grotius and Vitringa, the singular noun 32? 
 is here used to designate the cloud of the divine presence in the tabernacle 
 and temple. This would agree well with the old interpretation of v. 13 ; 
 but according to the other hypothesis, as is a collective, meaning clouds in 
 general. Hendewerk describes this as a literal explanation of the foregoing 
 figures. It is commonly regarded as a continuation of them. Some under- 
 stand him to mean that he will ride upon the clouds as his chariot ; but 
 Gesenius, that he will control the clouds, as conquerors are elsewhere 
 said to ride on the heights of the earth (ch. 58: 14. Deut. 32: 13. 33 : 29. 
 Mic. 1:3). Some suppose cloud to denote a multitude, as in the phrase a 
 cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12: 1), and so understand the Chaldee Paraphrase 
 (kesj *o), which appears however to be only another method of expressing 
 the idea of superiority. Gill thinks that the clouds may be the ministers of 
 the word. Cocceius makes it mean the word itself, and the ascent above 
 them the suppression of the Scriptures and their subordination to tradition 
 by the church of Rome, from which he draws the inference that the Pope 
 is not the vicar of Christ, but the king of Babylon, and adds with great 
 simplicity, l non morabimur in his, quae sunt evidentia, diutius.' As Siewk 
 is a reflexive form (Gesen. <§> 53. 2), it means not merely I will be like, but 
 I will make myself like, or as Michaelis supposes, I will act like. Sanctius 
 understands him as declaring that he will work miracles as God had done 
 so often from the clouds. As }V&& was a term also used by the Phenicians 
 to denote the Supreme God, Henderson regards it here as specially empha- 
 tic. " Not satisfied with making himself equal to any of the inferior deities, 
 his ambition led him to aspire after an equality with the Supreme." He 
 also observes that the use of this term does not imply that the king of Baby- 
 lon was a monotheist, since in all the modifications of polytheism, one god 
 has been regarded as superior to the rest. 
 
 V. 15. But instead of being exalted to heaven, thou shalt only be 
 brought down to hell — (not to the sides of the north, but) to the depths of 
 the pit. T|5< has its proper sense of only (Winer s. v.) but in order to 
 accommodate the idiom of other tongues is- variously rendered but (Lowth), 
 yes (J. D. Michaelis), no (Ewald) etc. Some interpreters observe that 
 bias? is here confounded with the grave — others that Tia must have the 
 sense of M*£ — opposite deductions from the same parallelism. The cor- 
 rect view of the matter is taken by Knobel, who observes that the idea of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 283 
 
 bis'-a itself is originally nothing more than that of the grave, so that the two 
 run into one another, without any attempt to discriminate precisely what 
 belongs exclusively to either. (Vide supra ad v. 9.) Against the strict 
 application of the last clause to the grave is the subsequent description of 
 the royal body as unbtlried. But the imagery is unquestionably borrowed 
 from the grave. — Clericus and Barnes understand by sides the horizontal 
 excavations in the oriental sepulchres or catacombs. But according to its 
 probable etymology the Hebrew word does not mean sides in the ordinary 
 sense, but rather hinder parts and then remote parts or extremities, as it is 
 explained by the Targum here and in v. 13. The specific reference may 
 be either to extreme height, extreme distance, or extreme depth, according 
 to the context. Here the last sense is required by the mention of the pit, 
 and the word is accordingly translated in the Vulgate profundum, and in the 
 Septuagint more freely ia deptha. 
 
 V. 16. Those seeing thee shall gaze (or stare) at thee, they shall look 
 at thee attentively, (and say) is this the man that made the earth shake, 
 that made kingdoms tremble f Umbreit, Knobel, and others suppose the 
 Prophet to be still describing the reception of the king in the world below. 
 Gill, on the contrary, says " these are the words of the dead, speaking of 
 the living, when they should see the carcass of the king of Babylon lying 
 on the ground." This agrees much better with the subsequent context ; 
 but the simplest and most natural supposition is that the scene in the other 
 world is closed, and that the Prophet, or triumphant Israel, is now describ- 
 ing what shall take place above ground. The gazing mentioned in the first 
 clause is not merely the effect of curiosity but of incredulous surprise. The 
 Vulgate gives WP|«£ the specific sense of stooping down (inclinabuntur) in 
 order to examine more attentively. J. D. Michaelis strangely ascribes to it 
 the sense of regarding with tender sympathy, which is as arbitrary as Cal- 
 vin's favourite notion of derision, here repeated (iterum propheta regem deri- 
 det), and faithfully copied by the later writers. The prominent if not the 
 only feeling here expressed is neither scorn nor pity but astonishment. 
 ttyiarv; is supposed to be descriptive of the salutary influence on the specta- 
 tors, by Clericus (prudente se gerent) and Augusti (an deinem Beyspiele 
 klug werden), and the same idea seems to be expressed by Aben Ezra 
 (*pi32?3 DOT nri'c). But the usual sense of paying strict attention is much 
 more appropriate. Henderson's idea that the Hithpael of "ps means to con- 
 sider and reconsider, as if unable to believe one's senses, is not justified by 
 usage, and appears to be founded on a misapprehension of a remark by 
 Hitzig, who attaches the same meaning not to the peculiar form of one verb 
 but to the junction of the two. Gesenius and DeWette weaken the second 
 clause by changing its idiomatic form for a more modern one, before whom 
 
284 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 the earth shook, kingdoms trembled. Ewald, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, 
 restore the original construction. 
 
 V. 17. Made a (fruitful or habitable) world like the desert, destroyed 
 its cities, and its captives did not set free homewards. These are still the 
 words of the astonished spectators as they behold the body of the slain king. 
 The contrast in the first clause is heightened by supposing an intentional 
 allusion to the primary meaning of bnn, as expressed by Cocceius (frugi- 
 feram) and Junius (orbem habitalem). The version inhabited land, given 
 by J. D. Michaelis and Augusti, would be still better but for the constant 
 usage of b^Pi as an equivalent to y^ in its widest sense. Hitzig observes 
 that baft must be taken as a masculine noun, in order to account for the 
 suffix in vn9 9 which cannot be referred to the king like that in Wg&qfc If 
 so, it is better to refer the latter also to the same antecedent for the sake of 
 uniformity, as Knobel does, since they may just as well be said to belong to 
 the world as the cities. But the same end may be gained, and the anomaly 
 of gender done away, by referring both the pronouns to the king himself, 
 who might just as well be said to have destroyed his own cities as his own 
 land and his own people (v. 20), the rather as his sway is supposed to have 
 been universal. The construction of the last clause is somewhat difficult. 
 The general meaning evidently is that he did not release his prisoners, and 
 this is expressed in a general way by the Septuagint and Peshito. The 
 Targum reads, who did not open the door to his captives ; the Vulgate 
 more exactly, the prison (carcerem). This construction supplies a preposi- 
 tion before captives, and regards the termination of nrva as merely para- 
 gogic. Junius and Tremellius understand it as the local or directive H and 
 make the word mean home or homewards (non solvebat reversuros domum). 
 This construction is adopted by Henderson and others, who suppose the 
 same ellipsis of the verb return or send before the last word. But the other 
 recent versions follow DeDieu in connecting nns directly with lrtw»3, with- 
 out supplying any thing, and giving to the verb itself the sense of releasing 
 or dismissing. This construction is also given in the margin of the English 
 Bible {did not let his prisoners loose homewards), while the text coincides 
 with the Vulgate (opened not the house of his prisoners). 
 
 V. 18. All kings of nations, all of them, lie in state (or glory), each in 
 his house. There is here a special reference to the peculiar oriental feeling 
 with respect to burial. Diodorus says that the Egyptians paid far more 
 attention to the dwellings of the dead than of the living. Some of the great- 
 est national works have been intended for this purpose, such as the pyra- 
 mids, the temple of Belus, and the cemetery at Persepolis. The environs of 
 Jerusalem are full of ancient sepulchres. The want of burial is spoken of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 285 
 
 in Scripture as disgraceful even to a private person (1 Kings 13 : 22,) much 
 more to a sovereign (2 Chr. 21 : 20. 34 : 24). The ancient oriental prac- 
 tice of burying above ground and in solid structures, often reared by those 
 who were to occupy them (vide infra, ch. 22: 16) will account for the use 
 of house here in the sense of sepulchre, without supposing any reference to 
 the burial of kings within their palaces, rv?a is not used elsewhere abso- 
 lutely in the same sense, but the grave is called obis n^3 (Ecc. 12: 5) and 
 inbsb irra rvo (Job 30: 23), the first of which phrases is copied in the 
 Chaldee Paraphrase of that before us (m^bs n^na). Henderson's version 
 lie in state may seem inappropriate to burial, but is in fact happily descrip- 
 tive of the oriental method of sepulture. Lowth's version lie down gives 
 too active a meaning to the verb, which is intended to describe the actual 
 condition of the dead. The words of this verse might possibly be under- 
 stood to describe the generality of kings as dying in their beds and at home 
 — they have lain doivn (i. e. died) each in his own house. But there is no 
 need of dissenting from the unanimous judgment of interpreters, that the 
 verse relates to burial. Knobel supposes a specific allusion to the kings 
 whom the deceased had conquered or oppressed ; but nothimg more is neces- 
 sarily expressed by the words than the general practice with respect to 
 royal bodies. 
 
 V. 19. With the customary burial of kings he now contrasts the treat- 
 ment of the Babylonian's body. And thou art cast out from thy grave — 
 like a despised branch, the raiment of the slain, pierced with the sword, 
 going down to the stones of the pit, (even) like a trampled carcass (as 
 thou art). Gesenius and the other modern writers understand the Prophet 
 as contrasting the neglect or exposure of the royal body with the honour- 
 able burial of the other slain, those who are (soon) to go down to the stones 
 of the grave, i. e. to be buried in hewn sepulchres. Hitzig understands by 
 the stones of the pit, the stones which closed the mouths of the sepulchres, 
 — Henderson, stone coffins or sarcophagi — Knobel, the ordinary stone tombs 
 of the East resembling altars. All these interpreters follow Cocceius in 
 explaining &nb as a passive participle, clothed (i. e. covered) with the slain, 
 which may also be the meaning of the Vulgate version, obvolutus cum his 
 qui interfecti sunt gladio. But this form of expression, covered with the 
 slain who are buried in stone sepulchres, is rather descriptive of a common 
 burial than of any invidious distinction. It is much more natural to under- 
 stand lia ^x bx Tfjtj as a description of the indiscriminate interment of a 
 multitude of slain in a common grave, such as a pit containing stones or 
 filled with stones to cover the bodies. The reference assumed by the Dutch 
 Annotators and Doederlein, to the covering of the slain with stones upon the 
 surface of the earth, is forbidden by the terms going down and pit. The 
 
286 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 explanation just proposed would be consistent either with Cocceius's inter- 
 pretation of dnb, or with the older one which makes it as usual a noun 
 meaning raiment, and supplies the particle of comparison before it. In the 
 latter case, the direct comparison is not with the bodies of the common dead, 
 but with their blood-stained garments, as disgusting and abhorrent objects. 
 As isb occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 45 : 17, where it means to load, 
 Cocceius here translates it onustis gladio, and Junius onustorum (crebris 
 ictibus) gladii. The later writers adopt the rabbinical derivation of the 
 word from a cognate root in Arabic, which means to pierce or perforate. 
 The kind of death is supposed by some to be particularly mentioned, in 
 order to account for the staining of the garments. By ssna TO3 Lowth un- 
 derstands a tree on which a malefactor had been hung, and which was 
 therefore looked upon as cursed (Deut. 21 : 23. Gal. 3 : 13), and according 
 to Maimonides was buried with him. This ingenious combination accounts 
 for the use of the strong word asni, which is scarcely applicable to the use- 
 less or even troublesome and noxious branches that are thrown aside and 
 left to rot. To remove the same difficulty, J. D. Michaelis gives "i2p the 
 supposititious sense of ulcer, here put for a leprous body. Some suppose nsa 
 to be here used, as in ch. 11:1, with a genealogical allusion, the despised 
 branch or scion of a royal stock, sp?j3E is explained by Gesenius and 
 Maurer to mean simply without a grave, by Hitzig and Knobel away from 
 thy grave, on the ground that he had not been in it. This prosaic objection 
 has not hindered Ewald from using the expressive phrase out of thy grave, 
 which is no more incorrect or unintelligible than it is to speak of an heir as 
 being deprived of his estate, or a king's son of his crown, before they are 
 in actual possession. Henderson even goes so far as to deny that yn depends 
 upon the verb at all, a statement equally at variance with usage and the 
 masoretic accents. In order to reconcile this verse with the history of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, to whom they exclusively apply it, the Jews have an old 
 tradition, given not only in the Seder Olam but by Jerome in almost the 
 same words, that when Nebuchadnezzar recovered his reason, he found 
 Evilmerodach his son upon the throne, and threw him into prison. When 
 the father died, the son refused to become king again, lest his predecessor 
 should again return ; and in order to convince him of the old man's death, 
 the body was disinterred and exposed to public view. That the terms of 
 the prediction were literally fulfilled in the last king of Babylon, Nabonned or 
 Belshazzar, is admitted by Gesenius to be highly probable, from the hatred 
 with which this avoaiog paadevg (as Xenophon calls him) was regarded by 
 the people. Such a supposition is not precluded by the same historian's 
 statement that Cyrus gave a general permission to bury the dead ; for, as 
 Henderson observes, his silence in relation to the king rather favours the 
 conclusion that he was made an exception, either by the people or the con- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 287 
 
 queror. There is no need, however, as we have already seen, of seeking 
 historical details in this passage, which is rather a prediction of the down- 
 fall of the empire than of the fate of any individual monarch. 
 
 V. 20. Thou shalt not be joined with them (the other kings of the 
 nations) in burial, because thy land thou hast destroyed, thy people thou 
 hast slain. Let the seed of evil-doers be named no more forever. Gesenius 
 and other recent writers think the reference to the kings in v. 18 too 
 remote, and this is one principal reason for interpreting v. 19 in the way 
 already mentioned, as exhibiting a contrast between those who receive burial 
 and those who do not. The sense of this verse then will be, thou shalt not 
 be joined with them, i. e. with those who go down to the stones of the grave. 
 But the remoteness of the antecedent in v. 18 ceases to occasion any diffi- 
 culty when the whole of the nineteenth verse is a description of the king's 
 unburied and exposed condition. On this hypothesis, v. 18 describes the 
 state of other deceased kings, v. 1 9 the very different state of this one, and 
 v. 20 draws the natural inference, that the latter cannot be joined in burial 
 with the former. Instead of thy land and thy people, the Septuagint has 
 my land and my people, making the clause refer directly to the Babylonian 
 conquest and oppression of Judea. Jerome suggests that the same sense 
 may be put upon the common text by making thy land and thy people 
 mean the land and people subjected to thy power in execution of God's 
 righteous judgments. But the only natural interpretation of the words is 
 that which applies them to the Babylonian tyranny as generally exercised. 
 The charge here brought against the king implies that his power was given 
 him for a very different purpose. The older writers read the last clause as 
 a simple prediction. Thus the English version is, the seed of evil-doers 
 shall never be renowned. But the later writers seem to make it more em- 
 phatic by giving the future the force of an imperative or optative. For the 
 sense of V*yva snt , vide supra, ch. 1 : 4. Hitzig and Henderson take 5nt 
 even here in the sense of a race or generation, and suppose an^ to refer to 
 monumental inscriptions. Some of the older writers understand the clause 
 to mean that the names of the wicked shall not be perpetuated by transmis- 
 sion in the line of their descendants. Others explain the verb as meaning 
 to be called, i. e. proclaimed or celebrated. It is now pretty generally 
 understood to mean, or to express a wish, that the posterity of such should 
 not be spoken of at all, implying both extinction and oblivion. 
 
 V. 21. That the downfall of the Babylonian power shall be perpetual, 
 is now expressed by a command to slaughter the children of the king. 
 Prepare for his sons a slaughter, for the iniquity of their fathers. Let 
 them not arise and possess the earth, and fll the face of the world with 
 
288 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 cities. This verse is regarded by Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Maurer, and 
 Umbreit, as the close of the triumphal song beginning in v. 4. Hitzig and 
 Hendewerk suppose it to have closed in the preceding verse, as the address 
 is no longer to the king of Babylon. Ewald extends it through v. 23. 
 But these distinctions rest upon a false assumption of exact and artificial 
 structure. The dramatic form of the prediction is repeatedly shifted, so 
 that the words of the triumphant Jews, of the dead, of the Prophet, and of 
 God himself, succeed each other, as it were, insensibly, and without any 
 attempt to make the points of the transition prominent. The command in 
 the first clause is not addressed specifically to the Medes and Persians, but 
 more indefinitely to the executioners of God's decree against Babylon, or, 
 as Calvin calls them, his lictores aut carnifices. The reference is not to 
 the children of Nebuchadnezzar or Belshazzar, as the Rabbins and others 
 have assumed, but to the progeny of the ideal being who here represents 
 the Babylonian monarch. Hitzig, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, make naa» 
 mean a place of slaughter (Schlachtbank), after the analogy of the cognate 
 form natE . Gesenius and Ewald give it the general sense of massacre 
 (Blutbad). There are three constructions of the last clause authorized by 
 usage, wba may agree either with c^s , or with "OS , or with vsa . The 
 last is entitled to the preference because it is the subject of the two preceding 
 verbs. Cocceius, Hendewerk, Umbreit, and others make this last clause 
 the expression of a hope or a promise — and (then) the world will (again) 
 be full of cities — or, that the world may (again) be full of cities. Gesenius, 
 who ascribes this construction to Von Kolln, objects that it gives to bz one 
 half of its meaning (that), and rejects the other half (not). But the sub- 
 junctive construction of the clause is a mere assimilation to the forms of 
 occidental syntax. The Hebrew construction is, they shall not arise (or let 
 them not arise), and the negative may either be confined to the first two 
 verbs or extended to the third. The last, however, is more natural on 
 account of the exact resemblance in the form of the two members, fn« si«3*ni 
 and Vrirr^B «*Vg . — The Targum, followed by the Rabbins, gives to b*ns 
 the sense of enemies, as in 1 Sam. 28: 16. Ps. 139: 20, and fill the face 
 of the world with enemies — or enemies fill the face of the world. This 
 meaning of the word is adopted by Vitringa, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and 
 others. Hitzig reads t^S ruins, Ewald WTO tyrants, Knobel t^sn wicked 
 ones. The best sense, on the whole, is afforded by the old interpretation 
 given by the^ Vulgate and Saadias, and retained by Umbreit and Hendewerk, 
 which takes d^s in its usual sense as the plural of -ns , and understands the 
 clause to mean, lest they overspread and colonize the earth. The objection 
 that the Babylonians had been just before described as wasters and destroy- 
 ers, cannot weigh against the constant usage of the word. 
 
ISAIAH, CIIA1\ XIV. 289 
 
 V. 2*2. This verso contains an intimation that the destruction just pre- 
 dicted is to be the work not of man merely but of God, and is to compre- 
 hend not only the royal family but the whole population. And I (myself) 
 will rise up against them (or upon them), saith Jehovah of Hosts, and will 
 cut off from Babylon (literally, with respect to Babylon) name and remnant 
 and progeny and offspring. The last four nouns are put together to express 
 posterity in the most general and universal manner, "ps and ""=3 occur 
 together in Gen. 21 : 13. Job 18: 19. The specific meaning son and 
 nephew (i. e. nepos, grandson), given in the English Version and most of 
 the early writers, and retained by Umbreit, is derived from the Chaldee 
 Paraphrase (-a im is). Aben Ezra makes the language still more definite 
 by explaining fiia to be a man himself, law a father, "ps a son, and 1S3 a 
 grandson. This supposes "Wtt to be equivalent in meaning to i©s "HUB used 
 in Lev. 18: 6. 25: 49 for a blood-relation. So Montanus renders it here, 
 consanguineum. But the word which has that sense is of a different form, 
 and according to Gesenius, of a different origin. The more general mean- 
 ing of the terms, now held to be correct, is given in the Septuagint (ovo^a 
 xai xardletfma xai omoua) and the Vulgate (nomen et reliquias et germen et 
 progeniem). Doederlein's version, the fruitful and the barren, is entirely 
 unauthorized. Grotius remarks upon the threatening of this verse, nempe 
 ad tempus ! Cocceius applies this verse and the one preceding to the civil 
 and ecclesiastical dignitaries subject to the Roman See, and thinks it pro- 
 bable that T? and Ibj may be distinctive terms for bishops and kings. The 
 threatening is applied by other classes of interpreters to Nebuchadnezzar 
 and Belshazzar, but most correctly to the king of Babylon, not as a collec- 
 tive appellation merely, but as an ideal person representing the whole line 
 of kings. The agreement of the prophecy with history is shown by J. D. 
 Michaelis from the facts, that none of the ancient royal family of Babylon 
 ever regained a throne, and that no Babylonian empire ever rose after the 
 destruction of the first, Alexander the Great's project of restoring it having 
 been defeated by his death. 
 
 V. 23. And I will render it (literally, place it for) a possession (or 
 inheritance) of the porcupine, and pools of water, and will siveep it with 
 the broom (or besom) of destruction. iBp has been variously explained to 
 be the tortoise, beaver, bittern etc., but since Bochart it is commonly agreed 
 to mean the porcupine or hedgehog. It is here mentioned only as a solitary 
 animal frequenting marshy grounds. The construction is not, I will make 
 the pools of water a possession etc. by drying them up — nor, I will make it 
 a possession for pools of water — but, I will make it a possession for the por- 
 cupine and (will convert it into) pools of water. The exposure of the level 
 plains of Babylonia to continual inundation without great preventive care, 
 
 19 
 
290 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 and the actual promotion of its desolation by this very cause, are facts dis- 
 tinctly stated by the ancient writers. Some suppose this evil to have had 
 its origin in the diversion of the waters of the Euphrates by Cyrus. The 
 Septuagint version of the last clause (y.a\ &rjvco avx\v nrjXov §a.Qa&Qov sig 
 anwXuav), adopted with little variation by Clericus (demergam earn in pro- 
 fundum lutum ut earn perdam), and by Lowth (I will plunge it in the miry 
 gulf of destruction), supposes inKBSja to be derived from &**» clay or mire. 
 J. D. Michaelis refers it to an Arabic root meaning to sink or plunge, and 
 thus excludes the allusion to mire (in den Abgrund des Nichts versenken). 
 Three of the ancient versions, followed by the Talmud and rabbinical inter- 
 preters, make it mean to sweep, w r hich is adopted by the latest writers. 
 Gesenius formerly derived it from an obsolete root RU9, but in his Thesaurus 
 from i^o, supposing the verb properly to mean the removal of dirt. Thus 
 Aben Ezra explains xaxaia to be an instrument with which dirt is removed 
 (iri7t> tt irp'C ps>). Lee, from an Arabic root, explains the clause to mean, 
 I will humble it with the humiliation of destruction (Heb. Lex. s. v). The 
 Vulgate renders *ra©n as a participle (terens), in which it is followed by 
 Calvin (evacuans), while others more correctly make it an infinitive or 
 verbal noun. 
 
 V. 24. From the distant ^iew of the destruction of Babylon, the Pro- 
 phet suddenly reverts to that of the Assyrian host, either for the purpose of 
 making one of these events accredit the prediction of the other, or for the 
 purpose of assuring true believers, that while God had decreed the deliver- 
 ance of his people from remoter dangers, he would also protect them from 
 those near at hand. Jehovah of Hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely (literally, 
 if not) as I have planned (or imagined) it has come to pass, and as I have 
 devised, it shall stand (or be established). On the elliptical formula of 
 swearing, vide supra, ch. 5 : 9. We may either supply before &6 d», with 
 Calvin and Vitringa, let me not be recognized as God — or as Junius briefly 
 and boldly expresses it, mentiar — or else we may suppose the elliptical 
 expression to have been transferred from man to God, without regard to its 
 original and proper import. Kimchi explains rrtVHi to be a preterite used for 
 a future (7>pa> oi|)P3 w), and this construction is adopted in most versions, 
 ancient and modern. It is, however, altogether arbitrary and in violation of 
 the only safe rule as to the use of the tenses, viz. that they should have their 
 proper and distinctive force, unless forbidden by the context or the nature 
 of the subject, which is very far from being the case here, as we shall see 
 below. Gesenius and DeWette evade the difficulty by rendering both the 
 verbs as presents, a construction which is often admissible and even necessary 
 in a descriptive context, but when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, 
 tends both to weaken and obscure the sense. Ewald and Umbreit make the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 291 
 
 first verb present and the second future, which is scarcely if at all less objec- 
 tionable. The true force of the preterite and future forms, as here employed, is 
 recognized by Aben Ezra, who explains the clause to mean that according 
 to God's purpose, it has come to pass and will come to pass hereafter (rvr> j; 
 vpxb tvrv pi). The antithesis is rendered still more prominent by Jarchi, 
 by whom the verse is paraphrased as follows — ' Thou hast seen, oh Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, how the words of the prophets of Israel have been fulfilled in 
 Sennacherib, to break Assyria in my land, and by this thou mayest know 
 that what I have purposed against thee shall also come to pass.' (Compare 
 Ezek. 31 : 3-18). This view of the matter makes the mention of Assyria 
 in this connexion altogether natural, as if he had said, of the truth of these 
 predictions against Babylon a proof has been afforded in the execution of 
 the threatenings against Assyria. The only objection to it is that the next 
 verse goes on to speak of the Assyrian overthrow, which would seem to 
 imply that the last clause of this verse, as well as the first, relates to that 
 event. Another method of expounding the verse therefore is to apply nrpfi 
 and Dipn to the same events, but in a somewhat different sense — c As I 
 intended it has come to pass, and as I purposed it shall continue.' The 
 Assyrian power is already broken, and shall never be restored. This strict 
 interpretation of the preterite does not necessarily imply that the prophecy 
 was actually uttered after the destruction of Sennacherib's army. Such 
 would indeed be the natural inference from this verse alone, but for reasons 
 which will be explained below, it is more probable that the Prophet merely 
 takes his stand in vision at a point of time between the two events of which 
 he speaks, so that both verbs are really prophetic, the one of a remote the 
 other of a proximate futurity, but for that very reason their distinctive forms 
 should be retained and recognized. Yet the only modern writers who 
 appear to do so in translation are Calvin and Cocceius, who haws factum est, 
 and J. D. Michaelis, who has ist geschehen. The acute and learned but 
 superficial Clericus jumps to the conclusion that this verse begins an entirely 
 new prophecy, a dictum eagerly adopted by the modern German critics 
 who are always predisposed to favour new views of the connexion and 
 arrangement of the text. Rosenmuller represents these verses as a fragment 
 of a larger ( poem ' on the Assyrian overthrow. Gesenius confidently sets 
 it down as the conclusion or continuation of the tenth chapter, with which it 
 exhibits several verbal coincidences. Hendewerk, with still more precision 
 gives it place between vs. 27 and 28 of that chapter. Hitzig and Knobel 
 put it after the twefth chapter and regard it as a prophecy of later date, but 
 having direct reference to that in ch. 10-12. Ewald assigns it the same 
 relative position, but interpolates the last three verses of the seventeenth 
 chapter and the whole of the eighteenth between the twelfth or rather the 
 eleventh (for he looks upon the twelfth as spurious) and the paragraph 
 
*292 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 before us, which he takes to be the winding up of the whole prophecy. 
 The first thing that will strike the reader in this statement is the principle 
 assumed by all the hypotheses, viz. that similar passages must belong toge- 
 ther, which is tantamount to saying that whatever a writer had to say upon 
 a certain point or in a certain manner he must have said once for all in a 
 single and continuous composition. On the same ground all those passages 
 in the odes of Horace which contain the praises of Augustus or Maecenas, 
 might be brought together into a cento of endless repetitions. To an ordi- 
 nary reader it is scarcely more surprising that an author should use the same 
 expressions in two different productions, than that he should repeat them in 
 the same. But even if the principle assumed were less unreasonable than 
 it is, the different and inconsistent ways in which it is applied, and the 
 assurance with which each new-comer puts his predecessors in the wrong, 
 will satisfy most readers that conjectures which admit of being varied and 
 multiplied ad libitum must needs be worthless. This conclusion is confirmed 
 by the existence of a strong and very obvious motive, on the part of neolo- 
 gical interpreters, for severing this paragraph, if possible, from \\ hat precedes. 
 The resemblance of these verses to the undisputed writings of Isaiah is too 
 strong to leave a doubt as to their origin. If left then in connexion with 
 the previous context, they establish the antiquity and authenticity of this 
 astonishing prediction against Babylon, beyond the reach of cavil. And if 
 this be admitted, we have here a signal instance of prophetic foresight exer- 
 cised at least two centuries before the event. This conclusion must be 
 avoided at all costs and hazards, and the sacrifice of taste and even com- 
 mon sense is nothing in comparison with such an object. A remote design 
 of this kind may frequently be traced in critical decisions, which to super- 
 ficial observation or to blinded admiration, seem to be determined solely by 
 the unbiassed application of universal laws. In the case before us, the 
 unsoundness of the principle, its arbitrary application, and the evident 
 appearances of sinister design, all conspire to recommend the old view of 
 the passage, as immediately connected, with the previous context, which is 
 further recommended by the uniform authority of Hebrew manuscripts, a 
 constant tradition, the grammatical construction, and the perfectly coherent 
 and appropriate sense which it puts upon the passage. It need scarcely be 
 added that the explanation of the name Assyria, by Lowth and others, as 
 denoting or at least including the Babylonian dynasty, is here entirely 
 untenable, because it is unnecessary. Where the proper meaning of the 
 term is so appropriate, it is worse than useless to assume one which at 
 least is rare and dubious. 
 
 V. 25. He now declares what the purpose i?, which is so certainly 
 to be accomplished, namely God's determination to break Assyria (or 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 293 
 
 the Assyrian) in nnj land, and on my mountains I will trample him ; 
 and his yoke shall depart from off them, and his burden from off' his back 
 (or shoulder) shall depart. The infinitive depends upon "teaprj in the verse 
 preceding, and is followed by a finite verb, as in many other cases. (See 
 for example ch. 5: 24). Barnes continues the infinitive construction in the 
 next clause (to remove etc.), while Gesenius, on the other hand, assimilates 
 the first clause to the second (Assyria is broken etc.), both which are gra- 
 tuitous departures from the form of the original. Forced constructions of the 
 clause are given by Junius (when by breaking Assyria etc. I shall have tram- 
 pled on him, then shall his yoke etc.) and by Gataker (as by breaking Assyria 
 etc. I trampled on him, so that his yoke and burden were removed, in like 
 manner Babylon shall be destroyed). Hendewerk makes a frivolous objec- 
 tion to the translation of 1HJW by Assyria, viz. that Assyria never was in 
 Palestine. The use of the names of countries to denote their governments 
 and even their armies is sufficiently familiar, even without supposing "*i"s 
 to be really the name of the progenitor, like Israel and Canaan. My moun- 
 tains some have understood to be Mount Zion, others more generally the 
 mountains of Jerusalem ; but it seems to be rather a description of the 
 whole land of Israel, or at least of Judah, as a mountainous region. (See 
 Ezek. 38: 21. 39: 2, 4. Zech. 12: 15. 1 Kings 10: 23.) Calvin's idea 
 that this term is used because the country was despised as a mere range of 
 mountains, seems extremely forced. Umbreit, however, also understands 
 the words in my land as an allusion to the contempt of foreigners for Pales- 
 tine. The expressions of this verse bear a strong resemblance to those of 
 ch. 9:3. 10: 27. 30: 30, 31. 31 : 8. Aben Ezra refers the plural suffix 
 in cmbs to land and mountains, Grotius to the latter only ; but the true 
 construction is no doubt the common one, which refers it to the people of 
 Israel collectively, and the suffix in "rastfJ to the same people as an indivi- 
 dual. The place here assigned to the destruction of Assyria sufficiently 
 refutes the application of the name for Babylonia by Calvin, Lowth, and 
 others. Gill thinks that " the Assyrian here may represent the Turks, who 
 now possess the land of Israel, and shall be destroyed." Cocceius under- 
 stands by Assyria the Turks and Saracens, and by the mountains the once 
 Christian regions which they have usurped, in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Asia. 
 Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Africa, Greece, Thrace, Illyria, Hungary. (Hi 
 
 sane sunt montes Dei et terra ipsius atque ecclesiae suspicio igitur 
 
 est prophetiam hanc loqui de hisce, qui nunc Assyria nominari possunt.) 
 
 V. 26. The Prophet now explains his previous conjunction of events 
 so remote as the Assyrian overthrow and the fall of Babylon, by declaring 
 both to be partial executions of one general decree against all hostile and 
 opposing powers. This is the purpose that is purposed upon all the earth, and 
 
294 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 this the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. On the supposition 
 that this relates to Babylon alone, or to Assyria alone, we are obliged to 
 understand the whole earth and all nations as describing the universal sway 
 of these great powers respectively. Henderson applies the terms to Assyria, 
 with an indefinite reference to any other powers that might set themselves 
 in opposition. The true interpretation of the words as comprehending 
 Assyria and Babylon, with reference to what goes before, is given by Aben 
 Ezra, Jarchi, and J. D. Michaelis. Aben Ezra seems indeed to make this 
 the apodosis of the sentence, which is wholly unnecessary. Clericus regards 
 the combination of the cognate noun and participle (purpose purposed) as 
 emphatic and implying settled immutable determination. Vitringa explains 
 purpose and hand as meaning wisdom and strength ; Gill, more correctly, 
 plan and execution. The outstretched hand, as Knobel observes, is a ges- 
 ture of threatening. Hitzig gratuitously changes hand to arm, as in ch. 
 5 : 25. All the earth is, with as little reason, changed to all lands by Ge- 
 senius and all the later Germans except Ewald. 
 
 V. 27. As the preceding verse declares the extent of God's avenging 
 purpose, so this affirms the certainty of its execution, as a necessary conse- 
 quence of his almighty power. For Jehovah of Hosts hath purposed (this), 
 and who shall annul (his purpose) ? And his hand (is) the (one) stretched 
 out, and who shall turn it back 1 — Instead of Jehovah of Hosts, the Septua- 
 gint has here the Holy God or God the Holy One. W has been variously 
 translated scatter (LXX), weaken (Vulgate), avert (Luther), dissolve 
 (Calvin), change (J. D. Michaelis), hinder (Gesenius), break (Ewald) ; 
 but its true sense is that given in the English Version (disannul) and by 
 De Wette (vereiteln). The meaning of the last clause is not simply that 
 his hand is stretched out, as most writers give it, but that the hand stretched 
 out is his, as appears from the article prefixed to the participle mias . (See 
 Gesenius $ 108. 3. Ewald <§> 560). The true construction is given by 
 Cocceius, Lowth, Maurer, Henderson, Knobel, and Ewald (seine Hand ist 
 die ausgereckte). Hitzig's attempt to strengthen the last verb by rendering 
 it frighten back (zuriickschrecken) has the opposite effect. Ewald's transla- 
 tion (hemmen) also fails to convey the exact sense of the Hebrew verb, which 
 is correctly given in the Vulgate (avertet), and still more precisely by Coc- 
 ceius (retroaget). Clericus modernizes the construction of the whole verse 
 (cum consilium ceperit etc.), and Gesenius that of the second clause (ist 
 seine Hand gestreckt u.s. w.). Here again Gill is felicitous in paraphrase. 
 c There's nothing comes to pass but he has purposed, and every thing he 
 has purposed does come to pass.' v 
 
 V. 28. In the year of the death of king Ahaz, was this burden, or 
 threatening prophecy, against Philistia. Junius begins the fifteenth chapter 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 295 
 
 here, and Calvin says it would have begun here, but for the preposterous 
 division or rather laceration of the chapters. Jerome notes this as the first 
 prophecy belonging to the reign of Hezekiah, and J. H. Michaclis accord- 
 ingly makes this the beginning of the fourth division of the book. According 
 to Cocceius's arrangement, it is the beginning of the seventh part, extending 
 to the twentieth chapter, and distinguished by the fourfold recurrence of the title 
 stes , as to the sense of which vide supra, ch. 13 : 1. Gesenius, Hendewerk, 
 and Henderson, suppose the words of this verse to refer to a period anterior 
 to the death of Ahaz, Maurer to a period after it. J. D. Michaelis thinks 
 that the title at least was written afterwards. Hitzig and Knobel regard the 
 title as the work of a compiler, and the former supposes the entire passage 
 to have been reduced to writing long after the alleged date of the prophecy, 
 while Knobel throws the whole back to the year 739, near the beginning of 
 the reign of Ahaz. These are mere conjectures, which can have no weight 
 against a title forming part of the text as far as we can trace it back. 
 One manuscript instead of Ahaz has Uzziah, a mere emendation intended 
 to remove a supposed chronological difficulty. Henderson points out an 
 erroneous division of the text in some editions of the English Bible, by pre- 
 fixing the paragraph mark to v. 29, so as to apply the date here given to 
 what goes before, whereas the dates are always placed at the beginning. 
 Augusti's translation of the second clause (the threatening prophecy was 
 this) mistakes the form of the original, which can only mean this threatening 
 prophecy. 
 
 V. 29. Rejoice not, O Philistia, all of thee (or all Philistia), because the 
 rod that smote thee is broken, for out of the root of the serpent shall come forth 
 a basilisk, and its root a flying fiery serpent. The name nwbs is applied in 
 Hebrew to the southwestern part of Canaan on the Mediterranean coast, 
 nominally belonging to the tribe of Judah, but for ages occupied by the 
 n^niU'B or Philistines, a race of Egyptian origin who came to Canaan from 
 Caphtor, i. e. according to the ancients Cappadocia, but according to the 
 moderns either Cyprus or Crete, most probably the latter. The name is 
 now traced to an Ethiopic root meaning to wander, and probably denotes 
 wanderers or emigrants. Hence it is commonly rendered in the Septuagint 
 aXXoyvXot. The Philistines are spoken of above in ch. 9: 1 1. 1 1 : 14, and 
 throughout the historical books of the Old Testament, as the hereditary ene- 
 mies of Israel. They were subdued by David (2 Sam. 5 : 17-25. 21 : 15), 
 and still paid tribute in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17: 11), but 
 rebelled against Jehoram (2 Chr. 21 : 16, 17), were again subdued by 
 Uzziah (2 Chr. 26 : 6), and again shook off the yoke in the reign of Ahaz 
 (2 Chr. 28: 18). The Greek name IlaXaiCTirrj, a corruption of hb^d , is 
 applied by Josephus and other ancient writers to the whole land of Is- 
 
296 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 rael, from which comes our Palestine, employed in the same manner 
 The expression ^3 is explained by Lowth to mean with one consent, 
 while Henderson connects it with the negative in this sense, let not any 
 part of thee. Most writers make it simply mean the whole of thee, 
 perhaps with reference to Philistia as a union of several principalities. 
 All interpreters agree that the Philistines are here spoken of as having 
 recently escaped from the ascendency of some superior power, but at 
 the same time threatened with a more complete subjection. The first of 
 these ideas is expressed by the figure of a broken rod or staff, for the 
 meaning of which vide supra ad v. 5. The other is expressed by the 
 very different figure of an ordinary serpent producing or succeeded by 
 other varieties more venomous and deadly. On the natural history of the 
 passage, see the Hebrew Lexicons, Bochart's Hierozoicon, and Rosenmuller's 
 Alterthumskunde. Whatever be the particular species intended, the essen- 
 tial idea is the same, and has never been disputed. Some indeed suppose 
 a gradation or climax in the third term also, the fiery flying serpent being 
 supposed to be more deadly than the basilisk, as this is more so than the ordi- 
 nary serpent. But most writers refer the suffix in "PiB to mm , and regard 
 the other two names as correlative or parallel. The transition in the last 
 clause from the figure of an animal to that of a plant may serve the double 
 purpose of reminding us that what we read is figurative, and of showing 
 how unsafe it is to tamper with the text on the ground of mere rhetorical 
 punctilios. As to the application of the figures, there are several different 
 opinions. Jerome and a long line of interpreters, including Hendewerk, sup- 
 pose the broken staff to be the death of Ahaz. But he, so far from having 
 smitten the Philistines, had been smitten by them. Kimchi, Abarbenel, 
 Vitringa, and others understand the first clause as referring to the death of 
 Uzziah. But this had taken place more than thirty years before. Vitringa 
 endeavours to remove this difficulty by supposing an ellipsis : rejoice not 
 in the death of him who smote you, and in the prosperity which you have 
 since enjoyed for many years. But this is wholly arbitrary. Others suppose 
 Tiglath-pileser to be meant by the rod which smote them ; but for this there 
 is no sufficient ground in history. Gesenius applies the figures not to an 
 individual but to the Jewish power, which had been broken and reduced 
 during the reign of Ahaz. The still more formidable domination threatened 
 in the last clause he explains, not with the older writers to be that of Heze- 
 kiah (2 Kings 18: 18), but the recovered strength of Judah. Hitzig and 
 Ewald make the last clause a prediction of Assyrian invasion. Knobel 
 adopts the same interpretation, but with this addition, that he understands 
 the figure of the basilisk coming forth from the serpent as referring to the 
 agency of Judah in procuring the Assyrian invasion of Philistia. Rosen- 
 miiller refers this clause to the Messiah, in which he follows the Chaldee 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 297 
 
 paraphrase. * From among the sons of the sons of Jesse, the Messiah shall 
 come forth, and his works shall be among you as fiery serpents.' Some of 
 the old writers suppose mm to contain an allusion to one of the names of 
 Jesse (2 Sam. 17:25). 
 
 V. 30. And the first-born of the poor shall feed, and the needy in 
 security lie down, and I will kill thy root with famine, and thy remnant it 
 shall slay. The future condition of the Jews is here contrasted with that of 
 the Philistines. The figures in the first clause are borrowed from a flock, in 
 the second from a tree, but with obvious allusion to a human subject. The 
 first-born of the poor is explained by the Targum and the Rabbins to mean 
 the nobles of Judah, now despised by the Philistines. Calvin makes it a 
 superlative expression for the poorest and most wretched (quasi suis miseriis 
 insignes), and this sense is approved by most of the later writers, some of 
 whom refer to Job 18 : 13 for an analogous expression. Gesenius, however, 
 is disposed to admit an allusion to the next generation, which would make 
 the promise too remote, and leaves the expression first-born unexplained. 
 Some writers needlessly amend the text. Thus J. D. Michaelis makes the 
 S in "naa a preposition and reads in my pastures, a conjecture recently re- 
 newed by Ewald, who would point the word "nba and make li a syno- 
 nyme of "O. But an exposition which involves a change of text and the 
 invention of a word to suit the place, and both without necessity, seems 
 to have a twofold claim to be rejected. Equally gratuitous is Lowth's 
 reading 'nsa , my choice first-fruits. Gesenius and De Wette supply nas^ 
 in the first clause from the second, shall feed, quietly. But the threat of 
 famine in the other clause seems to show that the prominent idea is abun- 
 dance, as expressed by the older writers. There is no need of taking 
 root in the sense of stock or race. The figurativ.e part of the last clause is 
 borrowed from a tree, here divided into two parts, the root and the rest or 
 remainder. Gesenius distinguishes between fcwan and nn as terms which 
 usage has appropriated to the act of God and man respectively. Hitzig 
 makes the one mean kill in general, and the other more specifically kill with 
 the sword (Jer. 15: 3). The third person aim is by some regarded as a 
 mere enallage personae, and referred like ^rich to God himself. Others 
 refer it to the enemy mentioned in v. 31, or the fiery serpent in v. 30. 
 Others prefer an indefinite construction, which is very common, and would 
 here be entitled to the preference, were there not another still more simple. 
 This makes ss-i the subject of the last verb, so that what is first mentioned 
 as an instrument in God's hand, reappears in the last member of the sentence 
 as an agent. 
 
 V. 31. Howl, oh gate! cry, oh city! dissolved, oh Philisiia, is the 
 whole of thee ; for out of the north a smoke comes, and there is no straggler 
 
298 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 
 
 in his forces. The Philistines are not only forbidden to rejoice, but exhorted 
 to lament. The object of address is a single city representing all the rest. 
 There is no ground for the opinion that Ashdod is particularly meant. It 
 is rather a case of poetical individualization. Gate is not here put for the 
 judges or nobles who were wont to sit there — nor is it even mentioned as 
 the chief place of concourse — but rather with allusion to the defences of the 
 city, as a parallel expression to city itself. The insertion of a preposition 
 by the Targum and Kimchi — howl for the gate, cry for the city — is entirely 
 unauthorized, and changes the whole meaning. The masculine form Si^a 
 seems to have greatly perplexed interpreters. Some of the older writers 
 supply ©nt, others C2>, and even Ewald says that we must be content to 
 make it an infinitive. Knobel regards it as a mere anomaly or idiomatic 
 license of construction. Hitzig supposes a sudden transition from the third 
 to the second person — it is dissolved, oh whole Philistia. The true solution 
 is that JriM agrees regularly with Vs in *$*. This explanation, which Hen- 
 dewerk admits to be as old as Maurer, is distinctly given by Cocceius (lique- 
 factum est, Palaestina, universum tui), and copied by Vitringa and J. H. 
 Michaelis. Another idea ascribed to Maurer by Knobel — viz. that the 
 smoke here meant is that of conflagrations kindled by the enemy — is at least 
 as old as Clericus. Some of the older writers understood it simply as an 
 emblem for wrath or trouble. Lowth cites Virgil's fumantes pulvere campos, 
 and supposes an allusion to the clouds of dust raised by an army on the 
 march. This is adopted by Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Hendewerk, and others ; 
 but Hitzig and Knobel object to this interpretation of "J^, as unauthorized 
 by Hebrew usage. Hitzig refers it to the practice of literally carrying fire 
 in front of caravans to mark the course ; but this is objected to by others as 
 peculiar to the desert and to straggling or divided bodies. It may be doubt- 
 ed, notwithstanding the allusion in the last clause, whether )W9 was intended 
 to refer to an army at all. If not, we may suppose with Calvin that smoke is 
 mentioned merely as a sign of distant and approaching fire, a natural and com- 
 mon metaphor for any powerful destroying agent. — *vv\& has been conjecturally 
 explained in various ways, but is agreed by all the modern writers to mean 
 properly alone or separated, and to be descriptive of the enemy with which 
 Philistia is here threatened. Some give to i^sia the sense of the cognate 
 fii^is-.s, viz. appointed times, and understand it as referring to the orders 
 under which the invading army acts. Most writers now, however, give it 
 another sense of ernyra, viz. assemblies, here applied specifically to an army. 
 Thus understood, the clause is descriptive of a compact, disciplined, and 
 energetic host. A similar description we have had already in ch. 5 : 26-29, 
 from which resemblance some infer that this passage must relate to the As- 
 syrians. Aben Ezra refers it to the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, 
 Kimchi to the Jews under Hezekiah, and Cocceius to the Romans as the final 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIV. 299 
 
 conquerors of whole Palestina, by which he understands the whole of what 
 we now call Palestine, or at least Judea. Vitringa, who usually quotes the 
 strangest notions of Cocceius with indulgent deference, appears to lose his 
 patience at this point, and exclaims, ' hanc ego interpretationem totam suo 
 relinquam loco, nee ejus amplius rneminero ; est enim plane paradoxa et a 
 communi sensu aliena.' The diversity of judgments as to the particular 
 enemy here meant, and the slightness of the grounds on which they severally 
 rest, may suffice to show that the prophecy is really generic, not specific, 
 and includes all the agencies and means by which the Philistines were pun- 
 ished for their constant and inveterate enmity to the chosen people, as well 
 as for idolatry and other crimes. 
 
 V. 32. And what shall one answer (what answer shall be given to) the 
 ambassadors of a nation 1 That Jehovah has founded Zion, and in it the 
 afflicted of his people shall seek refuge. The meaning of the last clause is 
 too clear to be disputed, viz. that God is the protector of his people. This is 
 evidently stated as the result and sum of the whole prophecy, and as such is 
 sufficiently intelligible. It is also given, however, as an answer to ambas- 
 sadors or messengers, and this has given rise to a great diversity of explana- 
 tions. Instead of ambassadors (tx^) kings (^sVo) is given by all the old Greek 
 versions except Symmachus who has ayytlotg. The older writers for the 
 most part make ambassadors the subject of the verb — what will the ambas- 
 sadors answer 1 Thus understood the words have been applied to the 
 report carried back by the ambassadors of friendly powers, or by those sent 
 out by the Jews themselves, on the occasion of Hezekiah's victory over the 
 Philistines, or of his delivery from the Assyrian invasion. In order to avoid 
 the irregularity of giving ?ii a plural meaning, some have supposed the sen- 
 tence to relate to the report carried back by a Philistine embassy, sent to 
 ascertain the condition of Jerusalem after the Assyrian attack. The irregu- 
 lar concord of the plural noun with •'sxba was explained by supplying a 
 distributive pronoun, every one of the ambassadors, a form of speech quite 
 foreign to the Hebrew language. Hendewerk, who retains this old construc- 
 tion, understands this as the answer of the Assyrian ambassadors, when 
 asked by the Philistines to attack Jerusalem. It is now commonly agreed, 
 however, that *U laxbs is the object of the verb, which is repeatedly con- 
 strued with a noun directly, and that its subject is either Hezekiah or more 
 probably indefinite. As to ■*»», some still give it a collective meaning ; others 
 refer it to the Philistines, suing for peace, or proposing a joint resistance to 
 Assyria ; others to Judah itself, an application contrary to usage. All this 
 seems to show that the expression is indefinite, as the very absence of the 
 article implies, and that the whole sense meant to be conveyed is this, that 
 such may be the answer given to the inquiries made from any quarter. Of 
 
300 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV, XVI. 
 
 all the specific applications, the most probable is that which supposes an 
 allusion to Rabshakeh's argument with Hezekiah against trusting in Jehovah. 
 But this seems precluded by the want of any natural connexion with Philis- 
 tia, which is the subject of the previous context. I shall only add, that 
 Cocceius is not only true to his original hypothesis, but so far carried away 
 by it as to lay aside his usual grammatical precision (which often contrasts 
 strangely with his exegesis) and translate h32^ as a preterite. He understands 
 the verse as accounting for the ruin of the Jews by the reception which they 
 give to the apostles of Christ. What answer was given to the messengers of 
 the nation (i. e. the messengers sent to them) when Jehovah founded Zion 
 (or the Christian church) and the afflicted of his people sought refuge in it ? 
 The same sense might have been as well attained without departing from the 
 strict sense of the future. As to the sense itself, it needs no comment to 
 evince that it is purely arbitrary, and that a hundred other meanings might 
 be just as well imposed upon the words. 
 
 CHAPTERS XV, XVI. 
 
 These chapters contain a prediction of the downfall of Moab. Most 
 of the recent German writers deny that any part of it was written by Isaiah, 
 except the last two verses of ch. XVI, which they suppose him to have 
 added as a postscript to an older prophecy. The reasons for ascribing the 
 remainder of the passage to another writer are derived from minute pecu- 
 liarities of phraseology, and from the general character and tone of the 
 whole composition. Hitzig regards this as the prophecy of Jonah men- 
 tioned in 2 Kings 14: 25. In this conclusion Maurer acquiesces, and 
 Knobel thinks it not improbable. The grounds on which such hypotheses 
 must be rejected, when not only destitute of external evidence but contra- 
 dicted by it, have been already stated in the general introduction. Hende- 
 werk combats Hitzig's doctrine on his own ground and with his own wea- 
 pons, deducing from the verbal minutiae of the passage proofs of its poetical 
 excellence and of its genuineness. Some of the older writers regard the 
 last two verses of ch. XVI as an addition made by Isaiah to an earlier pre- 
 diction of his own. Henderson thinks them an addition made to a prophecy 
 of Isaiah by a later prophet. If we set aside the alleged internal evidence 
 of a different origin, the simplest view of the passage is that which regards 
 the whole as a continuous composition, and supposes the Prophet at the 
 close to fix the date of the prediction which he had just uttered. The par- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. .'H)l 
 
 ticular event referred to in these chapters has been variously explained to 
 be the invasion of Moab by Jeroboam II. king of Israel, by Tirhaka king 
 of Ethiopia, by Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, by his successors Shalma- 
 neser, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon 
 etc. The safest conclusion seems to be, that the prediction is generic and 
 intended to describe the destruction of Moab, without exclusive reference to 
 any one of the events by which it was occasioned or promoted, but with 
 special allusions possibly to all of them. Compare the introduction to ch. 
 XIII — XIV. According to Cocceius, the Moab of this prophecy is Israel, 
 the hostile power Rome, and the time that of the downfall of Jerusalem. 
 To such hypotheses the answer still is, that they might be indefinitely multi- 
 plied and varied, with as much or rather with as little reason. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 This chapter is occupied with a description of the general grief, occa- 
 sioned by the conquest of the chief towns and the desolation of the country 
 at large. Its chief peculiarities of form are the numerous names of places 
 introduced, and the strong personification by which they are represented as 
 grieving for the public calamity. The chapter closes with an intimation of 
 still greater evils. 
 
 V. 1. (This is) the burden of Moab, that in a night Ar-Moab is laid 
 waste, is destroyed ; that in a night Kir-Moab is laid waste, is destroyed. 
 The English Version, Rosenmiiller, and Hitzig, understand the first verse as 
 assigning a reason for the second. Because in a night etc. he ascends etc. 
 But so long a sentence is at variance, not only with the general usage of the 
 language, but with the style of this particular prophecy. Gesenius supposes 
 an ellipsis at the beginning, and takes ^ in its usual sense of that. ' (I 
 affirm) that etc.' The same construction occurs where a verb of swearing 
 is understood (7: 9. 49: 18.) In the absence of the governing verb, the 
 particle may be translated surely. Most of the recent German versions 
 render it by yea (ja !). In a night may be literally understood, as assaults 
 are often made by night (ch. 21 : 4), or figuratively, as the phrase is 
 sometimes used to denote sudden destruction. Ar originally meant a city, 
 and Ar-Moab the city of Moab, i. e. the capital city, or as Gesenius says 
 the only real city of the Moabites. It was on the south side of the Arnon 
 
302 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 
 
 (Num. 22: 36). The Greeks called it Areopolis or City of Mars, accord- 
 ing to their favourite practice of corrupting foreign names so as to give them 
 the appearance of significant Greek wor:'s. Ptolemy calls it Rhabmath- 
 mom, a corruption of the Hebrew Rabbath-Moab i. e. chief city of Moab. 
 Jerome says that the place was destroyed in one night by an earthquake 
 when he was a boy. The Arabs call it Mab and Err abba. It is now in 
 ruins. In connexion with the capital city, the Prophet names the principal 
 or only fortress in the land of Moab. Kir originally means a wall, then a 
 walled town or fortress. The place here meant is a few miles south-east of 
 Ar, on a rocky hill, strongly fortified by nature, and provided with a castle. 
 The Chaldee Paraphrase of this verse calls it Kerakka de Moab, the fortress 
 of Moab, which name it has retained among the orientals who extend it to 
 the whole of ancient Moab. 
 
 V. 2. The destruction of the chief cities causes general grief. They 
 (indefinitely) go up to the house (i. e. the temple), and Dibon (to) the high 
 places for (the purpose of) weeping. On Nebo and on Medeba, Moab 
 howls — on all his heads baldness — every beard cut off. Luther, Gesenius, 
 and others, make the verb indefinite. Lowth, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, and 
 Maurer, regard Moab as the subject. Vitringa makes n^s a contracted 
 proper name for Bethmeon (Jer. 48 : 23) or Beth-baal-meon (Josh. 13 : 19), 
 on the south side of the Arnon, now called Maein. Ewald makes it a con- 
 traction of oinbm ma (Jer. 48 : 22), which was not far from Dibon (Num. 
 33: 46). The same explanation was once approved by Rosenmuller, but 
 in the Compendium of his Scholia, he adopts the opinion of Kimchi, that 
 n h n is here used in the sense of temple, and is equivalent to wipn which 
 occurs below (16: 12) as a parallel to maa. The ancient heathen built 
 their temples upon heights (ch. 65:1). Solomon built one to the Moabitish 
 god Chemosh on the mountain before Jerusalem (1 Kings 11: 1). This 
 explanation is approved by Gesenius and all the later Germans except 
 Ewald. Some who take n^n as a proper name, make fiiaa one also, 
 regarding it as a contracted form of Bamoth-baal (Josh. 13 : 17). Dibon, 
 a town north of the Arnon, rebuilt by the tribe of Gad, and thence called 
 Dibon-gad (Num. 33 : 45), although it had formerly belonged to Moab, 
 and would seem from this passage to have been recovered by them. The 
 same place is called Dimon in v. 9, in order to assimilate it to ffi blood. 
 The modern name is Diban. There is no preposition before n^a and yaH 
 in Hebrew. Hence the latter may be taken either as the object or the sub- 
 ject of the verb. The first construction is preferred by the older writers ; 
 those of modern date are almost unanimous in favour of the other, which 
 makes Dibon itself go up to the high places. The only objection is that 
 the writer would hardly have coupled this one place with the country at 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 303 
 
 large, and this is not sufficient to exclude it. The objection to the other is 
 that Dibon was situated in a plain, to which it may be answered that the 
 phrase go up has reference in many cases not to geographical position but 
 to sacredness and dignity. 
 
 V. 3. In its streets, they are girded with sackcloth ; on its roofs and 
 in its squares (or broad places) all (literally, all of it) howls, coming down 
 with weeping (from the house-tops or the temples). In this verse there is 
 a singular alternation of masculine and feminine suffixes, all relating to 
 Moab, sometimes considered as a country and sometimes as a nation. The 
 last clause is explained by most modern writers, to mean melting into tears, 
 as the eye is elsewhere said to run down tears or water (Jer. 9: 17. Lam. 
 3: 48). But as the eye is not here mentioned, and the preposition is in- 
 serted, making a marked difference between this and the alleged expressions, 
 it is better to adhere to the old construction which supposes an antithesis 
 between this clause and the ascent to the temples or the house-tops. Sack- 
 cloth is mentioned as the usual mourning dress and badge of deep humi- 
 liation. 
 
 V. 4. And Heshbon cries and Elealeh — even to Jahaz is their voice 
 heard — therefore the warriors of Moab cry — his soul is distressed to him 
 (or in him). Heshbon, a royal city of the Amorites, assigned to Reuben 
 and to Gad at different times, or to both jointly, famous for its fish-pools, a 
 celebrated town in the days of Eusebius, the ruins of which are still in exist- 
 ence under the slightly altered name of Hesbdn. Elealeh, often mentioned 
 with it, was also assigned to the tribe of Reuben. Eusebius describes these 
 towns as near together in the highlands of Gilead, opposite to Jericho. 
 Robinson and Smith, while at the latter place, conversed with an Arab 
 chief, who pointed out to them the Wady Hesban, near which far up in the 
 mountain is the ruined place of the same name, the ancient Heshbon. Half 
 an hour north-east of this lies another ruin called El Al, the ancient Elealeh. 
 (Palestine II. 278.) The names ytv* and *"«srp are treated by Gesenius 
 as identical, but Hitzig understands them to denote two different places, 
 one described by Jerome as overhanging the Dead Sea, the other further to 
 the south-east on the edge of the desert, the scene of the battle between 
 Sihon and Israel. In either case, the preposition seems to imply that the 
 place meant was a frontier town. The same form of expression that is here 
 used occurs also ch. 10: 30. — Vitringa and Gesenius give |1^? the rare 
 and doubtful sense because, and understand the Prophet to describe the 
 cities or people in general as lamenting because even the warriors were dis- 
 mayed. Most writers give the words their usual meaning, and suppose the 
 terror of the warriors to be here described as the effect not the cause of 
 
304 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 
 
 the general lamentation. According to Knobel, therefore has reference to 
 the cry of Heshbon and Elealeh which had just been mentioned ; according 
 to Hitzig and others, to the downfall of the capital (v. 1). For *$Vfj the 
 Septuagint seems to have read ^H, which it renders r\ oacpvg. This read- 
 ing and translation, which is also favoured by the Peshito, is adopted by 
 Lowth : the very loins of Mo ah cry out. Other interpreters agree that it is 
 the passive participle of ybn, used as a noun in the sense of warriors or 
 heroes, whether so called because drawn out for military service, or as being 
 strong, or girded and equipped, or disencumbered of unnecessary clothing. 
 Aquila has £$w^of,.with the arms or shoulders bare. There is peculiar sig- 
 nificance in thus ascribing an unmanly terror to the very defenders of the 
 country. Vitringa supposes an additional emphasis in the use of the verb 
 Ji3>i")"', which may either mean a joyful or a mournful cry, and by itself might 
 here denote a battle-cry or war-shout. As if he had said, the warriors of 
 Moab raise a cry, not of battle or defiance, but of grief and terror. The 
 same natural expression of distress is ascribed by Homer to his heroes. (Vide 
 infra, ch. 33 : 7.) — Cocceius is singular in making this an exhortation : let 
 them raise the war-cry (vociferentur, classicum canant, barritum faciant, 
 clamorem tollant, ut in praelio). For PfiPP the Septuagint reads iis>T> (jvw- 
 getcu), probably a mere inadvertence. The English Version and Lowth 
 take ©S3 in the sense of life, other interpreters in that of soul. Rosen- 
 miiller, Gesenius, and Ewald, give to tlPi* the sense of trembling, from a 
 kindred root in Arabic ; others with more probability that of being evil, i. e. 
 ill at ease or suffering, in which the future corresponding to this preterite is 
 frequently used elsewhere. Gesenius indeed refers that future to another 
 root, but one of kindred origin, in which the essential idea is probably the 
 same. The paronomasia in isn-n and ns-n is copied in Gesenius's trans- 
 lation by combining the words Tclagen and verzaget. The similar terms 
 are confounded by the Vulgate (ululabit sibi), and by Calvin, who under- 
 stands the sense to be, that every one will be so occupied with his own grief 
 as to disregard that of his neighbours. 
 
 V. 5. My heart for Moab cries out — her fugitives (are fled) as far as 
 Zoar — an heifer of three years old — for he that goes up Luhith with weep- 
 ing goes up by it — for in the way of Horonaim a cry of destruction they 
 lift up. Every part of this obscure verse has given rise to some diversity 
 of exposition. It has been made a question whose words it contains. Junius 
 connects it with the close of the preceding verse and understands it to con- 
 tain the words of the warriors there mentioned, endeavouring to rally and 
 recall the fugitives. Others suppose the Moabites in general, or some indi- 
 vidual among them, to be here the speaker. Cocceius doubts whether these 
 are not the words of God himself. Calvin supposes the Prophet to be 
 
ISAIAH, CIIA1'. XV. 305 
 
 speaking in the person and expressing the feelings of a Moabite. All these 
 hypotheses appear to lun n from an Idea that tin; Prophet cannot be 
 
 supposed to express sympathy with these sinners of the gentiles. But such 
 expressions are not only common elsewhere, but particularly frequent in this 
 part of Isaiah. (Vide infra ch. 16 : 11* 91: 3, 4. 22: 5.) Hitzig suggests, 
 as a possible but not as a probable construction of the first words, My 
 heart (is) towards Moab (who) is crying etc. as in Judges 5 : 9. Some 
 older writers understand the words to mean my heart cries to Moab, as in 
 1 Chron. 5 : 20. Gesenius gratuitously cites other cases in which b has the 
 sense of for, on account of, given to it here by Aben Ezra (:kie Tern). 
 The particle is here used in its proper sense as indicating general relation, 
 as to, with respect to, and simply points out Moab as the subject or occa- 
 sion of the cry. Ewald and others make psr mean to complain or lament, 
 which is neither so exact nor so expressive as the literal translation. — Instead 
 of my heart some read his heart, others simply heart. Thus Lowth : the 
 heart of Moab crieth in her, after the Septuagint («V airy). The Peshito 
 seems to have read im-ia in his spirit. The common text itself is variously 
 explained. According to the usual analogy, it means her bars, and the 
 Vulgate accordingly has vectes ejus. By this some understand the cities of 
 Moab, others its barriers or frontier posts, others its guardians or protectors. 
 Most of the modern writers follow Saadias and Kimchi, who explain the 
 word to mean her fugitives. The only objection to this explanation is- 
 the absence of the long vowel under the first letter. — Zoar, one of the 
 cities of the plain, preserved by Lot's intercession, is now ascertained 
 to have been situated on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, at the foot of 
 the mountains near its southern extremity. (Robinson's Palestine II. 480, 
 648.) It is here mentioned as an extreme southern point, but not without 
 allusion, as Vitringa with great probability suggests, to Lot's escape from 
 the destruction of Sodom. — The next phrase (tpvbto nbns) is famous as the 
 subject of discordant explanations. These may however be reduced to two 
 classes, those which regard the words as proper names, and those which 
 regard them as appellatives. J. D. Michaelis supposes two places to be 
 mentioned, Eglath and Shelishiyyah ; but of the latter there is no trace in 
 geography or history. Doederlein conjectures that the city Eglath con- 
 sisted of three towns, and that the Hebrew n^b^ is the same as the Greek 
 TQinohg or triple city. But the former nowhere else means threefold, but 
 always third. According to Lightfoot, the phrase means Eglah, or Eglath 
 the Third, so called to distinguish it from Eglaim or En-eglaim, a place in 
 the same region, mentioned in Ezek. 47 : 10, " where Eglaim is plainly of 
 the dual number and seems to intimate that there were two Egels, with rela- 
 tion to which our Eglah may be called Eglah the third." (Lightfoot's Choro- 
 graphical Inquiry, ch. 3, § 8.) With this may be compared Ramathaim 
 
 20 
 
306 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 
 
 which is also dual (1 Sam. I : 2) and Upper and JSether Beth-horon (Josh. 
 16 : 3, 5). Lightfoot compares this Eglah the Third with the Nexla 
 of Ptolemy, and the "Ayalla of Josephus, both mentioned in connexion 
 with Zoar (Zaaoa) and the latter with Horonaim f&e&ai). The Ejlun 
 (^JL^ - ) of Abulfeda, meaning calves or heifers, may be another name for 
 the same place, which must then have been situated beyond the northern 
 boundary of Moab, and be mentioned here in order to convey the idea that 
 the fugitives had fled in opposite directions. Of the late translators, DeWette, 
 Henderson and Ewald retain the Hebrew words as a proper name, Eglath- 
 Shelishiyah. On the other hand, all the ancient versions, and the great 
 majority of modern writers, regard the words in question as appellatives, and 
 all agree in rendering the first of the two heifer. The other is explained 
 by Jarchi to mean the third in the order of birth, with reference to some 
 supposed superiority in that class. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Umbreit, under- 
 stand it to mean third-rate, of the third order, i. e. inferior (compare Dan. 
 5: 29. 1 Sam. 15: 9), and as here applied to a heifer, lean, ill-favoured, 
 a figure borrowed from the pastoral habits of the people in that region to 
 express the smallness of the city Zoar, which was so called because it was 
 a little one (Gen. 19: 20, 22). It is plain however that third can have 
 this meaning only in case of a direct comparison with something of the first 
 and second rank. Besides, what has the size of Zoar to do with this pathe- 
 tic description of the flight of Moab ? The great majority of voices is in 
 favour of the meaning three years old, or retaining the form of the original 
 more closely, a heifer of the third (year). A cognate participle (ntt^a) 
 is used in this sense and in connexion with this very noun (Gen. 15: 9). 
 By a heifer three years old, Gesenius understands one that has never yet 
 been tamed or broken, according to Pliny's maxim, domitura bourn in tri- 
 matu, postea sera, antea praematura. Now as personal afflictions are 
 sometimes likened to the taming of animals (Jer. 31: 18. Hos. 10: 11), 
 and as communities and governments are often represented by the figure of 
 a heifer (Jer. 46 : 20. 50 : 11. Hos. 4 : 16), the expressions thus interpreted 
 would not be inappropriate to the state of Moab, hitherto flourishing and 
 uncontrolled, but now three years old and subjected to the yoke. Some of 
 the older interpreters suppose this statement of the age to have reference to 
 the voice of the animal, which is said by Bochart to be deepest at that age, 
 and according to Aristotle, stronger in the female than the male. There 
 is still a doubt, however, with respect to the application of the simile, as 
 last explained. Bochart refers it to the Prophet himself. ' My heart cries 
 for Moab (for her fugitives to Zoar) as a heifer three years old.' Vitringa 
 refers it to the fugitives of Moab, who escape to Zoar, crying like a heifer 
 three years old. — rt^sa is commonly a noun denoting an ascent or rising 
 ground. It is translated hill in the English version of 1 Sam. 9 : 11, and 
 ascent in that of Num. 34 : 4 and 2 Sam. 15 : 30, which last place is 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 307 
 
 strikingly analogous to this. The construction commonly adopted makes 
 nbi*2 an absolute nominative : ' the ascent of Luhith (or as to the ascent of 
 Luhith) with weeping one ascends it.' It is possible however to make 
 nby-Q a participle or a participial noun — ' the ascender of Luhith (i. e. he 
 who ascends it) with weeping ascends by it.' The parallel passage (Jer. 
 48 : 5) instead of ia repeats ''sa. This is regarded by the latest writers as 
 an error in transcription of 'Oa for ^d "Q. The Septuagint has noog ae avu- 
 (trjaorrat, which implies still another reading ("p). It is a curious and instruc- 
 tive fact that J. D. Michaelis corrects the text of Isaiah by comparison 
 with Jeremiah, while Lowth, with equal confidence, inverts the process and 
 declares the text in Jeremiah to be unmeaning. Luhith is mentioned only 
 here and in Jeremiah 48 : 5. Eusebius describes it as a village still called 
 Aovd(r, between Areopolis and Zoar, which Jerome repeats but calls it Lui- 
 tha. The article before mrnb is explained by Gesenius as having reference 
 to the meaning of the name as an appellative, the boarded (town), but by 
 Henderson with more probability as properly belonging to fibstt. (See Ge- 
 senius <§> 109, 1.) Horonaim is mentioned only here and in Jer. 48 : 3,5, 
 34. The name originally means two caverns, and is near akin to Beth-horon, 
 locus cavitatis (Gesenius Thes. I. 195, 459). As Jeremiah instead of Tf.n 
 way, has Wha descent, it is not improbable that Luhith and Horonaim were on 
 opposite faces of the same hill, so that the fugitives on their way to Zoar, 
 after going up the ascent of Luhith, are seen going down the descent of Ho- 
 ronaim. A cry of breaking is explained by some of the rabbinical interpreters 
 as meaning the explosive sound produced by clapping the hands or smiting 
 the thigh. Others understand it to mean a cry of contrition, i. e. a penitent 
 and humble cry. Gill suggests that it may mean a broken cry, i. e. one inter- 
 rupted by sighs and sobs. Gesenius makes it mean a cry as of destruction, 
 i. e. a loud and bitter cry ; Knobel, a cry (on account) of destruction. It 
 is possible however that l *3$ may be mentioned as the very word uttered, 
 like G^n in other cases. The very unusual form "nm is by some regarded as 
 a transposition for 1S3"H from 3?yi. But the rabbins and the latest writers are 
 agreed that it is a derivative of lis. The former suppose an anomalous 
 reduplication of the first radical. The latter regard it as a Pilpel for "nr"^ . 
 either by error of transcription or euphonic change. (See Ewald § 237, 1 .) 
 There is no absurdity in the conjecture of Cocceius that this strange form 
 was employed here in allusion to the names is and i?" - ©, Moabitish cities. 
 Junius supposes, still more boldly, that the Prophet wishing to say cry, 
 instead of using any ordinary word, invented the cacophonous one now r in 
 question, as in keeping with the context and the feelings it expresses. 
 
 V. 6. For the xcaters of Nimrim (are and) shall be desolations ; for 
 withered is the grass, gone is the herbage, verdure there is none. Accord- 
 
308 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 
 
 ing to Vitringa, this verse gives a reason for the grief described in v. 5 as 
 prevailing in the south of Moab. Maurer makes it an explanation of the 
 flight in that direction. Hendewerk supposes the description to be here at 
 an end, and a statement of the causes to begin. It seems more natural, 
 however, to suppose, with Ewald and some older writers, that the description 
 is itself continued, the desolation of the country being added to the capture 
 of the cities and the flight of the inhabitants. Aurivillius, in his dissertation 
 on this passage, explains d*n»3 as an appellative, meaning as in Arabic clear, 
 limpid waters. But all other writers understand it as a proper name. Gro- 
 tius takes i» in the sense of pastures, which it never has. Lightfoot suggests 
 that the waters meant may be the hot springs of this region, mentioned by 
 Josephus, and perhaps the same with those of which Moses speaks in Gen. 
 36 : 24, according to the best interpretation of that passage. It is more 
 probably explained by Junius as the name of streams which met there (rivo- 
 rum confluentium), and by others still more generally as denoting both the 
 springs and running streams of that locality. Junius supplies a preposition 
 before waters (ad aquas Nimrimorum desolationes erunt), but the true con- 
 struction makes it the subject of the verb. The same writer understands 
 the plural form as here used to denote the waters meeting at Nimrah or 
 Beth-nimrah. But it is now agreed that Nimrim is another name for the 
 town itself, which is mentioned in Num. 32: 3, 36 and Josh. 13: 27 as a 
 town of Gad. Vitringa's assumption of another town in the south of Moab 
 rests on his misconception *of the nexus between this verse and the fifth. 
 Bochart derives the name from "tt}3 a panther, but the true etymology is no 
 doubt that already mentioned. Forerius explains niaUDE as denoting an 
 object of astonishment and horror, but the common sense of desolations is 
 no doubt the true one. Most writers since Vitringa understand the Prophet 
 as alluding to the practice of stopping fountains and wasting fields in war. 
 (Compare 2 Kings 3: 19, 25.) But Ewald and others suppose an al- 
 lusion to the effects of drought. This is a question which the Prophet's 
 own words leave undecided. The second *s is translated so that by Luther, 
 and by the Septuagint, because by the Vulgate, yea by Augusti, while Cal- 
 vin omits both. The translation of the first verb as a future and the others 
 as preterites seems to make the desolation of the waters not the cause but 
 the effect of the decay of vegetation. It is better, therefore, to adopt the 
 present or descriptive form throughout the verse, as all the latest writers do. 
 •ysn is not hay, as Luther and the English Version give it, but mature 
 grass, awn the springing herbage, pt«y greenness or verdure in general. 
 Ewald and Henderson neglect the distinction between the last two words. 
 The whole is given with great precision in the Vulgate: herba, germen, 
 viror. The Septuagint also has xoqzog ylcogog. 
 
JSAIAH, CHAP. XV. 309 
 
 V. 7. Therefore (because the country can no longer be inhabited) the 
 remainder of what (each) one has made (i.e. acquired), and their hoard (or 
 store), over the brook of the willows they carry them away. Not one of the 
 ancient versions has given a coherent or intelligible rendering of this obscure 
 sentence. Jerome suggests three different interpretations of D^n^is ^ns ; 
 first, the brook of the Arabians or of the Ravens (D^-p) who fed Elijah : 
 then, the brook of the willows in the proper sense ; and lastly, Babylon, the 
 plains of which were full of willows (Ps. 137: 2). The first of these is 
 adopted by J. D. Michaelis, who translates it Rabenbach (Ravenbrook) ; 
 the last by Bochart, Vitringa, and others ; the second by most interpreters. 
 A new interpretation is proposed by Hitzig, viz. brook or valley of the 
 deserts, supposed to be the same with the brook or valley of the plain men- 
 tioned Amos 6: 14. It is now commonly agreed that whatever be the 
 meaning of the name, it denotes the Wady el Ahsa of Burckhardt (the 
 Wady el Ahsy of Robinson and Smith), running into the Dead Sea near its 
 southern extremity, and forming the boundary between Kerek and Gebal, 
 corresponding to the ancient Moab and Edom. — mrv* may either mean 
 what is left by the enemy, or the surplus of their ordinary gains. The D in 
 oixtt^ is regarded by Henderson as the old termination of the verb. All 
 other writers seem to look upon it as the suffix referring to rrtftfi and rnps, 
 which are then to be construed as nominatives absolute. The older writers 
 make the enemy the subject of the verb ; the moderns the Moabites them- 
 selves. On the whole, the most probable meaning of the verse is that the 
 Moabites shall carry what they can save of their possessions into the adjacent 
 land of Edom. — Kimchi points out an ellipsis of the relative before ITOJ, 
 precisely similar to that in our colloquial English. Clericus coolly inserts 
 not and enemies in the first clause, both which he says are necessary to the 
 sense. 
 
 V. 8. The lamentation is not confined to any one part of the country. 
 For the cry goes round the border of Moab (i. e. entirely surrounds it) ; 
 even to Eglaim (is) its howling (heard), and to Beer Elim its howling. 
 The meaning, as Hendewerk observes, is not that the land is externally 
 surrounded by lamentation, but that lamentation fills it. Vatablus under- 
 stands the cry here spoken of to be the shout of battle, contrary to usage and 
 the context. Piscator makes cnbsx mean the confluence of the Anion or 
 the streams that form it, called "pnx c^n:n in Num. 21 : 14, and connected 
 there with Beer. All others understand it as the name of a town. Rosen- 
 miiller and Gesenius identify it with the '/lyaXhi'n of Eusebius, eight miles 
 south of Areopolis, and not far from the southern boundary of Moab. Jose- 
 phus also mentions "AyaXka. in connexion with Zoar. As these, however, 
 must have been within the Moabitish territory, Hitzig and the later German 
 
310 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV. 
 
 writers make Eglaim the same with En-eglaim (Ezek. 47 : 10). The dif- 
 ferent orthography of the two names is noticed by none of these interpreters ; 
 and Henderson, who adopts the same opinion, merely says that " the change 
 of « and S> is too frequent to occasion any difficulty." — Beer Elim, the well 
 of the mighty ones or heroes, the same that " the princes and nobles of the 
 people digged with their staves" (Num. 21 : 18). This explanation, sug- 
 gested by Junius, is adopted by Vitringa and the later writers, as the situa- 
 tion mentioned in Numbers agrees well with the context here. The word 
 c^tf (substantially equivalent to W*m and B«a^8, the words used in Numbers) 
 may have been specially applied to the chiefs of Moab, as the phrase ifett 
 SNiE occurs in the song of Miriam, Ex. 15: 15. — The mappik in the final 
 letter of fin^ is wanting in some manuscripts and editions. Aurivillius re- 
 gards it as a paragogic termination (compare Ps. 3: 3. 125: 3), but other 
 interpreters follow the ancient versions in making it a suffix referring to 
 Moab. Henderson needlessly departs in two points from the form of the 
 original, by introducing a masculine pronoun (his wailing), and by varying 
 the last noun (wailing, lamentation,) on the ground that the repetition would 
 have a bad effect in English. The suffix in rmbb" 1 may possibly refer to 
 npst and mean the howling sound of it (i. e. the cry). 
 
 V. 9. The expressions grow still stronger. Not only is the land full of 
 tumult and disorder, fear and flight ; it is also stained with carnage and 
 threatened with new evils. For the waters of Dimon are full of blood ; for 
 I will bring upon Dimon additions (i. e. additional evils), on the escaped 
 (literally, the escape) of Moab a lion ; and on the remnant of the land 
 (those left in it, or remaining of its population). It is an ingenious conjec- 
 ture of Junius that the Dimon is the stream mentioned 2 Kings 3 : 20-22, 
 in which case the meaning of the clause would be, this stream shall not be 
 merely red as it then was, but really full of blood. Jerome says, however, 
 that the town Dibon, mentioned in v. 2, was also called Dimon in his day, 
 by a common permutation of the labials. The latter form may have been 
 preferred, in allusion to the word Cn following. According to this view, the 
 Prophet here returns to the place first named, and ends where he began. 
 By the waters of Dimon or Dibon, most writers understand the Arnon, near 
 the north bank of which the town was built, as the river Kishon is called 
 the waters of Megiddo (Judg. 5: 19). Hitzig thinks it more probable that 
 there was a pool or reservoir at Dibon, as there was at Heshbon accord- 
 ing to Cant. 7 : 5, and according to modern travellers at Mab and Medeba 
 likewise. — Those who take Dimon as the name of a river give to rissis the 
 specific meaning of more blood. Grotius explains it, I will give a new rea- 
 son for its being called Dimon (i. e. bloody). Gesenius also admits the 
 probability of such an allusion, on the ground that the verb fjS?,from which 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. Ill 
 
 rviBbis is derived, often includes the meaning of some preceding word (Job 
 20: 9. 34 : 32). Grotius and Bochart understand the last clause literally 
 as a threat that God would send lions (or according to Piscator, wild beasts 
 in general) to destroy the people, a judgment elsewhere threatened (Lev. 26 : 
 22. Jer. 15 : 3) and inflicted (2 Kings 17 : 25, 26). But the later writers 
 seem agreed that this is a strong figurative expression for the further evils 
 to be suffered at the hand of human enemies. Hitzig supposes Judah to be 
 called a lion in allusion to the prophecy in Gen. 49: 9. Cocceius and Vi- 
 tringa understand it to mean Nebuchadnezzar, whose conquest of the Moab- 
 ites, though not historically recorded, may be gathered from such passages as 
 Jer. 4:7. 49 : 28. 25 : 11-21. 27 : 3, 6. In itself the figure is applica- 
 ble to any conqueror, and may be indefinitely understood, not in reference 
 however to the same inflictions just described, as Rosenmuller and Gesenius 
 think, but with respect to new inflictions not specifically mentioned though 
 distinctly intimated in the word m'Sbia. The Septuagint makes rr*i* and 
 n^x both proper names, Ariel and Admah. According to Jerome and 
 Theodoret, Ar or Areopolis was sometimes called Ariel, and Moab, as de- 
 scended from Lot might be described as the remnant or survivor of Admah, 
 one of the cities of the plain. Both these interpretations are adopted by 
 Lowth, and the last by Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 This chapter opens with an exhortation to the Moabites to seek protec- 
 tion from their enemies by renewing their allegiance to the house of David, 
 accompanied by an intimation that this prospect of deliverance would not 
 in fact be realized, vs. 1-6. From this transient gleam of hope, the pro- 
 phecy reverts to a description of the general desolation and distress, in 
 form almost identical with that in the foregoing chapter, vs. 7-12. The 
 prophecy then closes with a specification of the time at which it was to be 
 fulfilled, vs. 13, 14. 
 
 The needless division of the prophecy at this point seems to have some 
 connexion with an old opinion that the lamb mentioned in v. 1 is Christ. 
 A similar cause appears to have affected the division of the second, third, 
 and fourth chapters. 
 
 V. 1. In their extremity, the Moabites exhort one another to return to 
 their allegiance to the family of David, by whom they were subdued and 
 
312 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 
 
 rendered tributary (2 Sam. 8 : 2). When the kingdom was divided, they 
 continued in subjection to the ten tribes till the death of Ahab, paying 
 yearly, or perhaps at the accession of every new king, a tribute of a hun- 
 dred thousand lambs and as many rams with the wool (2 Kings 3 : 4, 5). 
 After the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed, their allegiance could be 
 paid only to Judah, who had indeed been all along entitled to it. Send ye 
 the lamb (i. e. the customary tribute) to the ruler of the land (your rightful 
 sovereign), from Sela (or Petra) to the wilderness, to the mountain of the 
 daughter of Zion. Hitzig and Maurer regard these as the words of the 
 Edomites, with whom they suppose the Moabites to have taken refuge. 
 Petra, it is true, was an Idumean city (2 Kings 14 : 7) ; but it may at this 
 time have been subject to the Moabites, by one of the fluctuations con- 
 stantly taking place among these minor powers, or it may be mentioned as 
 a frontier town, for the sake of geographical specification. The older 
 writers understand these as the words of the Prophet himself; but Knobel 
 objects that both the Prophet and the Edomites must have known that the 
 course here recommended would be fruitless. It is best to understand 
 them, therefore, as the mutual exhortations of the Moabites themselves in 
 their confusion and alarm. This is also recommended by its agreement 
 with what goes before and after. The verse then really continues the 
 description of the foregoing chapter. The Septuagint and Peshito render 
 the verb in the first person singular, / vnll send. The latter also instead of 
 ■« reads *o. This reading is approved by Lowth and J. D. Michaelis, who 
 understand the verse as meaning that even if the son of the ruler of the land 
 (i. e. of the king of Moab) should go upon an embassy of peace to Jerusa- 
 lem, he would not obtain it. Others suppose the flight of the king's son to 
 be mentioned as an additional trait in the prophetic picture. But this 
 departure from the common text is wholly unnecessary. Forerius and 
 Malvenda suppose is to mean a battering-ram, or take it as a figurative 
 term for soldiery or military force. Calvin understands by it a sacrificial 
 lamb to be offered to Jehovah as the ruler of the earth, in token of repent- 
 ance and submission. Most other writers understand the tribute of lambs 
 paid by Moab to the kings of Jsrael, and Barnes combines this sense with 
 that before it, by supposing that the Jews exacted lambs from tributary 
 powers, in order to supply the altar with victims. Jerome puts b^E in 
 apposition with ^3, and understands the verse as a prayer or a prediction, 
 that God would send forth Christ, the lamb, the ruler of the land (or earth). 
 Others take bttia as a vocative, used collectively for fc^VttMa : send oh ye rulers 
 of the land. Most modern writers make it either a genitive (the lamb 
 of the ruler) i. e. due, belonging to him, or a dative (to or for the ruler of 
 the land), a common construction after verbs expressing or implying motion. 
 Clericus supposes the ruler of the land to be Nebuchadnezzar as the con- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 818 
 
 queror of Judah. Sela, which properly denotes a rock, is now commonly 
 agreed to be here used as the name of the city Petra, the ancient capital of 
 Idumea, so called because surrounded by impassable rocks, and to a great 
 extent hewn in the rock itself. It is described by Strabo, Diodorus, and 
 Josephus, as a place of extensive trade. The Greek form Jh'rou is sup- 
 posed to have given name to Arabia Petraea in the old geography. If so. 
 the explanation of that name as meaning stony, and as descriptive of the 
 soil of the whole country, must be incorrect. Petra was conquered by 
 Trajan, and rebuilt by Hadrian, on whose coins its name is still extant. It 
 was afterwards a bishop's see, but had ceased to be inhabited before the 
 time of the crusades. It was then entirely lost sight of, until Burckhardt 
 in 1812 verified a conjecture of Seetzen's, that the site of Petra was to 
 be sought in the valley called the Wady Musa, one or two days' journey 
 southeast of the Dead Sea. It was afterwards explored by Irby and Man- 
 gles, and has since been often visited and described. See in particular 
 Robinson's Palestine II. 573-580. Grotius supposes Petra to be men- 
 tioned as an extreme point, from Petra to the wilderness, i. e. throughout 
 the whole extent of Moab. Ewald understands it to be named as the most 
 convenient place for the purchase of the lambs required. Vitringa sup- 
 poses that the Moabites fed their flocks in the wilderness by which Petra 
 was surrounded. Luther's translation, from the wilderness, is wholly incon- 
 sistent with the form of the original. The construction given by some of 
 the old writers, Sela of the wilderness, disregards the local or directive n. 
 That of Gesenius and other recent writers, through or along the wilderness, 
 is also a departure from the form of the original, which can only mean from 
 Petra to the wilderness (and thence) to Mount Zion (or Jerusalem). Jerome 
 explains the whole verse as a prediction of Christ's descent from Ruth the 
 Moabitess, the lamb, the ruler of the land, sent forth from the rock of the 
 wilderness ! The Targum paraphrases ruler of the land by the Messiah 
 (or anointed) of Israel, which may possibly mean nothing more than king. 
 
 V. 2. This verse assigns the ground or reason of the exhortation in the 
 one before it. And it shall be (or come to pass, that) like a bird wander- 
 ing, (like) a nest cast out, shall be the daughters of Moab, the fords of 
 Arnon. The construction cast out from the nest is inconsistent with the 
 form of the original. Nest may be understood as a poetical term for its 
 contents. The nidi edaces of Virgil are analogous. There are three inter- 
 pretations of -X1T3 mas. 1 . The first gives the words the geographical sense 
 of villages or dependent towns. (Vide supra ch. 3: 16. 4: 4.) To this 
 it has been objected that TO has this sense only when it stands in connexion 
 with the metropolis or mother city. Ewald and Hitzig modify this inter- 
 pretation by making daughters mean the several communities or neighbour- 
 
314 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 
 
 hoods of which the nation was composed. 2. The second explanation 
 makes it mean the people generally, here called daughters, as the whole pop- 
 ulation is elsewhere called daughter. 3. The third gives the words their 
 strict sense as denoting the female inhabitants of Moab, whose flight and suf- 
 ferings are a sufficient index to the state of things. In the absence of any- 
 conclusive reason for dissenting from this strict and proper sense of the 
 expressions, it is entitled to the preference, miasa is not a participle 
 agreeing with msa, passing (or when they pass) the Arnon ; nor does it 
 mean the two sides of the river, but its fords or passes. Ewald supposes it 
 to be put for the dwellers near the river, which is arbitrary. Some suppose 
 it to be governed by a preposition understood, or to be used absolutely as a 
 noun of place, while others put it in apposition with maa, ' the daughters 
 of Moab, the fords of Arnon.' The b in the last word denotes possession — 
 the fords which belong to Arnon. This is mentioned as the principal stream 
 of Moab. Whether at this time it ran through the country or was its 
 northern boundary, is doubtful. 
 
 V. 3. Most of the older writers, from Jerome downwards, understand 
 this verse as a continuation of the advice to the Moabites, in which they are 
 urged to act with prudence as well as justice, to take counsel (i. e. provide 
 for their own safety) as well as execute judgment (i. e. act right towards 
 others). In other words, they are exhorted to prepare for the day of their 
 own calamity, by exercising mercy towards the Jews in theirs. Calvin 
 adopts this general view of the meaning of the verse, but interprets it ironi- 
 cally as he does the first, and understands the Prophet as intending to 
 reproach the Moabites sarcastically for their cruel treatment of the Jewish 
 fugitives in former times. This forced interpretation, which is certainly 
 unworthy of its author, seems to have found favour with no other. It is not 
 the first case in which Calvin has allowed his exposition to be marred by 
 the gratuitous assumption of a sarcastic and ironical design. Gesenius and 
 most of the later writers follow Saadias in regarding this verse as the lan- 
 guage of the Moabitish suppliants or messengers, addressed to Judah. iK^an 
 nxs they explain to mean bring counsel, i. e. counsel us, and execute jus- 
 tice, i. e. treat us justly. Hitzig takes nWt) in the sense of intervention 
 (interpose between the parties), Maurer in that of intercession, Hendewerk 
 in that of decision. According to Aben Ezra, nu? IfirtSM means apply or 
 exercise your understanding (Ps. 90: 12) ; according to Vitringa, apply 
 prudence to your conduct, i. e. regulate it prudently. The explanation of 
 the verse as the words of the Moabites addressed to the Jews, is favoured by 
 the foregoing context, which relates throughout to the sufferings of Moab, 
 whereas on the other supposition, the prophet suddenly exhorts the sufferers 
 to harbour the fugitives of that very nation, with whom they had them- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 815 
 
 selves been exhorted to seek refuge. This interpretation also relieves us 
 from the necessity of determining historically what particular affliction of 
 the Israelites or Jews is here r efe r r ed to, a question which has occasioned 
 much perplexity, and which can be solved only by conjecture. According 
 to Vitringa, the passage refers to the invasion of Reuben, Gad, and Manas- 
 seh, by Tiglath Pileser in the fourth year of Ahaz (2 Kings 15: 29), and 
 also to the invasion of Judah by the Edomites about the same time (2 Chron. 
 28: 17). Others refer the passage to Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, and 
 others to that of Nebuchadnezzar. Knobel supposes the object of address 
 to be the Edomites. As noonday heat is a common oriental figure to denote 
 distress (Isai. 4 : 6. 25 : 4. 32 : 2), so a shadow is relief from it. Possi- 
 bly, however, the allusion here is to the light of noonday, and the shadow 
 dark as night denotes concealment. If so, the clause is equivalent in 
 meaning to the one which follows. Some of those who adopt the other 
 sense suppose a climax in the sentence. Relieve, refresh the sufferers — or 
 at least conceal them — or if that is too much to ask, at least do not betray 
 them. 
 
 V. 4. Let my outcasts, Moab, sojourn with thee, be thou a covert 
 (refuge or hiding-place) to them from the face (or presence) of the spoiler 
 (or oppressor) ; for the extortioner is at an end, oppression has ceased, con- 
 sumed are the tr ampler s out of the land. Here, as in the preceding verse, 
 the sense depends upon the object of address. If it be Moab, as the older 
 writers held, the outcasts referred to are the outcasts of Israel. If the 
 address be to Israel, the outcasts are those of Moab. The latter interpreta- 
 tion seems to be irreconcilable with the phrase 3tfi?3 h rna. Gesenius disre- 
 gards the accent and supposes an ellipsis before Moab : my outcasts, even 
 those of Moab. So also Rosenmuller and Hendewerk. The other recent 
 German writers follow Lowth in reading SWta tit^ outcasts of Moab, a con- 
 struction found in all the ancient versions. Maurer, without a change of 
 vowels, explains ^nns as an old form of the plural construct. Calvin gives 
 the verbs in the last clause a past or present sense, and supposes the first 
 clause to be ironical. As if he had said, ' Y"es, give them shelter and pro- 
 tection now, now when their oppressor is destroyed, and they have no 
 need of assistance/ Ewald also takes the preterites strictly, but understands 
 the second clause to mean that the Moabites were encouraged thus to ask 
 aid of Judah, because the former oppressive government had ceased there 
 and a better reign begun, more fully described in the next verse. But 
 most interpreters, ancient and modern, give the verbs in this last clause a 
 future sense. As if he had said, c Give the fugitives a shelter ; they will not 
 need it long, for the extortioner will soon cease,' etc. This gives an ap- 
 propriate sense, whether the words be addressed to Israel or Moab. Some 
 
3l 6 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 
 
 who adopt the same construction supply the ellipsis in another way. e Fear 
 not to shelter them, for the oppressor will soon cease,' etc. Knobel ex- 
 plains the clause as an assurance, on the part of the Moabites, that they 
 would no longer vex or oppress Edom, to whom he imagines that the words 
 are addressed. The collective construction of b*n with WPJ is not uncom- 
 mon in the case of participles. (Ewald <§> 599.) 
 
 V. 5. This verse contains a promise, that if the Jews afforded shelter to 
 the fugitives of Moab, their own government should be strengthened by this 
 exercise of mercy, and their national prosperity promoted by the appearance 
 of a king in the family of David, who should possess the highest qualifica- 
 tions of a moral kind for the regal office. And a throne shall be established 
 in mercy, and one shall sit upon it in truth in the tent of David, judging 
 and seeking justice and prompt in equity. Knobel supposes the throne here 
 meant to be that of the Jewish viceroy in Edom, called a B&itt to distinguish 
 him from the top or lord paramount. Clericus fancies an allusion to Geda- 
 liah who was appointed viceroy of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Barnes, 
 who follows the old writers in making Moab the object of address, under- 
 stands this is a promise that the Jewish government would hereafter exer- 
 cise kindness towards the Moabites. Grotius understands this verse as a 
 promise to the Moabites that their throne should be established (if they har- 
 boured the Jewish refugees) in the tabernacle of David, i. e. under the 
 shadow or protection of his family. But the tabernacle of David has no 
 doubt the same meaning here as the analogous expression in Amos 9: 11. 
 Barnes's translation, citadel of David, is entirely gratuitous. Most writers 
 understand it as a promise of stability to Judah itself. Some suppose a 
 reference to Hezekiah ; but the analogy of other cases makes it probable that 
 the words were intended to include a reference to all the good kings of the 
 house of David, not excepting the last king of that race, to whom God was 
 to give the throne of his father David, who was to reign over the house of 
 Jacob forever, and of whose kingdom there should be no end (Luke 1 : 
 32, 33). Hence the indefinite expression, one shall sit, i. e. there shall 
 always be one to sit on David's throne. It is true that J. D. Michaelis and 
 the later Germans make nr" 1 agree with :s55i3 as a noun — there shall sit 
 thereon a judge, etc. But this construction is forbidden by the position of 
 the latter word, and by its close connexion with wyi, which can only be 
 construed as a participle. 
 
 V. 6. We have heard the pride of Moab, the very proud, his haughti- 
 ness and his pride and his wrath, the falsehood of his pretensions. Those 
 writers who suppose Moab to be addressed in the preceding verses, under- 
 stand this as a reason for believing that he will not follow the advice just 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 317 
 
 given. As if he bad said : 'it is vain to recommend this merciful and just 
 course, for we have heard etc.* But the modern writers who regard what 
 immediately precedes as the language addressed by the Moabitish fugitives 
 to Judaic explain this as a reason for rejecting their petition. In the second 
 clause the English Version supplies the substantive verb, he is very proud. 
 A simpler construction is adopted by most writers, which connects it imme- 
 diately with what precedes. Knobel makes it agree with ym, but Ewald 
 more naturally with ssoe. The four derivatives of one root in this sentence 
 are imitated in Henderson's paraphrase : haughtiness, haughty, high-mind- 
 edness, hauteur. Most modern writers are agreed that ",3 is here an adjec- 
 tive meaning right or true, and that in combination with the negative it 
 forms a compound noun meaning vanity or falsehood, cna is variously 
 explained as denoting lies, vain pretensions, plausible speeches, idle talk, all 
 which ideas are perhaps included. Barnes introduces an interjection in the 
 second clause (ah! his haughtiness ! etc.) but the true construction is no 
 doubt the common one, which governs these nouns by WtW. This is also 
 the simplest construction of the last clause : ' we have heard the falsehood 
 of his vain pretensions.' It is unnecessary, therefore, to supply either are or 
 shall be. 
 
 V. 7. Therefore (because thus rejected) Moab shall howl for Moab ; 
 all of it shall howl ; for the grapes (or raisin-cakes) of Kir-hares eth shall ye 
 sigh (or moan), only (i. e. altogether) smitten. Umbreit and others make 
 h^b^ a descriptive present (Moab howls). Others, as DeWette, read must 
 howl ; Henderson, may howl ; Ewald, let Moab howl. There is, however, 
 no sufficient reason for departing from the strict sense of the future. — Je- 
 rome and Clericus take b in the sense of to, Knobel in that of as to or as 
 for, making aafra an absolute nominative — as for Moab, it shall howl — 
 equivalent in emphasis to Moab, yes, Moab shall howl. For an example 
 of the same construction, he refers to ch. 32: 1 ; but as it is confessedly a 
 rare one, and as there is no necessity for assuming it in this case, it is better 
 to adhere to the common interpretation of auroVj as denoting the subject or 
 occasion of the lamentation. By Moab howling for Moab, Jerome under- 
 stands the mutual lamentations of the city and the provinces, or town and 
 country ; Barnes, the alternate responses of one part to another in their 
 lamentation ; others simply the mourning of one Moabite for another. The 
 idea may be that the nation of Moab mourns for the land of Moab, but the 
 simplest supposition is that Moab for Moab means Moab for itself. The 
 English version of rfrs (every one) overlooks the suffix, which is also the 
 case with the simple version all, and the distributive paraphrase of Clericus 
 (quotquot sunt). The form of the original is retained by Ewald (ganz es 
 jammre) let it all lament. The next clause Clericus translates, to (or at) the 
 
318 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 
 
 walls of Kir-hares eth ye shall talk (ad muros colloquemini). But all the later 
 writers give the particle the sense of for, as in the first clause, and the verb 
 that of sigh or moan. The word *©*»« seems to have perplexed the old 
 translators, some of whom confound it with the verb ^W' 1 or one of its de- 
 rivatives. Thus the Vulgate has his qui laetantur super muros cocti lateris. 
 Lowth and Dathe read *«W on the authority of Jer. 47 : 31. But in all 
 such cases of imitation or reconstruction which occur in Scripture, there are 
 many intentional and significant changes of one word for another similar in 
 form but different in sense. For a clear and ample illustration of this prac- 
 tice, see Hengstenberg's comparison of Psalm xviii with 2 Sam. xxn, in 
 his commentary on the former. Vitringa takes *VftPR in the sense of wine- 
 flagons, and this interpretation is approved by most of the early writers, who 
 suppose d^ibk to have here the same sense as BWM and rWttK else- 
 where (Hos. 3: 1. Cant. 2: 5. Comp. 2 Sam. 6: 19, 1 Chron. 16 : 3). J. 
 D. Michaelis and the later Germans give the word in this one case the sense 
 of foundations (equivalent in this connexion to ruins) derived from an Arabic 
 analogy. Cocceius curiously combines the two ideas by explaining the 
 word to mean the props or supports of the vines (sustentacula uvarum). 
 Ewald and Knobel have returned to the old interpretation, except that they 
 explain the word wherever it occurs to mean, not flasks or flagons, but cakes 
 of grapes or raisins pressed together. This allusion to grapes agrees well 
 with the subsequent mention of the vines of Moab. The other interpreta- 
 tion is favoured by the meaning of the name Kir-hareseth (a wall of earth 
 or brick). The same place is mentioned 2 Kings 3 : 25, and is no doubt 
 identical with Kir-Moab (ch. 15: 1), which latter form may have been 
 used to correspond with the parallel name Ar-Moab. The particle T|K, 
 which is variously rendered but (Clericus), for (Barnes), surely (English 
 Version), wholly (Henderson), strictly means only, nothing but, and is so 
 translated by Knobel (nur zerscnlagen) and Ewald (nichts als betriibt). 
 Knobel applies the last word in the sentence to the grapes or raisin-cakes, 
 as being all consumed or gone, implying the desolation of the vineyards. It 
 is more natural, however, to refer it to the people, as being smitten, down- 
 cast, and distressed. 
 
 V. 8. For the fields of Heshbon are withered — the vine of Sibmah — 
 the lords of the nations broke down its choice plants — unto Jazer they 
 reached — they strayed into (or through) the desert — its branches — they were 
 stretched out — they reached to (or over) the sea. Clericus renders bbaat as 
 a future, which destroys the force of the description. On the construction 
 of hbizx with nWttj vide supra, ch. 3:12. Sibmah is mentioned Num. 32 : 
 38. Josh. 13: 19, and in the former place joined with Nebo, which occurs 
 above, ch. 15: 2. It had been taken by the Amorites, but was probably 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 31 ( J 
 
 again recovered. Eusebius speaks of it as a town of Gilead, and Jerome 
 describes it as not more; than half a mile from Heshbon. For ^brathe LXX 
 have xuTanivovTES, confounding it, as Clericus observes, with ^z. Heathen, 
 in the modern sense, is not a correct version of CPl^ as the Moabitcs them- 
 selves were heathen. According to the English Version, it would seem to 
 be the lords of the nations who came to Jazer, wandered through the wil- 
 derness, etc. All this, however, is really predicated of the vines, the luxu- 
 riant growth of which is the subject of the following clauses. As the verb 
 cbn is used, ch. 28: 1, to express the intoxicating power of wine, Cocceius 
 gives it that sense here, and makes it agree with rftptftV as its subject : the 
 choice vines of Sibmah overcame the rulers of the nations, i. e. the wine was 
 drunk at royal tables. This ingenious exposition is adopted by Vitringa, 
 Lowth, Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, DeWette, Knobel, on the ground of 
 its agreement with the subsequent praises of the vine of Sibmah. Gesenius 
 objects that there is then no mention of the wasting of the vineyards by the 
 enemy, unless this can be supposed to be included in V?~x. Besides Gese- 
 nius, RosenmQller, Ewald, Umbreit, and most of the older writers, make 
 rrpiTtf the object of the verb. On the meaning of the noun itself compare 
 what is said of the cognate from p-rnu, supra, ch. 5 : 2. Jazer is mentioned 
 Num. 21 : 32, and described by Eusebius as fifteen miles from Heshbon, 
 and ten west of Philadelphia, on a stream running into the Jordan. It is 
 here mentioned as a northern point, the desert and the sea representing the 
 east and the west or south. Knobel infers from this that Sibmah was a 
 well-known centre of wine-culture. In the absence of a preposition before 
 ■"an*, it may be rendered either through the wilderness, or simply into it. 
 Knobel supposes the word stray or wander to be used because the wilder- 
 ness is pathless. The exact sense of r'n^uj is things sent forth, or as Cleri- 
 cus expresses it, missiones. *p9 without a preposition sometimes denotes 
 the act of passing simply to a place, and this sense is adopted here by the 
 Septuagint and Henderson. But most writers adhere to the more usual 
 sense of passing over, which may either mean that the vines covered the 
 shore and overhung the water, or that the luxuriant vineyards of Moab 
 really extended beyond the northern point of the Dead Sea. In the paral- 
 lel passage, Jer. 48 : 32, we read of the sea of Jazer. Henderson regards 
 the c in that phrase as an interpolation, a conclusion not sufficiently sup- 
 ported by the authority of two Hebrew manuscripts and one ancient ver- 
 sion. The sea of Jazer may have been a lake in its vicinity, or even a 
 reservoir, such as Seetzen found there. The same traveller found an abun- 
 dant growth of vines in the region here described, while at Szalt (the an- 
 cient Ramoth) Burckhardt and Buckingham both speak, not only of the 
 multitude of grapes, but of an active trade in raisins. 
 
320 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 
 
 V. 9. Therefore I ivill weep with the weeping of Jazer (for) the vine 
 of Sibmah. I will wet thee (with) my tears, Heshbon and (thee) Elealeh ! 
 For upon thy fruit and upon thy harvesi a cry has fallen. Some suppose 
 these to be the words of a Moabite bewailing the general calamity. There 
 is no objection, however, to the supposition, that the prophet here expresses 
 his own sympathy with the distress of Moab, as an indirect method of de- 
 scribing its intensity. The emphasis does not lie merely in the Prophet's 
 feeling for a foreign nation, but in his feeling for a guilty race, on whom he 
 was inspired to denounce the wrath of God. Most of the modern writers 
 give the verbs a present form ; but Ewald makes them expressive of en- 
 treaty, let me weep etc. There is no sufficient cause, however, for depart- 
 ing from the strict sense of the future, which is still retained by Barnes and 
 Henderson. Clericus takes '■saa haa* together and translates it flebo in jle- 
 tu; but the accents join the second word, no doubt correctly, with what 
 follows. The sense is not that he will weep for the vine of Sibmah as he 
 does for Jazer, the construction given by Clericus and Barnes, but that he 
 will weep for the vines of Sibmah as Jazer (i. e, the inhabitants of Jazer) 
 did, who were particularly interested in them. There is no need of suppos- 
 ing, with Hendewerk, a reference to the destruction of Jazer by the Israel- 
 ites in the times of Moses (Num. 21 : 32, 32: 35). *y*m is strongly ren- 
 dered by Jerome (inebriabo), Clericus (irrigabo), Hendewerk (uberstrome), 
 but strictly means to saturate with moisture. On the anomalous form, see 
 Gesenius, <§> 74, 17, <§> 71, 7. "pp, which elsewhere means the fruit of 
 summer (Jer. 40: 12. Am. 8 : 1), is used here and in ch. 28: 4 to denote 
 the ingathering of the fruit. This peculiar usage of the term is urged by 
 Hendewerk as a proof that the passage was written by Isaiah. In like 
 manner, he maintains that if dbn in v. 8 has the same sense as in ch. 28 : 1, 
 x as Hitzig alleges, it is an incidental proof that Hitzig is mistaken in denying 
 the genuineness of this prophecy. These arguments are mentioned, not on 
 account of their intrinsic weight, but as effective arguments ad hominem, and 
 as illustrations of the ease with which the weapons of a fanciful criticism 
 may be turned upon itself. *9*ti, according to its etymology and usage, 
 may be applied to any shout or cry whatever, and is actually used to denote 
 both a war-cry or alarm (Jer. 51 : 14), and a joyful shout, such as that 
 which accompanies the vintage (Jer. 25: 30). In the next verse, it has 
 clearly the latter sense, which some retain here also, giving to bss the sense 
 of ceasing, as in the text of the English Version. Others prefer the former 
 sense, as given in the margin of the English Bible, and take ^s bfii in that 
 of falling upon suddenly, attacking by surprise, which is sometimes express- 
 ed elsewhere by a Vss (e. g. Josh. 11 : 7). The latest writers are agreed, 
 however, that there is here an allusion to both senses or applications of the 
 term, and that the thing predicted is, that instead of the joyful shout of vin- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 3->l 
 
 tage or of harvest, they should be surprised by the cry of battle. This idea 
 is beautifully clothed in another form by Jeremiah (48 : 33), their shouting 
 shall be no shouting, i. e. not such as they expected and designed, or, as De 
 Wette vigorously renders it, war-cry, not harvest-cry (Schlachtruf, nicht 
 Herbstruf). On the strength of the parallelism, Knobel gives to *nxp the 
 sense of vintage or fruit-harvest, as in ch. 18:5. Ewald retains the strict 
 sense, and supposes the two kinds of ingathering to be distinctly specified. 
 For *nxp and TW, Lowth reads vsa and IWj in imitation of Jer. 48 : 32. 
 But the insecurity of such assimilations has been shown already in the ex- 
 position of v. 7. The ancient versions, and especially the Septuagint, are 
 so confused and unintelligible here that Clericus, not without reason, repre- 
 sents them as translating audacter aeque ac absurde. 
 
 V. 10. And taken away is joy and gladness from the fruitful field, and 
 in the vineyards shall no (more) be sung, no (more) be shouted : wine in 
 the presses shall the treader not tread ; the cry have I stilled (or caused to 
 cease). Hendewerk translates the vav at the beginning so that, in order to 
 show that this verse describes the effect of what is threatened in v. 9. Hen- 
 derson omits the particle entirely. It is best, however, to give it its proper 
 sense of and. There is no need of departing from the future meaning of 
 the verbs ; but most of the later writers prefer the descriptive present. 
 The strict sense of p,bsu is gathered, and by implication taken away from 
 its former place. On the masculine form of the verb, see Gesenius $ 144, a. 
 Jerome and Clericus take baia as a proper name, denoting a cultiva- 
 ted hill like Carmel ; but it is no doubt an appellative, as in ch. 10: 18. 
 DeWette and Knobel give it here the specific sense of orchard, others that 
 of fruitful field J, or cultivated ground in general. According to Clericus the 
 verbs in the next clause are active, and xb equivalent to XBVk sb (nemo vo- 
 ciferahitur). They are really passive, both in form and meaning, and inde- 
 finitely construed. Barnes and Henderson resolve it into our idiom by em- 
 ploying a noun and the substantive verb : there shall be no cry or shouting. 
 The later Germans retain the original construction. Hendewerk explains 
 s?^" 1 as the Pual of W», Gesenius as the Palul of 5"n. In the next clause, 
 Barnes, DeWette, and Ewald, read no treader, Henderson and Umbreit 
 more exactly the treader, leaving the && to qualify the verb. The English 
 Version, on the other hand, by using the expression no wine, seems to imply 
 that the treading of the grapes would not be followed by its usual result, 
 whereas the meaning is that the grapes would not be trodden at all. The 
 same version needlessly puts treaders in the plural. The idiomatic com- 
 bination of the verb and its participle or derivative noun (fTO "p^) is not 
 uncommon in Hebrew. (See for example, Ez. 33 : 4. 2 Sam. 17:9. Deut. 
 22 : 8.) The word vats, used by Barnes and Henderson in rendering this 
 
 21 
 
322 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 
 
 clause, is less appropriate than the common version presses. (Vide supra, 
 ch. 5 : 2.) The ancient mode of treading grapes is still preserved in some 
 of the monuments of Egypt. Umbreit gives Wh the general sense of tu- 
 mult (Getummel), Ewald that of wild noise (den wilden Larm) ; but most 
 writers understand it here as specifically meaning the vintage or harvest- 
 shout. *n!WJh may be rendered either as a preterite or present. It signifies 
 not merely to bring to an end, but to still or silence. This prediction of 
 course implies the failure of the vintage, if not the destruction of the 
 vineyards. 
 
 V. 1 1 . Therefore my bowels for Moab like the harp shall sound, and 
 my inwards for Kirhares. The viscera are evidently mentioned as the seat 
 of the affections. Modern usage would require heart and bosom. Barnes 
 correctly applies to this verse the distinction which philologists have made 
 between the ancient usage of bowels to denote the upper viscera and its 
 modern restriction to the lower viscera, a change which sufficiently 
 accounts for the different associations excited by the same or equivalent 
 expressions, then and now. Ewald goes too far in softening the expression 
 when he translates e^se feelings. The comparison is either with the sad 
 notes of a harp, or with the striking of its strings, which may be used to 
 represent the beating of the heart or the commotion of the nerves. Sound 
 is not an adequate translation of tahi, which conveys the idea of tumultuous 
 agitation. Clericus understands the mention of the bowels as intended to 
 suggest the idea of a general commotion (totus commovebor). He also 
 gives to b, m as in v. 7, the sense of ad. Kir-hares is another variation of the 
 name written Kir-hareseth in v. 7, and Kir-Moab in ch. 15: 1. 
 
 V. 12. From the impending ruin Moab attempts in vain to save him- 
 self by supplication to his gods. They are powerless and he is desperate. 
 And it shall be (or come to pass), when Moab has appeared (before his 
 gods), when he has wearied himself (with vain oblations) on the high 
 place, then (literally and) he shall enter into his sanctuary to pray, and 
 shall not be able (to obtain an answer). Another construction, equally 
 grammatical, though not so natural, confines the apodosis to ^di* 1 &6i : 
 1 when he has appeared etc. and enters into his sanctuary to pray, he shall 
 not be able/ A third gives to "*!b its more usual sense of that ; but this 
 requires nx^ and ttfitffc to be taken as futures, which is inadmissible. Lu- 
 ther and Castalio, on the other hand, refer even 5>3^ to the past : ' and has 
 accomplished nothing.' Some regard na"t3 as impersonal, it shall be seen or 
 when it is seen. But the phrase would then add nothing to the sense, and 
 n^3 is the technical term for the appearance of the worshipper before his 
 god. (Vide supra, ch. 1 : 12.) Lowth reads Hsn (ivhen Moab shall see) 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVI. 323 
 
 on the authority of the Targum and Peshito. At the same time he pro- 
 nounces it t a very probable conjecture ' of Seeker, that hn*o is a various 
 reading for nx?3, inadvertently inserted in the text. To this opinion Gese- 
 nius also is inclined, though he retains both words, and copies the parono- 
 masia by rendering them man sieht and sich muhet. For the first, Knobej 
 substitutes zieht. Ewald has erscheint and umsonst weint. Henderson 
 translates fa though, which is unnecessary, but does not affect the sense. 
 Vitringa regards rnaa as identical with jSw/^oV, and quotes Diodorus's descrip- 
 tion of the vast altars sometimes erected by the ancients, the ascent to 
 which must of course have been laborious. That the Flebrew word does 
 not mean a hill, he argues from the fact that rvisa were sometimes erected 
 in cities (2 Chron. 28 : 25. Jer. 32: 35). But the word means a height 
 or high place, whether natural or artificial. The singular form may be 
 regarded as collective, but need not be translated in the plural. The 
 weariness here spoken of is understood by some as referring to the compli- 
 cated and laborious ritual of the heathen worship ; by others, simply to the 
 multitude of offerings ; by others, still more simply, to the multitude of 
 prayers put up in vain. J. D. Michaelis reads my sanctuary, changes s6 to 
 iV, and takes ££p in the sense of the corresponding root in Arabic : c then 
 shall he come to my sanctuary and in it shall trust.' iaipa is also explained 
 to mean the temple at Jerusalem, by Ephraem Syrus, Clericus, Schmidius, 
 and Gill, the last of whom asserts, that ' the house or temple of an idol is 
 never called a sanctuary.' But see Ezek. 28: 18. Am. 7: 9, 13. The 
 same explanation of T»ipa is erroneously ascribed by Barnes to Kimchi. 
 Solomon Ben Melech makes it mean the palace of the king, and Jarchi 
 applies rrsnn ^s nabs to the weariness of the defenders with fighting from 
 the towers. According to the true interpretation of the verse, the last 
 clause may either represent the worshipper as passing from the open high 
 place to the shrine or temple where his god resided, in continuation of the 
 same religious service, or it may represent him as abandoning the ordinary 
 altars, and resorting to some noted temple, or to the shrine of some chief 
 idol, such as Chemosh (1 Kings 11 : 17). The Septuagint refers Np to 
 the idol (he shall not be able to deliver him), but as this had not been pre- 
 viously mentioned, the construction is a harsh one. As applied to Moab, it 
 does not mean that he should not be able to reach or to enter the sanctuary 
 on account of his exhaustion, but that he should not be able to obtain 
 what he desired, or indeed to effect any thing whatever by his prayers. 
 Ewald imagines the apodosis of the sentence to have been lost out of the 
 text, but thinks it may have been preserved by Jeremiah in the words, Moab 
 shall be ashamed of Chemosh (Jer. 48 : 13). 
 
 V. 13. This is the word which Jehovah spake concerning Moab of old. 
 The reference is not to what follows but to what precedes. Tas does not 
 
324 ISAIAH. CHAP. XVI. 
 
 mean since the date of the foregoing prophecy, or since another point of 
 time not specified — such as the time of Balak, or of Moab's subjection to 
 Israel, or of its revolt — but more indefinitely, heretofore, of old. It may be 
 applied either to a remote or a recent period, and is frequently used by 
 Isaiah elsewhere, in reference to earlier predictions. The same contrast 
 between taa and hn» occurs in 2 Sam. 15 : 34. "Oft does not mean a sen- 
 fence but a prophecy. Some give to ba its usual sense to, and suppose it to 
 point out Moab as the object of address. Others give it the strong sense of 
 against. But it is best to understand it as indicating merely the theme or 
 subject of the declaration. 
 
 V. 14. And now Jehovah speaks (or has spoken), saying, in three 
 years, like the years of an hireling, the glory of Moab shall be disgraced, 
 with all the great throng, and the remnant {shall be) small and few, not 
 much. By the years of an hireling most writers understand years computed 
 strictly and exactly, with or without allusion to the eager expectation with 
 which hirelings await their time, and their joy at its arrival, or to the hard- 
 ships of the time of servitude. J. D. Michaelis supposes a specific refer- 
 ence to the lunar years of the ancient calendar, as being shorter than the 
 solar years. Knobel supposes three years to be put for a small number, but 
 this indefinite interpretation seems to be precluded by the reference to the 
 years of a hireling. The glory of Moab is neither its wealth, its army, its 
 people, nor its nobility exclusively, but all in which the nation gloried. 
 The a before ^a does not mean consisting in, or notwithstanding, but with, 
 including, "pari denotes not merely a great number, but the tumult and 
 confusion of a crowd, 3*35 K"A is by some understood to mean not strong. 
 It was possibly intended to include the ideas of diminished numbers and 
 diminished strength. — As the date of this prediction is not given, the time 
 of its fulfilment is of course uncertain. Some suppose it to have been exe- 
 cuted by Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (2 Kings 19 : 9) ; others by Shalmane- 
 ser ; others by Sennacherib ; others by Esarhaddon ; others by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. These last of course suppose that the verses are of later date 
 than the time of Isaiah. Henderson regards them as the work of an inspired 
 writer in the following century. That the final downfall of Moab was to 
 be effected by the Babylonians, seems clear from the repetition of Isaiah's 
 threatenings by Jeremiah (ch. 48). Some indeed suppose that an earlier 
 invasion by Assyria is here foretold, as a pledge of the Babylonian conquest 
 which had been predicted in the foregoing chapter. But this supposition of 
 a twofold catastrophe appears to be too artificial and complex. Barnes 
 understands the thirteenth verse to mean that such had been the tenor of 
 the prophecies against Moab from the earliest times, which were now to 
 receive their final accomplishment. A majority of writers look upon vs. 13, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 325 
 
 14, as a postscript or appendix by Isaiah to an earlier prediction of his own, 
 or of some older prophet, whom Ilitzig imagines to be Jonah, on the strength 
 of 2 Kings 14: 25. The only safe conclusion is that these two verses 
 were added by divine command in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, or that if 
 written by Isaiah they were verified in some of the Assyrian expeditions 
 which were frequent at that period, although the conquest of Moab is not 
 explicitly recorded in the history. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 This chapter is chiefly occupied with a prophecy of desolation to the 
 kingdoms of Syria and Ephraim, vs. 1-1 1. It closes with a more general 
 threatening against the enemies of Judah, vs. 12—14. Most of the modern 
 writers regard v. 12 as the beginning of a new and distinct prophecy, ex- 
 tending through the eighteenth chapter, and relating to the destruction of 
 Sennacherib's host. Some of the older writers explain vs. 12 — 14 as a di- 
 rect continuation of the prophecy concerning Syria and Israel. Others 
 treat it as a fragment, or an independent prophecy, connected neither with 
 the seventeenth nor eighteenth chapter. In favour of connecting it with 
 eh. 17, is the absence of any distinctive title or intimation of a change of 
 subject. In favour of connecting it with ch. 18, is the similarity of form in 
 the beginning of 17: 12 and 18: 1. The still stronger resemblance be- 
 tween 17: 11 and 18: 15 seems to show that the whole is a continuous 
 composition. This is, at least, a safer conclusion, and one more favourable 
 to correct interpretation, than the extreme of mutilation and division, to 
 which the modern criticism uniformly tends. Less exegetical error is likely 
 to arise from combining prophecies really distinct than from separating the 
 parts of one and the same prophecy. The most satisfactory view of the 
 whole passage is that it was meant to be a prophetic picture of the doom 
 which awaited the enemies of Judah, and that while many of its expres- 
 sions admit of a general application, some traits in the description are 
 derived from particular invasions and attacks. Thus Syria and Ephraim 
 are expressly mentioned in the first part, while the terms of the last three 
 verses are more appropriate to the slaughter of the Assyrian host ; but as 
 this is not explicitly referred to, there is no need of regarding it as the 
 exclusive subject even of that passage. The eighteenth chapter may then 
 be treated as a part of the same context. In the first part of ch. 17, the 
 
326 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 Prophet represents the kingdoms of Syria and Ephraim as sharing the same 
 fate, both being brought to desolation, vs. 1-3. He then describes the 
 desolation of Ephraim especially, by the figures of a harvest and a gather- 
 ing of olives, in which little is left to be afterwards gleaned, vs. 4 — 6. As 
 the effect of these judgments, he describes the people as renouncing their 
 idols and returning to Jehovah, vs. 7, 8. He then resumes his description 
 of the threatened desolation, and ascribes it to the general oblivion of God, 
 and cultivation of strange doctrines and practices, vs. 9-11. This last 
 might be regarded as a simple repetition of the threatenings in vs. 4-6, in- 
 terrupted by the promise in vs. 7, 8. But as the desolation of Syria and 
 Israel was actually effected by successive strokes or stages, as Shalmaneser 
 accomplished what Tiglath-pileser had begun, and as history records a par- 
 tial conversion of the Israelites from their apostasy between these two 
 attacks, it is altogether natural to understand the prophecy as exhibiting this 
 sequence of events. In the close of the chapter, the Prophet first describes 
 a gathering of nations, and then their dispersion by divine rebuke, which he 
 declares to be the doom of all who attack or oppress God's people, vs. 
 12-14. 
 
 V. 1. The Burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is removed from 
 (being) a city, and is a heap, a ruin. On the meaning of burden, vide su- 
 pra, ch. 13 : 1. The modern Germans suppose the first words to have been 
 added by a copyist or compiler, on the ground that they are appropriate, as 
 a title, only to the first few verses. Some have defended the correctness of 
 the title, on the ground that Ephraim is only mentioned as an ally of Syria, 
 or that Damascus is again included in the threatenings of vs. 9-11. The 
 true answer seems to be, that the objection confounds these prophetic inscrip- 
 tions with the titles or headings of modern composition. The latter are 
 comprehensive summaries, entirely distinct from the text ; the former are an 
 original part of it. The one before us is equivalent to saying, ' I have a 
 threatening to announce against Damascus.' Such an expression would not 
 imply that no other subject was to be introduced, nor would the introduction 
 of another subject justify the rejection of the prefatory formula as incorrect 
 and therefore spurious. Not a little of the slashing criticism now in vogue 
 rests upon a forced application of modern or occidental usages to ancient and 
 oriental writings. The idiomatic phrase removed from d city is not to be 
 explained as an ellipsis for removed from (the number of) cities, in which 
 case the plural form would be essential. It rather means removed from (the 
 state or condition of) a city, or, as Jarchi completes the construction, from 
 (being) a city. Compare ch. 7 : 8, and 1 Sam. J 5 : 26. Knobel need- 
 lessly and harshly explains Damascus as the name of the people, who are 
 then described as being literally removed from the city. J. D. Michaelis 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. • 327 
 
 still more extravagantly, makes WB a noun and T»$tt a participle Behold 
 Damascus ! punishment awakes I ":*2 occurs only here, and seems to 
 have been used instead of the cognate *s on account of its resemblance to 
 W2. The last two words are probably in apposition rather than in regi- 
 men (acervus ruinae) or in concord as an adjective and substantive (a ruinous 
 lnap). The radical idea in the first is that of overturning, in the other that 
 of falling. Some regard this and the next two verses as a description of 
 the past, and infer that the prophecy is subsequent in date to the conquest 
 of Damascus and Syria. But as the form of expression leaves this undeter- 
 mined, it is better to regard the whole as a prediction. Damascus is still 
 the most flourishing city in Western Asia. It is also one of the most an- 
 cient. It is here mentioned as the capital of a kingdom, called Syria of 
 Damascus to distinguish it from other Syrian principalities, and founded in 
 the reign of David by Rezon (1 Kings 11: 23, 24). It was commonly at 
 war with Israel, particularly during the reign of Benhadad and Hazael, so 
 that a three years' peace is recorded as a long one (1 Kings 22 : 1). Under 
 Rezin, its last king, Syria joined with Ephraim against Judah, during which 
 confederacy, i. e. in the first years of the reign of Ahaz, this prophecy was 
 probably uttered. From the resemblance of the names Rezon and Rezin, 
 Vitringa takes occasion to make the following extraordinary statement. 
 * Omnis docet historia mundi passim accidere, lusu quodam singulari Provi- 
 dentiae Divinae, ut regna et imperia iisdem vel similibus nominibus oriantur 
 et occidant.' Damascus appears to have experienced more vicissitudes than 
 any other ancient city except Jerusalem. After the desolation here pre- 
 dicted it was again rebuilt, and again destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, not- 
 withstanding which it reappears in the New Testament as a flourishing city 
 and a seat of government. In the verse before us, the reference may be 
 chiefly to its downfall as a royal residence. 
 
 V. 2. Forsaken (are) the cities of Aroer ; for flocks shall they be, 
 and they shall lie down, and there shall be no one making (them) afraid. 
 There are three Aroers distinctly mentioned in the Bible ; one in the territory 
 of Judah (1 Sam. 30 : 28), one at the southern extremity of the land of Israel 
 east of Jordan (Jos. 12:2. 13 : 6), and a third further north near to Rab- 
 bah (Jos. 13 : 25. Num. 32 : 24). Some suppose a fourth in Syria, in order 
 to explain the text before us, while others understand it as the name of a 
 province in that kingdom. Vitringa thinks it either means the plain or val- 
 ley of Damascus, or Damascus itself, so called because divided and sur- 
 rounded by the Chrysorroas, as one of the Aroers was by the Arnon (Josh. 
 12: 2). It is now commonly agreed that the place meant is the northern 
 Aroer east of Jordan, and that its cities are the towns around it and perhaps 
 dependent on it. An analogous expression is the cities of Heshbon (Jos. 
 13: 17). Knobel, however, understands the phrase to mean the cities 
 
328 • ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 Aroer, i. e. both the towns of that name, put for all the towns east of Jordan, 
 on account of the resemblance of the name to "ns, and perhaps with allusion 
 to the sense of nakedness, belonging to the root. Thus understood, this 
 verse predicts the desolation of Ephraim and not of Syria. It is possible, 
 however, that as well on account of their contiguity, as of the league be- 
 tween them, they are here, as in ch. 7:16, confounded or intentionally 
 merged in one. At all times, it is probable, the boundaries between these 
 adjacent states were fluctuating and uncertain. This accounts for the fact 
 that the same place is spoken of at different times as belonging to Israel, to 
 Moab, to Ammon, and to Syria. Forsaken probably means emptied of 
 their people and left desolate. There is then a specific reference to depor^ 
 tation and exile. 
 
 V. 3. Then shall cease defence from Ephraim and royalty from Da- 
 mascus and the rest of Syria. Like the glory of the children of Israel shall 
 they be, saith Jehovah of Hosts. *-iEn?a may be taken in its usual specific 
 sense of a fortified place, meaning either Damascus (as a protection of the 
 ten tribes) or Samaria (Mic. 1: 5). Some disregard the masoretic interpunc- 
 tion, and connect the rest of Syria with the verb in the last clause : the 
 rest of Syria shall be etc. ^sua may either mean the whole of Syria besides 
 Damascus, or the remnant left by the Assyrian invaders. The latter agrees 
 best with the terms of the comparison. What was left of Syria should re- 
 semble what was left of the glory of Israel. Houbigant and Lowth gratui- 
 tously read rsiu pride, in order to obtain a parallel expression to Tina. The 
 glory of Israel is not Samaria, nor does it denote wealth or population ex- 
 clusively, but all that constitutes the greatness of a people. (Vide supra, 
 ch. 5: 14.) Jerome and others regard glory as an ironical and sarcastic 
 expression ; but it seems to mean simply what is left of their former glory. 
 
 V. 4. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day, the glory of Jacob 
 shall be brought low (or made weak), and the fatness of his flesh shall be 
 made lean. This is not a mere transition from Syria to Ephraim, nor a 
 mere extension of the previous threatenings to the latter, but an explanation 
 of the comparison in the verse preceding. The remnant of Ephraim was to 
 be like the glory of Israel ; but how was that? This verse contains the 
 answer. Glory, as before, includes all that constitutes the strength of a 
 people, and is here contrasted with a state of weakness. The same idea is 
 expressed in the last clause by the figure of emaciation. The image, as Gill 
 says, is that of " a man in a consumption, that is become a mere skeleton, 
 and reduced to skin and bones." Jacob does not mean Judah (Eichhorn) 
 but the ten tribes. Hendewerk refers the suffix in the last clause to lias, 
 and infers that the latter must denote a human subject. Junius regards the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 sentence as unfinished : ' in the day when the glory etc. then it shall be 
 (v. 5) etc.' Cocceius makes this the beginning of a promise of deliverance 
 to Judth ; * in that day, it is true, (quidem), the glory of Jacob shall be re- 
 duced etc. but (v. 5) etc. Both these constructions supply something not 
 expressed, and gratuitously suppose a sentence of unusual length. 
 
 V. 5. And it shall be like the gathering of (or as one gathers) the 
 harvest, the standing corn, and his arm reaps the ears. And it shall be 
 like one collecting ears in the valley of Rephaim. The first verb is not to 
 be rendered he shall be (i. e. Israel, or the king of Assyria), but to be con- 
 strued impersonally, it shall be or come to pass. Some suppose the first 
 clause to describe the act of reaping, and the second that of gleaning. 
 Others regard both as descriptive of the same act, a particular place being 
 mentioned in the last clause to give life to the description. The valley of 
 Rephaim or the Giants extends from Jerusalem to the south-west in the di- 
 rection of Bethlehem. There is a difference of opinion as to the purpose 
 for which it is here mentioned. Aben Ezra and Ewald suppose it to be 
 named as a barren spot, producing scanty harvests, and gleanings in propor- 
 tion. Most writers, on the contrary, assume it to have been remarkably 
 fertile. Vitringa imagines at the same time an allusion to the level surface, 
 as admitting of a more complete and thorough clearing by the reaper than 
 uneven grounds. If we consider the passage without reference to imaginary 
 facts, the most natural conclusion is that the valley of Rephaim was men- 
 tioned as a spot near to Jerusalem and well known to the people, for the 
 purpose of giving a specific character to the general description or allusion 
 of the first clause. There is no proof that it was remarkable either for fer- 
 tility or barrenness. Some of the commentators represent it as now waste ; 
 but Robinson speaks of it, en passant, as "the cultivated valley or plain of 
 Rephaim." (Palestine I. 323. ) Some refer cjds to the act of gathering 
 the stalks in one hand, in order to cut them with the other ; but this is a 
 needless refinement. The Hebrew verb probably denotes the whole act of 
 reaping. There are several different ways of construing vxp. Some make 
 rvzp agree with it as a feminine noun (the standing harvest), which is con- 
 trary to usage. Umbreit explains it as an adverb of time (in harvest), 
 which is very forced. Gesenius adopts Aben Ezra's explanation of the 
 word as equivalent in meaning to ^sp or 'TOjj ti^x. Some make vxp itself 
 a verbal noun analogous in form and sense to D*4to WD etc. Ewald makes 
 the season of harvest (Erntezeit) the subject of the verb ; as when the har- 
 vest-season gathers etc. Perhaps the simplest supposition is that ns;? is in 
 apposition with vx^, not as a mere synonyme, but as a more specific term, 
 the crop, the standing corn. The suffix in wnt then refers to the indefi- 
 nite subject of the first clause. According to Cocceius, the point of the com- 
 
330 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 parison is the care and skill with which the grain is gathered to be stored 
 away ; in like manner God would cause his people to be gathered for their 
 preservation. All other writers understand the figures as denoting the com- 
 pleteness of the judgment threatened against Israel. 
 
 V. 6. And gleanings shall be left therein like the heating (or shaking) 
 of an olive tree, two' (or) three berries in the top of a high bough, four 
 (or) Jive in the branches of the fruit-tree, saith Jehovah God of Israel, 
 There is here an allusion to the custom of beating the unripe olives from the 
 tree for the purpose of making oil. Those described as left may either be the 
 few left to ripen for eating, or the few overlooked by the gatherer or beyond 
 his reach. The common version of ni^bs (gleaning grapes) is too restricted, 
 and presents the incongruity of grapes upon an olive-tree. The transition 
 from the figure of a harvest to that of an olive-gathering may be intended 
 simply to vary and multiply the images, or, as Hitzig supposes, to com- 
 plete the illustration which would otherwise have been defective, because 
 the reaper is followed by the gleaner who completes the ingathering at once, 
 whereas the olive-gatherer leaves some of course. The verb nx^ja is mascu- 
 line and singular, as in many other cases where the subject follows. The 
 suffix in 13 refers of course to Jacob or Israel, i. e. the ten tribes. Two, three, 
 four, and five, are used, as in other languages, for an indefinite small num- 
 ber or a few. All interpreters agree that the idea of height is essentially 
 included in "TO*. Aben Ezra connects it with the Arabic ^jyo) (Emir) from 
 which, says Gill, " the word amiral or admiral comes." Most writers give the 
 Hebrew the specific sense of high or highest branch ; Henderson that of 
 lofty tree ; Gesenius the more general sense of top or summit, in order to 
 accommodate his explanation of the same word in v. 9. The combination 
 head of the top would then be emphatic, though unusual and scarcely natu- 
 ral. The suffix in s-nssD is treated by Gesenius as superfluous, and by 
 others as belonging proleptically to the next word. Some of the older 
 writers make h^flb agree with it (in its fruitful branches), but the words differ 
 both in gender and number. The latest writers seem to be agreed that the 
 expression literally means in the branches of it, the fruit-tree, the it being 
 unnecessary in any other idiom. The irregularity is wholly but arbitrarily 
 removed by Hitzig's division of the words rrnsri wo. This verse is re- 
 garded by Cocceius as a promise to the people, by others as a promise to 
 the pious Jews and especially to Hezekiah, but by most interpreters as 
 describing the extent to which the threatened judgment would be carried. 
 Thegleanings, then, are not the pious remnant, but the ignoble refuse who 
 survived the deportation of the ten tribes by the Assyrians. 
 
 V. 7. In that day man shall turn to his Maker, and his eyes to the 
 Holy One of Israel shall look. Grotius and Junius make this an advice or 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 331 
 
 exhortation — let him look — but there, is no ground for departing from the 
 strict sense of the words as a prediction, bs IWtp occurs again below (ch. 
 31 : 1) in the sense of looking to any one for help, which implies trust or 
 confidence. The Septuagint accordingly has here mnoiQtog. Jarchi ex- 
 plains the phrase as equivalent to ba n:D'\ The article before d*ix gives it 
 a generic not a specific sense. It does not therefore mean every man or the 
 people in general (Banies), but man indefinitely. It is commonly agreed 
 that Maker is here used in a pregnant sense to describe God, not merely as 
 the natural creator of mankind, but as the maker of Israel, the author of 
 their privileges, and their covenant God. (Compare Deut. 32 : 6.) The 
 same idea is expressed by the parallel phrase, Holy One of Israel, for the 
 import of which vide supra, ch. 1:4. Some refer this verse partially or 
 wholly to the times of the New Testament, others more correctly to the 
 effect of the preceding judgments on the ten tribes of Israel. It is matter 
 of history, that after the Assyrian conquest and the general deportation of 
 the people, many accepted Hezekiah's invitation and returned to the worship 
 of Jehovah at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 30: 11); and this reformation is 
 alluded to as still continued in the times of Josiah (2 Chron. 34 : 9). At 
 the same time the words may be intended to suggest that a similar effect 
 might be expected to result from similar causes in later times. 
 
 V. 8. And he shall not turn (or look) to the altars, the work of his 
 own hands, and that which his own fingers have made shall he not regard, 
 and the groves (or images of AshtoretK) and the pillars (or images) of 
 the sun. The positive declaration of the preceding verse is negatively ex- 
 pressed in this, with a particular mention of the objects which had usurped 
 the place of God. Kimchi's superficial observation, that even God's altar 
 was the work of men's hands, and that this phrase must therefore denote 
 idols, is adopted by Clericus (aras erectas operi manuum) and by Lowth, 
 who observes that " all the ancient versions and most of the modern have 
 mistaken it," and then goes on to say that rittha is not in apposition with 
 mrcTsn but governed by it ; a construction precluded by the definite article 
 before the latter word. The true explanation is that given by Calvin, and 
 adopted by most later writers, viz. that idol-altars are described as the 
 work of men's hands, because erected by their sole authority, whereas the 
 altar at Jerusalem was, in the highest sense, the work of God himself. Vi- 
 tringa arbitrarily explains the next clause (what their fingers have made) as 
 synonymous neither with what goes before nor with what follows, but as 
 denoting the household gods of the idolaters. The old writers take &**£* 
 always in the sense of groves, i. e. such as were used for idol-worship. It 
 has been shown, however, by Selden, Spencer, Gesenius, and others, that 
 in some places this sense is inadmissible, as when the i*ni2K is said to have 
 
332 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 stood upon an altar, or under a tree, or to have been brought out of a temple 
 (1 Kings 14 : 23. 2 Chron. 34 : 4). The modern writers, therefore, under- 
 stand it as denoting the goddess of fortune or happiness (from *im to be 
 prosperous), otherwise called Ashtoreth, the Phenician Venus, extensively 
 worshipped in conjunction with Baal. But according to Movers, the Hebrew 
 word denotes a straight or upright pillar. Ewald adheres to the old inter- 
 pretation (Gotzenhainer). d^s^n is a derivative of Man, which properly 
 means solar heat, but is poetically used to denote the sun itself. This obvious 
 etymology, and the modern discovery of Punic cippi inscribed to "pan bs::, 
 Baal the Sun (or Solar), lead to the conclusion that the word before us sig- 
 nifies images of Baal, worshipped as the representative of the sun. From 
 the same etymology, Montanus derives the meaning, loca aprica, and Junius 
 that of statuas subdiales. The explanation of the word, as meaning suns or 
 solar images, is as old as Kimchi., 
 
 V. 9. In that day shall his fortified cities be like what is left in the 
 thicket and the lofty branch, (namely the cities) which they leave (as they 
 retire) from before the children of Israel, and (the land) shall be a waste. 
 It is universally agreed that the desolation of the ten tribes is here described 
 by a comparison, but as to the precise form and meaning of the sentence 
 there is great diversity of judgment. Some suppose the strongest towns to 
 be here represented as no better defended than an open forest. Others on 
 the contrary understand the strong towns alone to be left, the others being 
 utterly destroyed. WITS is variously understood to mean what is left o^ and 
 what is left in. Hitzig and Hendewerk make Horesh and Amir proper 
 names, the former identical with Harosheth-goim (Judges 4 : 2, 13, 16), the 
 latter with the 'A^ov&a of Josephus or the 'Avt'Q& of Eusebius. Symrna- 
 chus, Aquila, and Theodotion all retained the word 1*»13fc, and Theodotion 
 Ein also. The Septuagint renders the words ol 'ApoQoaioi xcu ol EvuToi. For 
 the first the Peshito has Heres. The last two versions Vitringa connects 
 by a reference to the statement (Judg. 1 : 35) that the Amorites would 
 dwell in Mount Heres. Ewald explains the Septuagint version on the 
 ground that the old Canaanites divided themselves into the two great classes 
 of Amorites (mountaineers), and Hittites (lowlanders) or Hivites (villagers). 
 Jerome translates the words aratra et segetes. Cappellus also has arationis. 
 Most writers give vajt the sense it has in v. 6, and WVy that of a thick 
 forest, or more specifically its underwood or thickets. Here as before, Hen- 
 derson understands by "i^ax a high tree, and Gesenius the summit of a hill. 
 From the combination of these various verbal explanations have arisen two 
 principal interpretations of the whole verse, or at least of the comparison 
 which it contains. The first supposes the forsaken cities of Ephraim to be 
 here compared with those which the Canaanites forsook when they fled before 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 333 
 
 the Israelites under Joshua, or with the forests which the Israelites left 
 unoccupied after the conquest of the country. The same essential mean- 
 ing is retained by others who suppose the prophet to allude to the overthrow 
 of Sisera by Deborah and Barak. The other interpretation supposes no 
 historical allusion, but a comparison of the approaching desolation with the 
 neglected branches of a tree or forest that is felled, or a resumption of the 
 figure of the olive-tree in v. 6. This last is strongly recommended by its great 
 simplicity, by its superseding all gratuitous assumptions beyond what is ex- 
 pressed, and by its taking n^x in the same sense which it has above. An- 
 other disputed point is the construction of -rx, which some refer to the 
 immediate antecedent, others less simply but more correctly to in:?B *n*. 
 
 V. 10. Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and the 
 Rock of thy strength hast not remembered, therefore thou wilt plant plants of 
 pleasantness (or pleasant plantations) and with a strange slip set it. Some 
 render ^ at the beginning for, and understand the first clause as giving a 
 reason for what goes before ; but the emphatic "p bs in the second clause 
 seems to require that ^d should have the meaning of because, and introduce 
 the reason for what follows. The sense, then, is not merely that because 
 they forgot God they were desolate, but that because they forgot God they 
 fell into idolatry, and on that account were given up to desolation. 
 Some regard the second clause of this verse and the whole of the next as a 
 description of their punishment. Because they forgot God, they should 
 sow and plant, but only for others ; the fruit should be gathered not by them- 
 selves but by their enemies (Barbarus has segetes et culta novalia habebit). 
 Others suppose the description of the sin to be continued through this verse 
 and the first clause of the next. Because they forgot God, they planted to 
 please themselves, and introduced strange plants into their vineyard. On 
 the latter hypothesis, the planting is a metaphor for the culture and propa- 
 gation of corrupt opinions and practices, especially idolatry and illicit inter- 
 course with heathen nations. According to the other view, the planting is 
 to be literally understood, and the evil described is the literal fulfilment of 
 the threatening in Deut. 28 : 39. The latter sense is given by most of the 
 early writers. Cocceius, who seems first to have proposed the other, 
 thought it necessary to translate ran as a preterite (plantabas), which is un- 
 grammatical and arbitrary. The same general sense may be attained with- 
 out departing from the future form, by making the last clause of v. 10 a pre- 
 diction of what they would hereafter do, without excluding the idea that 
 they had done so already, and were actually doing it. It is not even neces- 
 sary to read with Grotius quamris plantavvris, or with Henderson thou mayest 
 plant, or wilh Umbreit lass nur tvachsen, although these translations really 
 convey the true sense of the clause. It is urged as an objection to the older 
 
334 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 and more literal interpretation, that the evil threatened is too insignificant 
 for such a context. This objection might be abated by supposing the fruit- 
 less cultivation to be not strictly literal, but a figure for disappointment or 
 labour in vain generally. On the whole, however, it seems best to acqui- 
 esce in the opinion now very commonly adopted, that the planting here 
 described is the sin of the people, not their punishment. Jerome confounds 
 tra^sa with wnm,Jideles 9 i. e. not disappointing expectation. The Septu- 
 agint strangely gives an opposite meaning (cpvzevfia aniGxov), which is re- 
 garded by some as a mere blunder, by others as an arbitrary change, and 
 by others as an error in the text. The older writers make the Hebrew 
 word an adjective agreeing with vines, fruits, or some other noun understood. 
 It is now commonly explained as an abstract, meaning pleasantness, and the 
 whole phrase as equivalent to pleasant or favourite plants. A similar con- 
 struction occurs in the last clause, where slip or shoot of a stranger is equi- 
 valent to a strange slip or shoot. Those who think a literal planting to be 
 meant, understand strange to signify exotic, foreign, and by implication val- 
 uable, costly ; but upon the supposition that a moral or spiritual planting is 
 intended, it has its frequent emphatic sense of alien from God,i. e. wicked, 
 or more specifically idolatrous. Cocceius takes sntn as the third person, 
 which is forbidden by the preceding second person son. The suffix in the 
 last word may be most naturally referred to vineyard, garden, or a like word 
 understood. J. D. Michaelis and others suppose an allusion in this last 
 clause to the process of grafting with a view to the improvement of the stock. 
 The foreign growth introduced is understood by some to be idolatry, by 
 others foreign alliance ; but these two things, as we have seen before, were 
 inseparably blended in the history and policy of Israel. (Vide supra, ch. 
 2 : 6-8.) 
 
 V. 11. In the day of thy planting thou wilt hedge it in, and in the 
 morning thou wilt make thy seed to blossom, (but) away flies the crop in a 
 day of grief and desperate sorrow. The older writers derive "tnbafcrt from 
 aaa, and explain it to mean cause to grow. The modern lexicographers as- 
 sume a root Mio equivalent to T\^, to enclose with a hedge. Either sense 
 is appropriate as describing a part of the process of culture. In the morning 
 is commonly explained as an idiomatic phrase for early, which some refer to 
 the rapidity of growth, and others to the assiduity of the cultivator, neither 
 of which senses is exclusive of the other, la is elsewhere a noun meaning 
 a heap, and is so explained here by the older writers : the harvest (shall be) 
 a heap, i. e. a small or insufficient one. Vitringa derives ia from "na, to 
 lament, and translates it comploratio. Others give it the sense of shaking, 
 agitation. Gesenius and the later writers make it the preterite of n^ia to 
 flee (in form like rua). i">^,5, as pointed in the common text, is a noun 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 335 
 
 meaning inheritance, possession, and most of the older writers understand 
 fibm cnn to mean in the day of expected jwssession. The latest writers 
 for the most part read ribns which is properly the passive participle of r&n, 
 but is used as a noun in the sense of deadly wound or disease, here employed 
 as a figure for extreme distress. Even Jarchi explains it by the phrase o*P 
 tt\& t The same idea is expressed by titifej nxs, which the Seventy seem to 
 have read eiisx ax3, like the father of a man. Kimchi appears to assume 
 an antithesis in each of these verses between the original and degenerate 
 state of Israel : at first thou didst plant pleasant plants, but now thou hast 
 set strange slips ; at first thou didst make it to flourish, but now the harvest 
 etc. This, though ingenious, is entirely arbitrary and gratuitous. The 
 usual and simple construction of the sentence gives a perfectly good sense. 
 
 V. 12. Hark ! the noise of many nations ! Like the noise of the sea 
 they, make a noise. And the rush of peoples ! Like the rush of mighty 
 waters they arc rushing. The diversity of judgments, as to the connexion 
 of these verses (12-14) with the context, has been already stated in the 
 introduction. By different interpreters they are explained, as a direct con- 
 tinuation of the foregoing prophecy (J. D. Michaelis) — as a later addition 
 or appendix to it (Hitzig) — as a fragment of a larger poem (Rosenmiiller) — 
 as an independent prophecy (Lowth) — as the beginning of that contained 
 in the next chapter (Gesenius) — and as equally connected with what goes 
 before and follows (Vitringa). That the passage is altogether broken and 
 detached, and unconnected with what goes before (Barnes), it is as easy to 
 deny as to affirm. On the whole, the safest ground to assume is that already 
 stated in the introduction, viz. that the two chapters form a single prophecy 
 or prophetic picture of the doom awaiting all the enemies of Judah, with 
 particular allusion to particular enemies in certain parts. *M is variously ex- 
 plained as a particle of cursing (Luther), of pity for the sufferings of God's 
 people (Calvin), of wonder (Hitzig), or of simple invocation (Vitringa). 
 Henderson understands it as directing attention to the sound described, 
 which the prophet is supposed to be actually hearing, an idea which Augusti 
 happily expresses by translating the word hark ! This descriptive character 
 of the passage allows and indeed requires the verbs to be translated in the 
 present tense. fMMi most frequently denotes a multitude ; but here, being 
 connected with the future and infinitive of its root (n-ar-i), it seems to have 
 its primary sense of noise or tumult. D*^ may either denote great (Luther) 
 or many (Calvin) ; but the latter is preferred by most interpreters, and is 
 most in accordance with the usage of the word. yWtt) is not simply noise 
 or sound (Montanus), but more specifically a roaring (Lowth) or a rushing 
 (Augusti). The sense of storm (Cocceius) is not sufficiently sustained by 
 usage. The nations meant are not Gog and Magog (Castalio), nor Syria 
 
336 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 and Israel (Clericus),nor their allies and abettors (Grotius), but all the hos- 
 tile nations by whom Israel was scourged (Jarchi), with particular reference 
 to Assyria, and especially to the army of Sennacherib. The application of 
 the verse by most interpreters to these last alone is too exclusive ; much more 
 that of Gill to the " hectoring, blustering, and blaspheming speeches of 
 Sennacherib and Rabshakeh." To the poetical images of this verse a 
 beautiful parallel is adduced by Clericus from Ovid's Metamorphoses (XV. 
 604): 
 
 Qualia fluctus 
 Aequorei faciunt, si quis procul audiat ipsos, 
 Tale sonat populus. 
 
 V. 13. Nations, like the rush of many waters, rush; and he rebukes 
 it, and it flees from afar, and is chased like the chaff of hills before a wind, 
 and like a rolling thing before a whirlwind. The genuineness of the first 
 clause is questioned by Lowth and Gesenius, because it is a repetition of 
 what goes before and is omitted in the Peshito and several manuscripts. 
 Hendewerk and Knobel, on the contrary, pronounce it not only genuine but 
 full of emphasis, and Henderson describes it as a pathetic repetition. Thus 
 the same expressions, which one critic thinks unworthy of a place in the 
 text, are regarded by another as rhetorical beauties, an instructive illustra- 
 tion of the fluctuating and uncertain nature of conjectural criticism founded 
 on the taste of individual interpreters. Luther and Augusti insert yes (ja) 
 at the beginning of the verse, which, though unnecessary, indicates the true 
 connexion. The verb W is often used in reference to God's control of the 
 elements, denoting, as Gataker observes, a real rather than a verbal rebuke. 
 Ewald, on the contrary, supposes the emphasis to lie in God's subduing 
 the elemental strife by a bare word. The suffix in is, and the verbs &3 and 
 SjWi, being all in the singular number, are referred by Hitzig to )ix*2, but 
 more naturally by most other writers to Sennacherib, or his host considered 
 as an individual. Knobel makes the suffix collective, as in ch. 5 : 26, and 
 regards the singular verbs as equivalent to plurals. By using the neuter 
 pronoun it in English, and making the verbs agree with it in number, the 
 peculiar form of the original may be retained without additional obscurity. 
 The subjunctive construction given by Junius (ut fugiat) and some others, 
 is a needless departure from the idiomatic form of the original. The ex- 
 pression from afar, is explained by Kimchi as meaning that the fugitive, 
 having reached a distant point, would flee from it still further. Vitringa 
 understands it to mean that he would flee while human enemies were still 
 at a distance. Most of the modern writers suppose from to be used, by a 
 peculiar Hebrew idiom, as to would be employed in other languages. (See 
 Nordheimer, § 1046, IV. 1.) Kimchi sees in Cgf 1 ? an allusion to the de- 
 stroying angel. (Comp. Ps. 35 : 5, 6.) fa is not dust or straw, but chaff 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 or stubble. Mountains, according to Gataker, are here contrasted with 
 threshing-floors; hut tlirsr were commonly on hills or knolls where the 
 wind blows freely. According to Jarchi, baba is a ball of thistle-down; 
 according to Gill, " a round wisp of straw or stubble." Junius translates 
 it rota, Cocceius vortex, Lowth gossamer. All these interpretations are too 
 definite. Calvin explains it in accordance with its etymology, as meaning 
 rem volubiUm, any thing hlown round by the wind. This is also not im- 
 probably the meaning of the Vulgate version, sicut turbo coram tempestate. 
 The common version, rolling thing, may therefore be retained. While there 
 seems to be an obvious allusion to the flight of Sennacherib and the remnant 
 of his host (ch. 37 : 36, 37), the terms are so selected as to admit of a wider 
 a p plication to all Jehovah's enemies, and thus prepare the way for the gen- 
 eral declaration in the following verse. 
 
 V. 14. At evening-tide, and behold terror ; before morning he is not. 
 This is (or be) the portion of our plunderers, and the lot of our spoilers. 
 According to Piscator, these are the words of the people ; according to 
 Henderson, their shout of exultation in the morning of their deliverance. 
 Gill says the Prophet and the people speak together. There is no need, 
 however, of departing from the simple supposition that the Prophet is the 
 speaker, and that he uses the plural pronouns only to identify himself with 
 the people. On account of the l before n:n, some think it necessary to 
 supply a verb before Mb, (they shall come) in the evening. The English 
 Version, on the same ground, transfers and behold to the beginning of the 
 sentence. But nothing is more common in the Hebrew idiom than the use 
 of and after specifications of time. (See Gesenius <§> 152, a.) In many 
 cases it must be omitted in English, or exchanged for then ; but in the pres- 
 ent instance it may be retained. Luther renders b about (urn), Ewald 
 towards (gegen), but Gesenius and most other writers at (zu), which is the 
 simpler version, and the one most agreeable to usage. Tide is an old Eng- 
 lish word for time, identical in origin with the German Zeit. Lowth awk- 
 wardly substitutes at the season of evening. WHkl is not merely trouble, but 
 terror, consternation. Vitringa renders it still more strongly horror, and 
 Ewald Todesschrecken. Cocceius has nebula, founded on an erroneous 
 etymology. The reference of «3*n to fir^a, it (the terror) is no more, 
 is ungrammatical, the latter being feminine. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hen- 
 derson have they are no more. Most writers suppose a specific allusion to 
 Sennacherib or his host. It is best, at all events, to retain the singular form 
 of the original as being more expressive and poetical. The paraphrastic 
 versions, he shall no more be present (J. H. Michaelis), he is vanished 
 (Ewald), there is no more any trace of him (Augusti), and the like, are all 
 not only less exact but weaker than the literal translation, he is not. Lowth 
 
 22 
 
338 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVII. 
 
 inserts 1 before lii^t on the authority of several manuscripts and three an- 
 cient versions, thereby restoring, as he says, " the true poetical form," by 
 obtaining a more exact parallel to nam. Umbreit and others suppose night 
 and morning to be here combined in the sense of a very short time, as in 
 Ps. 30 : 5, Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. 
 (Compare Ps. 90 : 6.) Most interpreters, however, suppose an allusion to 
 the destruction of Sennacherib's army in a single night. Of these some, with 
 Aben Ezra, understand by nn&a the terror of the Jews on the eve of that 
 event, relieved in the morning by the sight of the dead bodies. Others, with 
 Jarchi, understand by it the sudden consternation of the Assyrians themselves 
 when attacked by the destroying angel. Jarchi seems, moreover, to refer this 
 panic to the agency of demons (d^^). The allusion to Sennacherib is denied 
 by Grotius, Clericus, and Rosenmiiller, the first two supposing Syria or 
 Syria and Israel to be the only subject of the prophecy. Gesenius and 
 Knobel arbitrarily assert that the history of the slaughter of Sennacherib's 
 army is a mythus founded on this prophecy. The only reason why this 
 assertion cannot be refuted is because it is a mere assertion. Before such 
 license of conjecture and invention neither history nor prophecy can stand a 
 moment. The correct view of the verse before us seems to be, that while 
 the imagery is purposely suited to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, the 
 description is intended to include other cases of deliverance granted to 
 God's people by the sudden and complete destruction of their enemies. 
 Calvin supposes this more general sense to be expressed by the figure of a 
 storm at night which ceases before morning. < Quemadmodum tempestas, 
 vesperi excitata et paulo post sedata', mane nulla est amplius, ideo futurum 
 ut hostibus dispulsis redeat subito praeter spem laeta serenitas.' Not con- 
 tent with this comprehensive exposition, Cocceius, true to his peculiar prin- 
 ciples of exegesis, specifies as subjects of the prophecy the whole series of 
 Assyrian and Babylonian kings, Antiochus Epiphanes, the persecuting 
 Jews, Nero, Domitian, Chosroes king of Persia, and the persecuting kings of 
 France and England, adding, not without reason after such a catalogue, 
 ' utile est, cumprimis studiosis theologiae, historiam ecclesiae et hostium 
 ejus non ignorare.' The substantive verb being suppressed, as usual, in the 
 last clause of the verse, it may be either an affirmation of a general fact, or 
 an expression of desire, as in the close of Deborah and Barak's song, so let 
 all thine enemies perish, oh Jehovah (Judges 5: 31). The first explana- 
 tion is in this case more obvious and natural, and is accordingly preferred 
 by most interpreters. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVIII. 339 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 The two great powers of western Asia, in the days of Isaiah, were 
 Assyria and Egypt or Ethiopia, the last two being wholly or partially united 
 under Tirhakah, whose name and exploits are recorded in Egyptian monu- 
 ments still extant, and who is expressly said in Scripture (2 Kings 19:9) 
 to have come out against Sennacherib. With one or the other of these 
 great contending powers, Judah was commonly confederate, and of course 
 at war with the other. Hezekiah is explicitly reproached by Rabshakeh 
 (Is. 36 : 9) with relying upon Egypt, i. e. the Ethiopico-egyptian empire. 
 These historical facts, together with the mention of Cush in v. 1, and the 
 appropriateness of the figures in vs. 4, 5, to the destruction of Sennacherib's 
 army, give great probability to the hypothesis now commonly adopted, that 
 the Prophet here announces that event to Ethiopia, as about to be effected 
 by a direct interposition of Jehovah, and without human aid. On this sup- 
 position, although not without its difficulties, the chapter before us is much 
 clearer in itself and in its connexion with the one before it, than if we as- 
 sume with some interpreters, both Jews and Christians, that it relates to the 
 restoration of the Jews, or to the overthrow of the Egyptians or Ethiopians 
 themselves as the enemies of Israel. At the same time, some of the expres- 
 sions here employed admit of so many interpretations, that it is best to give 
 the whole as wide an application as the language will admit, on the 
 ground before suggested, that it constitutes a part of a generic prophecy or 
 picture of God's dealings with the foes of his people, including illustrations 
 drawn from particular events, such as the downfall of Syria and Israel, and 
 the slaughter of Sennacherib's army. 
 
 The Prophet first invites the attention of the Ethiopians and of the 
 whole world to a great catastrophe as near at hand, vs. 1-3. He then 
 describes the catastrophe itself, by the beautiful figure of a vine or vineyard 
 suffered to blossom and bear fruit, and then, when almost ready to be gath- 
 ered, suddenly destroyed, vs. 4-6. In consequence of this event, the same 
 people, who had been invoked in the beginning of the chapter, are described 
 as bringing presents to Jehovah at Jerusalem, v. 7. 
 
 V. 1 . Ho ! land of rustling wings, which art beyond the rivers of 
 Cush (or Ethiopia) ! "»in is rendered woe ! by the Septuagint, Cocceius, 
 and Paulus, hark ! by Augusti, but by most other writers, as a particle of 
 calling, ho ! or ha ! b&z is explained by some as an intensive or frequent- 
 ative form of ^ a shadow, in which sense it is rendered by the Peshito and 
 
340 ISAIAH, CHAP. XV1IJ. 
 
 Aquila (axia nzeovycov) — here used as a figure for protection (Calvin) — or 
 in allusion to the shadow cast by a double chain of mountains (Saadias, 
 Abulwalid, Grotius, Junius, Vitringa, Dathe) — or to the opposite direction 
 of the shadows in winter and summer under the tropics (Vogt, Aurivillius, 
 Eichhorn, Knobel) — a circumstance particularly mentioned in connexion 
 with Meroe by Pliny (in Meroe bis anno absumi umbras), Lucan (donee 
 umbras extendat Meroe), and other ancient Writers. Knobel takes c^bss in 
 the sense of sides (ch. 30: 20. 11 : 12. Ez. 7 : 2), and supposes the expres- 
 sion to have been suggested by the common phrase shadow of wings (Ps. 
 17 : 8. 36 : 8. 57 : 2. 63 : 8). But as the double form V>sbx in every other 
 case has reference to sound, some suppose an allusion to the noise made by 
 the locusts, one of the names of which in Hebrew is ^x^x (Paulus, J. D. 
 Michaelis) — some to the rushing sound of rivers (Umbreit) — others to the 
 clash of arms or other noises made by armies on the march, here called 
 wings by a common figure (Gesenius, Rosenmliller, Hitzig, Maurer, Hen- 
 dewerk). But Knobel denies that t)», absolutely used, can signify an ar- 
 my. The plural d^s^x is elsewhere used in the sense of cymbals, and the 
 Vulgate here has terrae cymbalo alarum. Bochart, Huet, Clericus, and 
 Lowth, suppose the word to be here applied to the Egyptian sistrum, a spe- 
 cies of cymbal, consisting of a rim or frame of metal, with metallic rods or 
 plates passing through and across it, the extremities of which might be poet- 
 ically called wings. From the resemblance of the ancient ships to cymbals, 
 or of their sails to wings, or from both together, the phrase before us is ap- 
 plied to ships by the Septuagint (nloicov nttovysg), Targum, Kimchi, and 
 Ewald (o Land gefliigelter Kahne!). — The relative 110 x is construed with 
 the nearest antecedent n^s:^ by Cocceius and J. H. Michaelis, but by most 
 other writers with the remoter antecedent "px. h *!3&b is understood to 
 mean on this side by Vitringa, Hitzig and Hendewerk — on thai side or be- 
 yond by Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Umbreit, and most of the older 
 writers — at the side or along by Saadias, Grotius, Junius, Lowth, Barnes, 
 Ewald, Knobel, and others. Cush is supposed by Wahl to mean Chu- 
 sistan or Turan, both here and in Gen. 2: 13 — by Bochart, Ethiopia and 
 the opposite part of Arabia, but by Gesenius and the later writers, Ethiopia 
 alone. The rivers of Cush are supposed by some to be the JNile and its 
 branches — by others, the Astaboras, Astapus, and Astasobas, mentioned by 
 Strabo as the rivers of Meroe, which last name Knobel traces to the Ethiopic 
 root *Yi as he does the Hebrew Saba to the synonymous N20, both implying 
 an abundant irrigation. The country thus described is understood by Cyril, 
 Jerome, Bochart, Vitringa, and Lowth, to be Egypt ; by most other writers 
 Ethiopia ; but by Knobel, Saba or Meroe, a region contiguous to Ethiopia 
 and watered by its rivers, often mentioned with it but distinguished from it 
 (Gen. 10: 7. Isa. 43: 3. 45: 14). Besides the usual construction of the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVIII. £41 
 
 first clause, may be mentioned that of Dud* srlein, llensler, and Dereser, who 
 make bsbx a verb (er schwirrt), and that of Augusti ; * hearken, oh land, to 
 the rushing of his wings who is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.' 
 
 V. 2. Sending by sea ambassadors, and in vessels of papyrus on the face 
 of the ivatcrs. Go ye light (or swift) messengers, to a nation dratvn and 
 shorn, to a people terrible since it existed and onwards, a nation of double 
 strength, and trampling, whose land the streams divide. Nearly every 
 word and phrase of this difficult verse has been the subject of discordant 
 explanations. nViin is translated in the second person (thou that sendest) 
 by Cocceius, Clericus, Vitringa, and Henderson, by most other writers in 
 the third. It refers not to God but to the people mentioned in v. 1. Vi- 
 tringa construes it with D3 understood, Gesenius with "~x in the sense of ny, 
 and therefore masculine. D" 1 is variously explained to mean the Red Sea, 
 the Mediterranean, and the Nile (Is. 19: 5. Nah. 3: 8). Bochart takes 
 D^a in the sense of images, supposing an allusion to the Egyptian prac- 
 tice, mentioned by Cyril, Procopius, and Lucian, of sending an image of 
 Osiris annually on the surface of the sea to Byblus in Phenicia. The Sep- 
 tuagint renders the word hostages (ofirjQo) ; but all the latest writers are 
 agreed in giving it the sense of ambassadors, to wit, those sent to Ethiopia, 
 or fr >m Ethiopia to Judah. The next phrase is rendered in the Septua- 
 gint, imvroXas fii(jlivag, but is now universally explained to mean vessels 
 made of the papyrus plant, the use of which upon the Nile is expressly 
 mentioned by Theophrastus, Pliny, Lucan, and Plutarch. The second 
 clause of the verse (is^ 1 etc.) is regarded by some writers as the lan- 
 guage of the people who had just been addressed, as if he had said, ' send- 
 ing ambassadors (and saying to them) go etc' More probably, however, 
 the Prophet is still speaking in the name of God. The following epithets 
 are applied by some to the Jews, and supposed to be descriptive of their de- 
 graded and oppressed condition. Gesenius and the later writers apply them 
 to the Ethiopians and make them descriptive of their warlike qualities. 
 ^p-CD according to usage means drawn or drawn out, which is applied by 
 some to the shape of the country, by others to the numbers engaged in 
 foreign war, by the Septuagint and Hitzig to the stature of the people. 
 This meaning is rejected by Gesenius in his Commentary, but approved in 
 his Thesaurus. The meanings convulsed (Vulgate) and torn (Luther) 
 are not justified by usage. Those of ancient, inaccessible, and scattered, 
 are entirely conjectural. P^VQ for D*VW properly denotes shorn or shaven, 
 and is applied by some to the Egyptian and Ethiopian practice of shaving 
 the head and beard, while others understand it as a figure for robbery and 
 spoliation. Some understand it to mean smoothed or smooth, and by impli- 
 cation beautiful. Others apply it to the character, and take it in the sense of 
 
342 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 brave or fierce. Kin *p is by some applied to time, from the first and 
 hitherto, from the earliest time ; from this time, by others to place, from 
 this place and onward. Many interpreters make it comparative, more ter- 
 rible than this, or than any other, more terrible than this and further off. 
 In favour of applying it to time, are the analogous expressions in 1 Sam. 
 18 : 9, while 1 Sam. 20: 22 justifies the local sense. ^P~p is explained by 
 Clericus to be the proper name of the Egyptian plant called Jciki. Most 
 writers take it in its usual sense of line, i. e. as some suppose, a rule or 
 precept, the people being described as burdened with superstitious rites ; 
 according to others, a measuring line, meted out or meting out others to 
 destruction ; according to a third class, a boundary line, enlarging its boun- 
 daries. Some make it mean on every side and others by degrees, in both 
 cases qualifying that which follows. But the latest German writers make 
 the word identical with the Arabic g«Jj meaning power, the reduplication 
 signifying double strength. S-iDima must then have an active sense, a 
 people of trampling, i. e. trampling on their enemies. Those who apply 
 the description to the Jews give the word of course a passive sense, a people 
 trampled on by their oppressors. By rivers, in the last clause, some sup- 
 pose nations to be meant, or the Assyrians in particular ; but most writers 
 understand it literally as a description of the country, sttn is explained by 
 the Rabbins as a synonyme of tia, to spoil or plunder, and a few manu- 
 scripts read itta. Others give the verb the sense of nourishing, water- 
 ing, overflowing, washing away, promising ; but the best sense is that of 
 cutting up, cutting through, or simply dividing, in allusion to the abundant 
 irrigation of Ethiopia. Vitringa supposes this clause to refer to the annual 
 overflowing of the Nile, and the one before it to the Egyptian practice of 
 treading the grain into the soil when softened by the inundation. 
 
 V. 3. All ye inhabitants of the world and dwellers on the earth shall 
 see as it were the raising of a standard, on the mountains, and shall hear 
 as it were the blowing of a trumpet. Another construction, more gener- 
 ally adopted, makes the verbs imperative, and the a a particle of time, as it 
 usually is before the infinitive. So the English Version : see ye when he lift- 
 eth up an ensign on the mountains, and when he bloweth a trumpet hear ye. 
 There seems, however, to be no sufficient reason for departing from the strict 
 translation of the verbs as future : and if this be retained, it is better to make 
 a a particle of comparison. In either case, the verse invites the attention of 
 the world to some great event. The restricted explanation of ban and "pa, 
 as meaning land or country, is entirely arbitrary. According to Vitringa, 
 Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and Maurer, the signals meant are those of the As- 
 syrian invader, or those announcing his destruction ; but according to Do- 
 derlein, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel. the signals by means of which the 
 Ethiopians would collect their forces. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XVIII. 343 
 
 V. 4. For thus said (or saith) Jehovah to me, I will rest (remain quiet), 
 and will look on (as a mere spectator) in my dwelling place, like a serene 
 heat upon herbs, like a cloud of dew (or dewy cloud), in the heat of har- 
 vest (i. e. the heat preceding harvest, or the heat by which the crop is 
 ripened). This verse assigns a reason for the preceding invitation to 
 attend. The obvious meaning of the figure is, that God would let the ene- 
 my proceed in the execution of his purposes until they were nearly accom- 
 plished. Gesenius and the later writers explain a before en and 33 as a 
 particle of time, ' during the heat and dewy cloud ' i. e. the summer sea- 
 son. This use of the particle, which is very common before the infinitive, is 
 rare and doubtful before nouns, and ought not to be assumed without neces- 
 sity. According to this construction, the words merely indicate the time of 
 God's apparent inaction. If we give the a its proper sense as a compara- 
 tive particle, the meaning seems to be that he would not only abstain from 
 interfering with the enemy, but would even favour his success to a certain 
 point, as dew and sunshine* would promote the growth of plants. The 
 latest writers give to lixthe sense of sunshine, and explain the whole phrase 
 to mean the clear or genial heat which accompanies the sunshine and is pro- 
 duced by it. But as this requires the preposition (**?*) to be taken in an 
 unusual sense, it is better perhaps to regard liwi as synonymous with •"Hi's, 
 herb or herbage. Some of the Rabbins explain "V»j here and in Job 36 : 
 22. 37 : 11, as meaning rain (like clear heat after rain) ; but of this sense 
 there are no decisive examples. Junius and Lowth make ^i^s the object 
 of the contemplation, whereas it is merely added to express the idea of rest 
 at home, as opposed to activity abroad. It is not necessary, therefore, to 
 explain the ncun as meaning heaven, although this is better than its applica- 
 tion to the earthly sanctuary. 
 
 V. 5. For before the harvest, as the bloom is finished , and the flower be- 
 comes a ripening grape, he cuts down the branches with the pruning knives, 
 and the tendrils he removes, he cuts away. The obvious meaning of the 
 figures is, that although God would suffer the designs of the enemy to ap- 
 proach completion, he would nevertheless interfere at the last moment and 
 destroy both him and them. Some writers give to "3 the sense of but, in 
 order to make the antithesis clearer; but in this as in many other cases the 
 particle refers to something more remote than the immediately preceding 
 words, and is correctly explained by Knobel as correlative and parallel 
 with the "flD at the beginning of v. 4. As if he had said, let all the world 
 await the great catastrophe — for I will let the enemy almost attain his end 
 — but let them still attend — for before it is attained, I will destroy him. 
 The verbs in the last clause may either be referred directly to Jehovah as 
 their subject, or construed indefinitely, one shall cut them down. Jarchi 
 
344 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 supplies the participle or cognate noun (m^n ros) as in ch. 16 : 10. The 
 form tnn is derived by Gesenius from T^n, by Hitzig fromttri, and by Knobel 
 from Tna, but all agree as to the meaning. The verb ft^JJ receives its form 
 from the predicate, and not from the subject which is feminine. (See 
 Gesenius, <§> 134.) 
 
 V. 6. They shall be left together to the wild bird of the mountains and 
 to the wild beasts of the earth (or land), and the wild bird shall summer 
 thereon, and every wild beast of the earth (or land) thereon shall winter. 
 It is commonly supposed that there is here a transition from the figure of a 
 vineyard to that of a dead body, the branches cut off and thrown away 
 being suddenly transformed into carcasses devoured by beasts and birds. 
 For alike combination, vide supra, ch. 14: 19. But this interpreta ion, 
 though perhaps the most natural, is not absolutely necessary. As the act 
 of devouring is not expressly mentioned, the reference may be, not to the 
 carnivorous habits of the animals, but to their wild and solitary life. In 
 that case the sense would be that the amputated branches, and the desolated 
 vineyard itself, shall furnish lairs and nests for beasts and birds which com- 
 monly frequent the wildest solitudes, implying abandonment and utter deso 
 lation. This seems to be the meaning put upon the words by Luther, who 
 translates the verbs shall make their nests and lie therein (darinnen nisten 
 darinnen liegen). The only reason for preferring this interpretation is that 
 it precludes the necessity of assuming a mixed metaphor, or an abrupt 
 exchange of one for another, both which, however, are too common in 
 Isaiah to excite surprise. On either supposition, the general meaning ol 
 the verse is obvious. The form of the last clause is idiomatic, the birds 
 being said to spend the summer and the beasts the winter, not with refer- 
 ence to any real difference in their habits, but for the purpose of expressing 
 the idea, that beasts and birds shall occupy the spot throughout the 
 year. According to the common explanation of the verse as referring to 
 dead bodies, it is a hyperbolical description of their multitude, as furnishing 
 repast for a whole year to the beasts and birds of prey. 
 
 V. 7. At that time shall be brought a gift to Jehovah of Hosts, a 
 people drawn out and shorn, and from a people terrible since it has been 
 and onward (or still more terrible and still further off), a nation of double 
 power and trampling, whose land streams divide, to the place of the name 
 of Jehovah of Hosts, Mount Zion. Here, as in v. 2, the sense of some 
 particular expressions is so doubtful, that it seems better to retain, as far as 
 possible, the form of the original, with all its ambiguity, than to attempt an 
 explanatory paraphrase. All are agreed that we have here the prediction 
 of an act of homage to Jehovah, occasioned by the great event described in 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 345 
 
 the preceding verses. The Jews, who understand the second verse as a 
 description of the sufferings endured by Israel, explain this as a prophecy of 
 their return from exile and dispersion, aided and as it were presented as an 
 offering to Jehovah b. the heathen. (Vide infra, ch. 66: 20.) The older 
 Christian writers understand it as predicting the conversion of the Egyp- 
 tians or Ethiopians to the true religion. Whoever, says Gesenius, is fond 
 of tracing the fulfilment of such prophecies in later history, may find this 
 one verified in Rev. 8 : 26 sq., and still more in the fact that Abyssinia is 
 at this day the only great Christian power of the east. Gesenius himself, 
 with the other recent Germans, understands the verse as describing a solemn 
 contemporary recognition of Jehovah's power and divinity, as displayed in 
 the slaughter of Sennacherib's army. According to Gesenius, two different 
 nations are described both here and in v. 2, an opinion which he thinks is 
 here confirmed by the insertion of the copulative 1 before the second ~r. 
 But Knobel refers to ch. 27 : 1, and Zech. 9: 9, as proving that this form 
 of expression does not necessarily imply a plurality of subjects. A stronger 
 argument in favour of Gesenius's hypothesis is furnished by the insertion of 
 the preposition before the second os. The most natural construction of the 
 words would seem to be that the gift to Jehovah should consist of one 
 people offered by another. Most interpreters, however, including Gesenius 
 himself, infer that p must be supplied before the first D3> also — a gift shall 
 be brought (from) a people etc. and from a people etc. — whether the latter 
 be another or the same. If another, it may be Ethiopia as distinguished 
 from Egypt, or Meroe as distinguished from Ethiopia. If the same, it may 
 either be Egypt or more probably the kingdom of Tirhakah, including Ethi- 
 opia and Upper Egypt. The substitution of OS here for ^il in v. 2, and the 
 antithesis between them there, are regarded by Cocceius as significant and 
 founded on the constant usage of ''is to denote a heathen and or a believing 
 people. Most other writers seem to regard them as poetical equivalents. 
 The place of God's name is not merely the place called by his name, as 
 explained by Clericus and J. D. Michaelis, but the place where his name, 
 i. e. the manifestation of his attributes, resides. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 This chapter admits of a well-defined division into two parts, one of 
 which contains threatenings (vs. 1-17), and the other promises (vs. 18-25). 
 The first part may again be subdivided. In vs. 1-4, the Egyptians are 
 
346 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 threatened with a penal visitation from Jehovah, with the downfall of their 
 idols, with intestine commotions, with the disappointment of their supersti- 
 tious hopes, and with subjection to hard masters. In vs. 5-10 they are 
 threatened with physical calamities, the drying up of their streams, the 
 decay of vegetation, the loss of their fisheries, and the destruction of their 
 manufactures. In vs. 11-17, the wisdom of their wise men is converted 
 into folly, the courage of their brave men into cowardice, industry univer- 
 sally suspended, and the people filled with dread of the anger of Jehovah. 
 The second part may be also subdivided. In vs. 18-21, the Egyptians 
 are described as acknowledging the true God, in consequence of what they 
 had suffered at his hand, and the deliverance which he had granted them. 
 In vs. 22-25, the same cause is described as leading to an intimate union 
 between Egypt, Assyria, and Israel, in the service of Jehovah, and the en- 
 joyment of his favour. 
 
 Cocceius takes Egypt in what he calls its mystical sense, as meaning 
 Rome or the Roman empire, and explains the chapter as a synopsis of 
 church history from the conversion of Constantine to the latest time. Both 
 the fundamental hypothesis and the details of his exposition are entirely 
 arbitrary. He also violates the obvious relation of the parts by making the 
 whole chapter minatory in its import. A similar objection lies against 
 the theory of Cyril, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, who understand the 
 whole as a prediction of the conversion of the Egyptians to Christianity. 
 But the first part (vs. 1-17) cannot be explained, except by violence, either 
 as a promise or a figurative description of conversion. Junius errs in the 
 opposite extreme, by applying the first part in a literal sense to events in the 
 early history of Egypt, and the last in a figurative sense to the calling of the 
 Gentiles, without sufficiently explaining the transition or connexion of the 
 parts. Grotius applies the whole to events which occurred before the ad- 
 vent. He regards the first part as a description of the troubles in Egypt 
 during the dodecarchy which preceded the reign of Psammetichus, the last 
 part as a prophecy of the diffusion of the true religion by the influx of 
 Jews into Egypt. Clericus agrees with him in principle, but differs in de- 
 tail, by referring the first part of the chapter to the conquest of Egypt by 
 Nebuchadnezzar. J. D. Michaelis takes the same general view, but ap- 
 plies the first part to the troubles in Egypt under Sethos, and the last part 
 to the recognition of Jehovah as a true God by the Egyptians themselves, 
 but without abjuring heathenism. Vitringa more ingeniously explains the 
 first part as a prediction of the conquest of Egypt by the Persians, and the 
 second as a promise of deliverance by Alexander the Great, and of general 
 peace and friendly intercourse as well as religious advancement under his 
 successors, the Syrian and Egyptian kings, by which the way would be 
 prepared for the introduction of the gospel. This view of the passage is 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 347 
 
 substantially adopted by Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson. Of the modern 
 German writers some explain the difference between the two parts of the 
 chapter by supposing an interpolation. Thus Koppe and Eichhorn regard 
 vs. 18-25 as a distinct prophecy, and even Gesenius doubts the genuine- 
 ness of vs. 18-20. Hitzig supposes vs. 16-25 to have been forged by 
 Onias, when he induced Ptolemy to build a temple for the Jews at Leonto- 
 polis. These absurd suppositions have been fully and triumphantly refuted 
 by later writers of the same school, and especially by Hendewerk and Kno- 
 bel. The notion of Koppe and Eichhorn, that even the first part is later 
 than the times of Isaiah, has also been exploded. Ewald admits a pecu- 
 liarity of manner, but ascribes it to the old age of Isaiah when this prophecy 
 was written. Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Hendewerk, and Knobel, proceeding 
 on the twofold supposition, that the first part must describe the events of a 
 particular period, and that prophetic foresight is impossible, are under the 
 necessity of finding something in the contemporary history of Egypt corres- 
 ponding to the terms of the description. Gesenius and Knobel, in particu- 
 lar, have taken vast pains to combine and reconcile the contradictory ac- 
 counts of Herodotus, Diodorus, and Manetho, as to the dynasties of Egypt, 
 the succession of the several monarchs, and especially the date of the acces- 
 sion of Psammetichus. Ewald and Umbreit, much more rationally, reject 
 the hypothesis of specific historical allusions, and regard the whole as an in- 
 definite anticipation. On the same general principle, but with a far closer 
 approximation to the truth, Calvin and J. D. Michaelis understand the 
 chapter as a prophetic picture of the downfall of the old Egyptian empire, 
 and of the subsequent conversion of its people. The most correct view of 
 the matter seems to be as follows. The Prophet wishing to announce to 
 the Jews the decline anu fall of that great heathen power, in which they 
 were so constantly disposed to trust (30: 1. 31 : 1), describes the event 
 under figures borrowed from the actual condition of Egypt. As a writer, 
 who should now predict the downfall of the British empire, in a poetical 
 and figurative style, would naturally speak of its fleets as sunk or scattered, 
 its colonies dismembered, its factories destroyed, its railways abandoned, its 
 universities abolished, so the Prophet vividly portrays the fall of Egypt 
 by describing the waters of the Nile as failing, its meadows withering, its 
 fisheries ceasing, and the peculiar manufactures of the country expiring, the 
 proverbial wisdom of the nation changed to folly, its courage to cowardice, 
 its strength to weakness. Whether particular parts of the description were, 
 intended to have a more specific application, is a question not affecting the 
 truth of the hypothesis, that the first part is a metaphorical description of the 
 downfall of the great Egyptian monarchy. So too in the second part, the 
 introduction of the true religion, and its effect as well on the internal state 
 as on the international relations of the different countries, is expressed by 
 
348 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 figures drawn from the civil and religious institutions of the old economy. 
 The comparative merits of this exegetical hypothesis and those which have 
 been previously stated will be best exhibited in the detailed interpretation of 
 the chapter. It will only be necessary here to add that there is no abrupt 
 transition, but a natural and intimate connexion between the downfall of a 
 heathen power and the growth of the true religion, and also that nothing 
 can be more arbitrary than the exposition of the first part as a literal and of 
 the other as a metaphorical prediction. 
 
 V. 1. The Burden of Egypt. Behold! Jehovah riding on a light 
 cloud, and he comes to (or into) Egypt, and the idols of Egypt move at 
 his presence, and the heart of Egypt melts within him. This verse de- 
 scribes God as the author of the judgments afterwards detailed. His visible 
 appearance on a cloud, and the personification of the idols, prepare the mind 
 for a poetical description. Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson, translate the 
 suffix in the last word her. But d^s 1 ? is here the name of the ancestor 
 (Gen. 10 : 6) put for his descendants. The English Version has the neuter 
 it. The act of riding on a light cloud implies that he comes from heaven, 
 and that he comes swiftly. On the contemptuous import of the word trans- 
 lated idols, vide supra, ch. 2:8; on the meaning of at'tito, ch. 13: 1. 
 
 V. 2. And I will excite Egypt against Egypt, and they shall fight, a 
 man with his brother, and a man with his fellow, city with city, kingdom 
 with kingdom. The first verb is by some rendered arm, by others join or 
 engage in conflict ; but the sense of stirring up or rousing is preferred both 
 by the oldest and the latest writers. The version usually given, Egyptians 
 against Egyptians, though substantially correct, is neither so expressive nor 
 so true to the original as that of J. D. Michaelis and Augusti, Egypt 
 against Egypt, which involves an allusion to the internal divisions of the 
 kingdom, or rather the existence of contemporary kingdoms, more explicitly 
 referred to in the other clause. The last words are rendered in the Septua- 
 gint, fopog im vo\iov, meaning no doubt the thirty-six nomes or provinces of 
 ancient Egypt. Grotius, J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others, understand 
 this verse as referring specifically to the civil wars of Egypt in the days of 
 Sethos or Psammetichus. But while the coincidence with history adds 
 greatly to the propriety and force of the description, there is no sufficient 
 reason for departing from its obvious import, as a description of inter- 
 nal strife and anarchy in general. The expressions bear a strong resemb- 
 lance to those used in the description of the state of Judah, ch. 3: 5. 
 Junius regards these as the words to be uttered by Jehovah when he enters 
 Egypt. It may, however, be a simple continuation of the prophecy, with a 
 sudden change from the third to the first person, of which there are many 
 other examples. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 349 
 
 V. 3. And the spirit of Egypt shall be emptied out (or exhausted) in 
 the midst thereof, and the counsel (or sagacity) thereof I will swallow up 
 (annihilate or render useless), and they will seek to the idols, and to the 
 mutterers, and to the familiar spirits, and to the wizards. By spirit we 
 are not to understand courage but intellect. Gesenius, in his lexicon, 
 reads ^Sf&d and renders it out of or from the midst of it. The original and 
 proper sense of n h ^x seems to be murmurs or mutterings, here applied to 
 the mutterers themselves, in allusion to the ancient mode of incantation, as 
 to which, and the meaning of rvinix and n^r^, vide supra, ch. 8:19. Hj?23 
 is variously rendered by the early writers, troubled, decayed, destroyed, etc. 
 but the etymology is decisive in favour of the sense now commonly adopted. 
 Augusti expresses the contemptuous import of n^b^x by translating it their 
 wretched gods. 
 
 V. 4. And I will shut up Egypt in the hands of a hard master, and a 
 strong king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts. As 
 ia& means to shut up wherever it occurs, the intensive form here usjed can- 
 not have the weaker sense of giving up, delivering, in which some take it. 
 TOg and t!J do not mean cruel or fierce, but stern or rigorous. The first of 
 these Hebrew words is singular in form but construed with a plural noun. 
 The Septuagint renders both phrases in the plural. Junius makes the first 
 plural and refers it to the dodecarchy which intervened between the reigns 
 of Sethos and Psammetichus. Cocceius makes fitil? agree with something 
 understood (dominorum gravis dominationis), and refers to examples of a 
 similar construction in Ex. 28 : 17. Judg. 5 : 13. 1 Kings 7 : 42. 2 Kings 
 3:4. Most of the later writers are agreed in explaining B^ifc as a pluralis 
 majestaticus, elsewhere applied to individual men (2 Kings 42 : 30, 33. 
 2 Kings 2 : 3, 5, 16). The king here mentioned is identified, according to 
 their various hypotheses, by J. D. Michaelis with Sethos, by Grotius, Gese- 
 nius, and others with Psammetichus, by the Rabbins with Sennacherib, by 
 Hitzig and Hendewerk with Sargon, by Clericus with Nebuchadnezzar, by 
 Vitringa with Cambyses or Ochus, by Cocceius with Charlemagne. The 
 very multiplicity of these explanations shows how fanciful they are, and 
 naturally leads us to conclude, not with Ewald that the prophet is express- 
 ing mere conjectures or indefinite anticipations (reine Ahnung), but with 
 Calvin that he is describing in a general way the political vicissitudes of 
 Egypt, one of which would be subjection to an arbitrary power, whether 
 foreign or domestic, or to both at different periods of its history. 
 
 V. 5. And the ivaiers shall be dried up from the sea, and the river shall 
 fail and be dried up. Three distinct verbs are here used in the sense of 
 drying up, for which our language does not furnish equivalents. As the 
 
350 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 Nile has in all ages been called a sea by the Egyptians (Robinson's Pales- 
 tine, I. 542), most interpreters suppose it to be here referred to, in both 
 clauses. Gesenius and others understand the passage as foretelling a literal 
 failure of the irrigation upon which the fertility of Egypt depends. Vitrin- 
 ga, Knobel, and others, explain it as a figurative threatening of disorder and 
 calamity. Grotius supposes an allusion to the decay of the Egyptian com- 
 merce as conducted on the Nile and the adjacent seas ; Calvin to the loss 
 of the defence and military strength afforded by these waters. According 
 to the exegetical hypothesis laid down in the introduction to the chapter, 
 this is a prediction of Egypt's national decline and fall, clothed in figures 
 drawn from the characteristic features of its actual condition. As the deso- 
 lation of our own western territory might be poetically represented as the 
 drying up of the Mississippi and its branches, so a like event in the history 
 of Egypt would be still more naturally described as a desiccation of the Nile, 
 because that river is still more essential to the prosperity of the country 
 which it waters. In favour of this figurative exposition is the difficulty of 
 applying the description to particular historical events, and also the whole 
 tenor of the context, as will be more clearly seen hereafter. The Septua- 
 gint treats WV»a as an active form of nri&i, to drink, the Egyptians shall 
 drink water from the sea. Aquila makes it a passive from the same root, 
 shall be drunk up or absorbed. Hitzig derives it from nnttj, in the sense of 
 settling, subsiding, and so failing. Gesenius and most other writers make it 
 a derivative of rv^J. Junius understands this verse as relating to the diver- 
 sion of the waters of the Nile to form the lake Moeris, and Luzzatto propo- 
 ses to take &? as the name of the lake itself. By the drying up of the seas 
 and rivers, Cocceius understands the irruption of the Saracens and Turks 
 into Europe. 
 
 V. 6. And the rivers shall stirik (or become putrid), the streams of 
 Egypt are emptied and dried up, reed and rush sicken (pine or wither). 
 The streams meant are the natural and artificial branches of the Nile, 
 lif? is an Egyptian word meaning river, and is specially appropriated to the 
 Nile itself. The older writers take TiSE in its usual meaning of defence or 
 fortification, and understand the whole phrase as denoting either the moats 
 and ditches of fortified places, or walled reservoirs. The modern writers 
 regard lisa as the singular of &"n3tS, denoting either Lower Egypt or the 
 whole country indiscriminately. Ewald translates it Angslland, in allusion 
 to the supposed root TO or "nx, to press, ^n^Tsri is explained by the older 
 writers as meaning to depart or to be turned away, but is now commonly 
 understood to denote the stench or putrescence produced by the failure of 
 the Nile to fill its branches or canals. Gesenius explains it as a mixed form 
 compounded of the Chaldee and Hebrew Hiphil ; Ewald, Maurer, Hitzig, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 351 
 
 and Knobel, as a verb derived from an adjective nns, meaning fetid or pu- 
 trescent. The reed and rush are mentioned as a common growth in marshy 
 situations. The Septuagint makes P]iO mean the papyrus, Vitringa and 
 Low th the lotus. 
 
 V. 7. The meadows by the river, by the mouth of the river, and all the 
 sown ground of the river, shall wither, being driven away, and it is not (or 
 shall be no more). The Septuagint for KhJ has up which it elsewhere gives 
 as the equivalent of 'inst, an Egyptian word meaning, according to Jerome, 
 every thing green that grows in the marshes of the Nile. Luther, Calvin, 
 and others, explain it to mean grass. Gesenius derives it from fins to be 
 naked, and explains it to mean bare or open places, i. e. meadows, as distin- 
 guished from woodland. The English and some other versions treat it as 
 the name of the papyrus, but without authority. The English Version also 
 takes ij£ as a collective (brooks), and Barnes erroneously observes that the 
 Hebrew word is here in the plural number. It is the word already men- 
 tioned as the common name in Scripture for the Nile, nor is there any need 
 of departing from this sense in the case before us, by translating it canals, 
 as Lowth does. Calvin explains mouth to mean source or fountain, which 
 is wholly arbitrary. J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others, regard it as 
 synonymous with lip, used elsewhere (Gen. 41 : 3. Exod. 2: 3) to denote 
 the brink or margin of the Nile. Knobel gives the same sense to the He- 
 brew word in Prov. 8 : 29. Hendewerk and some of the older writers give 
 the word its geographical sense, as denoting the place where the waters of a 
 stream are discharged into another or the sea. SSJS is not produce (Hen- 
 derson), but a local noun meaning the place of seed or sowing, i. e. cultiva- 
 ted grounds, here distinguished from the meadows or uncultivated pastures. 
 5)^3 is commonly supposed to refer to the driving away of the withered and 
 pulverized herbage by the wind. The Vulgate seems to take rvhs as a 
 verb, and the first clause as describing the disclosure of the bed of the river 
 by the sinking of the water (nudabitur alveus rivi a fonte suo). The de- 
 cay of vegetation here predicted Cocceius explains to be the dying out of 
 Christianity in those parts of Europe conquered by the Saracens and 
 Turks. 
 
 V. 8. And the fishermen shall mourn, and they shall lament, all the 
 throwers of a hook into the river (Nile), and the spreaders of a net upon 
 the surface of the water languish. Having described the effect of the 
 drought on vegetation, he now describes its effect upon those classes of the 
 people who were otherwise dependent on the river for subsistence. The 
 multitude of fishes in the Nile, and of people engaged in catching them, is 
 attested both by ancient and modern writers. The use of fish in ancient 
 
352 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 Egypt was promoted by the popular superstitions with respect to other ani- 
 mals. The net is said to be not now used in the fisheries of Egypt. It is 
 remarkable, however, that the implement itself appears on some of the old 
 monuments. This verse is not to be applied to an actual distress among 
 the fishermen at any one time, but to be viewed as a characteristic trait in 
 the prophetic picture. When he speaks of a wine-growing country, as Cal- 
 vin well observes, the Prophet renders vineyards and vine-dressers promi- 
 nent objects. So here, when he speaks of a country abounding in fisheries 
 and fishermen, he describes their condition as an index or symbol of the 
 state of the country. In like manner, a general distress in our southern 
 states might be described as a distress among the sugar, cotton, or tobac- 
 co planters. By the fishermen of this verse, Cocceius understands the bish- 
 ops, archbishops and patriarchs, whose sees became subjected to the Mos- 
 lem domination, with sarcastic allusion to the seal of the fisherman by which 
 the pope authenticates his briefs. 
 
 V. 9. And ashamed (disappointed or confounded) are the workers of 
 combed (or hatchelled) flax, and (he weavers of white (stuffs). The older 
 writers supposed the class of persons here described to be the manufacturers 
 of nets for fishing, and took *mn in the sense of perforated open-work, or 
 net-work. The moderns understand the verse as having reference to the 
 working of flax and manufacture of linen. Knobel supposes *mn to mean 
 cotton, as being white by nature and before it is wrought. Some of the 
 older writers identified nip^a with sericum, the Latin word for silk. Calvin 
 supposes an allusion in the last clause to the diaphanous garments of luxu- 
 rious women. Cocceius applies the verse to those who would force all men 
 into one church or commonwealth, like fish collected in a net. 
 
 V. 10. And her pillars (or foundations) are broken down, all labour- 
 ers for hire are grieved at heart. Many of the older writers suppose the 
 allusion to the fisheries to be still continued, and arbitrarily make nintfj mean 
 nets and to fish. Others take niraj in the sense of looms or weavers, 
 and nsb r&S in that of brewers or makers of strong drink, which last inter- 
 pretation is as old as the Septuagint version (ol noiovvxzg zbv ty&ov). The 
 simplest exposition of the verse is that proposed by Gesenius and adopted 
 by most succeeding writers, which regards this as a general description of 
 distress extending to the two great classes of society, the pillars or chief men 
 and the labourers or commonalty. Hendewerk less naturally understands 
 by the Wflflti or foundations the agricultural class as distinguished from manu- 
 facturers and traders. All the late writers explain ^aaa, not as the plural 
 of MX, a pool, but of an adjective signifying sorrowful, from one of the 
 senses of the same root in Chaldee. This explanation of *HSM removes all 
 necessity and ground for taking to in any other than its usual sense. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 363 
 
 V. 11. Only foolish (i. e. entirely foolish) are the princes of Zoan, 
 (he sages of the counsellors of Pharaoh, (their) counsel is become brutish 
 (or irrational). How can ye say to Pharaoh, I am the son of wise (fathers), 
 I am the son of kings of old 1 The reference is not merely to perplexity 
 in actual distress, but also to an unwise policy as one of the causes of the 
 distress itself. The meaning of !}N is not for or surely, but only, nothing 
 else, exclusively. Zoan, the Tanis of the Greeks, was one of the most an- 
 cient cities of Lower Egypt (Num. 13: 22), and a royal residence. The 
 name is of Egyptian origin and signifies a low situation. Pharaoh was a 
 common title of the Egyptian kings. It is originally an Egyptian noun 
 with the article prefixed, ^znn cannot agree directly as an adjective with 
 w'^ (wise counsellors) — but must either be in apposition with it (the wise 
 men, counsellors of Pharaoh, 2 Kings 10 : 6) — or be understood as a su- 
 perlative (the wisest of the counsellors of Pharaoh). The statesmen and 
 courtiers of ancient Egypt belonged to the sacerdotal caste, from which 
 many of the kings were also taken. The wisdom of Egypt seems to have 
 been proverbial in the ancient world (I Kings 4: 30. Acts 7: 22). The 
 last clause is addressed to the counsellors themselves. The interrogation 
 implies the absurdity of their pretensions. The question is not, how can you 
 say this of Pharaoh (Luther), or how can you dictate this to Pharaoh, i. e. 
 put these words into his mouth (Junius), but how can you say it, each one 
 for himself? Hence the use of the singular number. ^Dba does not mean 
 sages or counsellors (Vitringa), but kings as elsewhere. Cocceius applies 
 the last clause to the popish claim of apostolical succession. His comment 
 on the first clause may be quoted as a characteristic specimen of his exege- 
 sis. ' Consilium certe stultum fuit in Belgio novos episcopatus instituere, 
 quod factum A. 1562. Eodem anno primum bellum civile religionis causa 
 motum est in Gallia, duce inde Francisco Guisio, hinc Ludovico Condaeo. 
 Exitus fuit ut regina religionis reformatae exercitium permitteret sequenti 
 anno 19 Martii. An principes Galliae per principes Tsoan intelligi pos- 
 sint, fortasse magis patebit ex v. 13.' 
 
 V. 12. Where (are) theyl Where (are) thy wise men? Pray let them 
 tell thee, and (if that is too much) let them (at least) know, what Jeho- 
 vah of Hosts hath purposed against (or concerning) Egypt. It was a proof 
 of their false pretensions that so far from being able to avert the evil, they 
 could not even foresee it. Knobel * thinks there may be an allusion to the 
 belief of the Egyptians, as recorded by Herodotus, that supernatural fore- 
 sight of the future is impossible, an article of faith which they could not 
 more devoutly hold than Knobel himself appears to do. &» is not an 
 adverb of time equivalent to nunc (Vulgate) or jam (Junius), but a particle 
 of exhortation or entreaty not unlike the Latin age (Cocceius). WJJ is 
 
 23 
 
354 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 not synonymous with *W (Sept. Vulg. Luther, Clericus, Augusti, Barnes) ; 
 nor does it mean inquire or investigate (Hitzig) ; nor is the true text VWh 
 (Seeker) ; but the word is to be taken in its usual sense with emphasis, 
 or let them even know, as well expressed by Calvin (aut etiam sciant) 
 and by Maurer (quin sciant). The repetition of the interrogative where is 
 highly emphatic, through neglect of which the expression is materially 
 weakened in the ancient versions and by Luther, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Hen- 
 derson, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit. The construction is assumed to be 
 subjunctive by Calvin (ut annuncient), relative by Junius (qui indicent), 
 conditional by J. H. Michaelis (wenn sie wissen), and 'indefinite by Gesen- 
 ius (dass man's erfahre) ; but the simple imperative, retained by Ewald, is at 
 once more exact and more expressive. The sense of bs is not upon but 
 either concerning or against. 
 
 V. 13. Infatuated are the chiefs of Zoan, deceived are the chiefs of 
 Noph, and they have misled Egypt, the corner (or corner-stone) of her 
 tribes. There is no need of supplying but at the beginning of the sentence 
 (Luther). The first verb does not mean to fail (Septuagint), or to act 
 lightly (Cocceius), or to act foolishly (Junius, Vitringa, Rosenmuller), but 
 to be rendered or become foolish (Vulgate), to be infatuated (Calvin). 
 The translation they are fools (DeWette) is correct but inadequate. Noph 
 is the Memphis of the Greek geographers, called Moph, Hos. 9 : 6. It was 
 one of the chief cities of ancient Egypt, the royal seat of Psammetichus. 
 After Alexandria was built it declined. Arabian writers in the twelfth and 
 thirteenth centuries speak of its extensive and magnificent ruins, which have 
 now almost wholly disappeared, 1K©3 is explained as if from »b3 to lift up, 
 by the Septuagint (vipoo&riouv), the Peshito and Cocceius (elati sunt). The 
 Vulgate renders it emarcuerunt. All others make it the passive of bt&JS, to 
 deceive. riss is not to be read rbs (Grotius), nor is it the object of the 
 preceding verb (Vulgate, J. H. Michaelis, Luther), nor governed by a pre- 
 position understood (Cocceius quoad angulum, Clericus in angulo), but 
 construed collectively with ^nrj (Calvin, Vitringa, Gesenius, etc.). It is a 
 figure not for the nomes (Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmuller), nor for the 
 noble families (Luther), nor for the wise men (Calvin) or the king (J. H. 
 Michaelis), but for the chief men of the different castes (Hitzig, Ewald). 
 Knobel conjectures that the military caste may have been predominant at 
 Memphis, as the sacerdotal was at Taflis. .The view which Cocceius takes 
 may be gathered from a single observation. ' Gallia et Belgium extremae 
 orae spiritualis Aegypti sunt.' 
 
 V. 14. Jehovah hath mingled in the midst of her a spirit of confusion, 
 and they have misled Egypt in all its work, like the misleading of a drunk- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 355 
 
 ard in his vomit. This verso describes the folly before mentioned as the 
 effect not of natural causes or of accident but of a judicial infliction. 7,0^5 
 may be either a preterite or a present, but not a future. It does not strictly 
 mean to pour out, but in usage is nearly equivalent, from its frequent appli- 
 cation to the mixing or preparation of strong drinks. (Vide supra, ch. 5: 
 22.) There is no need of reading oa-.p with Seeker, on the authority of 
 the ancient versions, which evidently treat the singular suffix as a collective. 
 The antecedent of the suffix is not nss (Hitzig) but ynx (Knobel). The 
 translation breast or bosom is too specific. Spirit here means a supernatu- 
 ral influence. WSJ* is not error or perverscness, but subversion, turning 
 upside down, and thence perplexity, confusion. It is strongly expressed by 
 the Vulgate (spiritum vertiginis) and by Luther (Schwindelgeist). The 
 plural *JtVi may possibly agree with 0W9, but it may be more naturally 
 construed with the Egyptians understood, or taken indefinitely, as equivalent 
 to a passive form, they have misled them, i. e. they have been misled. By 
 work we are here to understand affairs and interests. The masculine form 
 of the suffix here returns, with the usual reference to the national ancestor. 
 nirpn does not directly denote staggering, much less rolling or wallowing, 
 but the act of wandering from the straight course ; or, retaining the passive 
 form, that of being made to wander from it ; or, assuming the reflexive 
 sense of Niphal, that of making one's self to wander, leading one's self 
 astray. The same verb is elsewhere used in reference to the unsteady 
 motions of a drunken man (Job 12 : 25. Isai. 28 : 7). 
 
 V. 15. And there shall not be to Egypt a work which head and tail 
 branch and rush may do. i is neither for nor in, but to, as usual denoting 
 possession, Egypt shall not have. The translation shall not succeed or be 
 completed is not a version but a paraphrase of the original, m'ssb is not 
 merely a deed (Gesenius), much less a great deed (Hendewerk), nor does 
 it refer exclusively to the acts or occupations before mentioned ; but it 
 means any thing done or to be done, including private business and public 
 affairs. The figures of head and tail, branch and rush, are used, as in ch. 
 9 : 13, to denote all classes of society, or rather the extremes between 
 which the others are included. The Septuagint translates the last two 
 beginning and end. The Targum makes them all mean chiefs and rulers. 
 The Peshito, by a strange repetition and inversion, has head and tail, tail 
 and head. Cocceius thinks it easy to trace the fulfilment of this prophecy 
 in the history of Europe from 1590 to 1608. 
 
 V. 16. In that day shall Egypt be like women, and shall fear and 
 tremble from before the shaking of the hand of Jehovah of Hosts, which he 
 (is) shaking over it. The comparison in the first clause is a common one 
 
356 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 for terror and the loss of courage. *Mfq may be rendered on account of, 
 which idea is certainly included, but the true force of the original expression 
 is best retained by a literal translation, "p psnsn is not the act of beckoning 
 for the enemy, but that of threatening or preparing to strike. The reference 
 is not to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, but more generally to the 
 indications of divine displeasure. At this verse Hitzig supposes the forgery 
 of Onias to begin, but admits that it cannot be proved from the use of the 
 masculine suffix in reference to Egypt, which occurs several times in what 
 he assumes to be the genuine part of this very chapter, nor does it follow 
 from the repetition of the phrase in that day at the beginning of vs. 15, 18, 
 23, 24, as this formula occurs with equal frequency in the seventh chapter. 
 Knobel observes, moreover, that this verse and the next bear the same rela- 
 tion to v. 4 that vs. 11-15 do to vs. 1-3, and are therefore necessary to 
 complete the context. 
 
 V. 17. And the land ofJudah shall be for a terror (or become a terror) 
 unto Egypt, every person to whom one mentions it (or every one who recalls 
 it to his own mind) shall fear before the purpose of Jehovah of Hosts which 
 he is purposing against it. This verse relates, not to the destruction of 
 Sennacherib's army in Judah, nor to the approach of the Assyrians from 
 that quarter, nor to an attack upon Egypt by Judah itself, but to the new 
 feelings which would be entertained by the Egyptians towards the God of 
 the Jews and the true religion. Judah, in a political and military sense, 
 might still appear contemptible ; but in another aspect, and for other rea- 
 sons, it would be an object of respect and even fear to the Egyptians. A 
 different sense is put upon the verse by Schultens, J. D. Michaelis, and 
 Dathe, who take K»n in the sense of refuge, deduced from an Arabic analo- 
 gy. V&S is referred by some interpreters to Judah, but the change of gen- 
 der renders it more probable that it relates to Egypt. The sense will then 
 be that the knowledge of God's purpose against Egypt will dispose its in- 
 habitants to look with awe upon the chosen people. There is no need of 
 taking Wjfc with Hendewerk in the strict sense of soil or ground as distin- 
 guished from the people. "hVk is not to be construed with ^ins? but with 
 i^sn. This last verb Ewald takes in the strict sense of causing to remem- 
 ber or recalling to mind ; most other writers in the secondary but more 
 usual sense of mentioning. According to Cocceius, the Judah of this verse 
 is the northern part of Europe, in which the Reformation was successfully 
 established, and which holds the same relative position with respect to the 
 unreformed regions, that Judea occupied in reference to Egypt. 
 
 V. 18. In that day there shall be Jive cities in the land of Egypt speak- 
 ing the lip (i. e. language) of Canaan, and swearing to Jehovah of Hosts. 
 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 357 
 
 The city of destruction shall be said to one (i. e. shall one bo called). 
 In that day, according to prophetic usage, is a somewhat indefinite expres- 
 sion, and may either mean during or after the distresses just described. Ca- 
 naan is here put for the land of Canaan (as in Ex. 15: 15) and the lan- 
 guage of Canaan for the Hebrew language, not because it was the lan- 
 guage of the old Canaanites, but because it was spoken in the land which 
 they once occupied. Some of the later writers understand what is here 
 said strictly as denoting an actual prevalence of the Hebrew language, while 
 others take it as a strong expression for such intimate union, social, commer- 
 cial, and political, as would seem to imply a community of language. The 
 older writers very generally apply the terms to religious union and com- 
 munion. Calvin explains lip or language as a figure for confession or pro- 
 fession, and the speaking of the language of Canaan for a public profession 
 of the true religion. Vitringa gains the same end by a reference to the 
 phrase speaking the same things, used in the New Testament to signify con- 
 formity of feeling and opinion. (See 1 Cor. 1 : 10.) He also admits the 
 possibility of an allusion to the dialect of saints or believers as distinguished 
 from that of the world, and to the study of the literal Hebrew as promoted 
 by the spread of the true religion. Cocceius and some others understand 
 directly by the use of the language of Canaan, the study of the Bible 
 or rather the reception and promulgation of its doctrines. The simplest 
 interpretation of the phrase is, that in itself it denotes intimate intercourse 
 and union generally, but that the idea of religious unity is here suggested by 
 the context and especially by the following clause. Many interpreters 
 appear to regard the phrases swearing by and swearing to as perfectly synony- 
 mous. The former act does certainly imply the recognition of the deity by 
 whom one swears, especially if oaths be regarded as they are in Scripture 
 as solemn acts of religious worship. But the phrase swearing to conveys 
 the additional idea of doing homage and acknowledging a sovereign by 
 swearing fealty or allegiance to him. This is the only meaning that the 
 words can bear in 2 Chr. 15: 14, and in Isai. 45: 23 the two phrases 
 seem to be very clearly distinguished. The distinction intended in Zeph. 
 1 : 5 is not so clear. The act of thus professing the true faith and submit- 
 ting to the true Cod is ascribed in the verse before us to five towns or cities. 
 Of this phrase there are three distinct interpretations. Gesenius, Ewald, 
 Knobel, and others, understand five as a round or indefinite number, 
 meaning few or many, and derived either from Egyptian usage (Gen. 43 : 
 34. 45: ^2. 47 : 2), or from the practice of counting on the fingers. Thus 
 understood, the .sense is simply that a number of cities shall do so and so. 
 Another class of writers understand the words strictly as denoting five and 
 neither more nor less. The five cities meant are supposed by Vitringa to be 
 Heliopolis, Memphis, Sais, Bubastus, Alexandria ; by Clericus, Migdol, 
 
358 ISAIAH, CHAP. XTX 
 
 Tahpanhes, Memphis, Heliopolis, and one in Pathros, probably No-ammon 
 or Diospolis ; by Hitzig the same, except the last, for which he substitutes 
 Leontopolis ; by Hendewerk, the five cities of the Philistines, which he 
 supposes to be here considered as belonging to Egypt. Among the five 
 cities perhaps referred to, Barnes includes Pathros or Thebais, which was 
 not a city at all. A third interpretation understands the words as expres- 
 sive not of absolute number but proportion ; five out of the twenty thousand 
 cities which Herodotus says Egypt contained ; or out of the one thousand 
 which Calvin thinks a more reasonable estimate ; or five out of ten, i. e. one 
 half; or five out of six, which is Calvin's own interpretation. The objec- 
 tion to the first or indefinite construction is the want of any clear example 
 of this number being used in that way without something in the context to 
 afford a standard of comparison. (See Lev. 26 : 8. 1 Cor. 14 : 19.) The 
 objection to the second or absolute construction is the impossibility of fixing 
 certainly what five are meant, or of tracing the fulfilment of so definite a 
 prophecy, or even of ascertaining from the context any reason why just five 
 should be distinguished in this manner. Of the third class or relative con- 
 structions, that of Calvin is to be preferred, because the others arbitrarily 
 assume a standard of comparison (twenty thousand, ten thousand, ten etc.), 
 whereas this hypothesis finds it in the verse itself, Jive professing the true 
 religion to one rejecting it. Most of the other interpretations understand 
 the one to be included in the five, as if he had said one of them. As rnub 
 admits either of these senses, or rather applications, the question must de- 
 pend upon the meaning given to the rest of the clause. Even on Calvin's 
 hypothesis, however, the proportion indicated need not be taken with mathe- 
 matical precision. What appears to be meant is that five-sixths, i. e. a very 
 large proportion, shall profess the true religion, while the remaining sixth 
 persists in unbelief. It shall be said to one, i. e. one shall be addressed as 
 follows, or called by the following name. This periphrasis is common in 
 Isaiah, but is never applied, as Gesenius observes, to the actual appellation, 
 but always to a description or symbolical title. (See Isai. 4:3. 61 : 6. 
 62 : 4.) This may be urged as an argument against the explanation of b^rtn 
 as a proper name. The Hebrew form is retained in the Complutensian text of 
 the Septuagint Q.4fiQ*S)i by Theodotion and Aquila fyfqif), by the Peshito 
 (uojci), and by Luther (Irheres). Sixteen manuscripts and several editions 
 read binn, and this is adopted as the true text by most of the modern 
 writers. It is also supposed to be confirmed by the Greek form 'Axtoeg 
 above quoted. Jerome compares it with bn»l a potsherd, and refers to the 
 town which the Greeks called 'OcTQaxivrj (i. e. earthen). Others suppose 
 an allusion to Tahpanes, the brick-kilns of which are mentioned Jer. 43 : 9. 
 Gesenius, in his Commentary, derives the meaning of the name from the 
 Arabic 11*3-2* and renders it deliverance (Errettung). Ewald, with reference 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 359 
 
 to the same root, renders it fortune or happiness (Gluckstadt). But most 
 of those who adopt this reading give to o*n the sense of sun, which it has 
 in several places (Judg. 8: 13. 14: 18. Job 9: 7), and regard the whole 
 phrase as equivalent to the Hebrew Bcthshemesk (dwelling of the sun) and 
 the Greek Heliopolis (city of the sun), the name of a famous town of Lower 
 Egypt, in the Heliopolitan Nome, so called from it. In this nome, Onias, 
 a fugitive priest from Palestine, about 150 years before Christ, prevailed 
 upon Ptolemy Philometor to erect a temple for the Jews of Egypt, an event 
 which some suppose to be predicted here. The exact site of this temple, 
 although in the nome just mentioned, was at Leontopolis (or city of the 
 lion), and this name also has been found by some interpreters in the predic- 
 tion. J. D. Michaelis and Dathe, following a suggestion made by Iken, 
 identify the common reading Din with the Arabic /j*^. But this has 
 been shown by later writers to be merely a poetical epithet of the lion, de- 
 noting its voracity. Rosenmiiller, in his larger Scholia, agrees with Hezel 
 in explaining Din from the Syriac analogy as signifying safety or salvation. 
 But Gesenius has shown that there is no such Syriac word, and that the 
 Syriac writers quoted merely give conjectural explanations of the Hebrew 
 word before us. Rosenmiiller, therefore, in the Compendium of his Scho- 
 lia, adopts Gesenius's interpretation given above, while Gesenius himself, 
 in his Thesaurus, adopts that of Vitringa and the Vulgate (civitas solis). 
 This is also given by Hitzig, who identifies Din the sun with Din a scab 
 (Deut. 28: 27), the disk of the former being so called on account of its 
 scratched, scraped, or smoothed appearance, an etymological deduction of 
 which Umbreit gravely signifies his approbation. All the interpretations which 
 have now been mentioned either depart from the common text or explain it by 
 some forced or foreign analogy. If, however, we proceed upon the only safe 
 principle of adhering to the common text and to Hebrew usage, without the 
 strongest reasons for abandoning either or both, no explanation of the name 
 can be so satisfactory as that given by Calvin (civitas desolationis) and 
 the English Version (city of destruction). It is very remarkable that both the 
 readings (oin and Din) appear to be combined in the Chaldee Paraphrase: 
 1 the city of Bethshemesh (i. e. Heliopolis), which is to be destroyed. ' This 
 would seem to imply that the text or the meaning of the word was already 
 doubtful and disputed at the date of that old version. It has been objected 
 to the common reading and the sense just put upon it, that a threatening of 
 destruction would here be out of place. But on Calvin's hypothesis, there 
 is a promise of salvation to five-sixths. It is also a favourite idea with some 
 writers, that the text was corrupted by the Jews of Palestine, in order 
 to convert what seemed at least to be an explicit prediction of the tem- 
 ple of Onias into a threatening of its destruction. To the same source 
 some ascribe the reading Dinn which is found in a few manuscripts. On 
 
360 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 the other hand, the common text of the Septuagint version has aoedex 
 (pnsn), which is supposed to have been introduced (from ch. 1 : 26) by 
 the Egyptian Jews in order to put honour on their temple. Even this, 
 however, is pressed into the service of other hypotheses by Iken, who iden- 
 tifies aasdh with an Arabic word used by the poets in describing the appear- 
 ance of a lion, and by Le Moyne, who argues from Mai. 3 : 20, that p'ns 
 and np"is were applied to the sun. Thus the same blunder of the Seventy 
 is made to prove that the Hebrew word means Heliopolis and Leontopolis. 
 Hitzig, as we have seen already, looks upon this whole passage from the 
 sixteenth verse as a fabrication of Onias, intended to facilitate the rearing 
 of his temple. But in that case he would surely have made it more explicit, 
 or at least have prevented its conversion into an anathema against himself. 
 It is not even true that he interpreted this clause as pointing out the place 
 for the erection, as alleged by Lowth and others after him. Josephus merely 
 says that he appealed to the prediction of an altar to Jehovah in the land of 
 Egypt, which would hardly have contented him if he had understood the 
 verse before us as expressly naming either Heliopolis or Leontopolis. These 
 facts, when taken in connexion with the usage of b •rapt* already stated, make 
 it altogether probable that G^nri w is not a proper name but a descriptive 
 and prophetic title, meaning (in accordance with the constant usage of the 
 verb D^ri) the city of destruction. Kimchi, who puts this sense upon the 
 words, but is puzzled by the threatening against one of the five towns, as he 
 supposes it to be, absurdly makes the words to mean that the five cities 
 would be so devoted to the true religion that if either of them should apos- 
 tatize the others would destroy it. Scarcely more natural is the explanation 
 of the words by Junius and Tremellius, as meaning a city almost destroyed 
 or saved from destruction. Schmidius more ingeniously evades the difficulty 
 by taking Sntt in an active sense, a city of destruction i. e. to its enemies or 
 those of the true religion. Both the hypotheses last mentioned give to nns< 
 the distributive sense of each or every one, which it sometimes derives from 
 repetition or the context. (See Ezek. 1 : 6.) Hendewerk, who supposes the 
 five towns of the Philistines to be meant, understands this as a prophecy that 
 one of them (Ashdod) should be destroyed but afterwards rebuilt, with an 
 allusion to the derivation of the name from *n«i to destroy. But of all the 
 explanations of the common text, the simplest is the one proposed by Calvin, 
 which supposes the whole verse to mean that for one town which shall perish 
 in its unbelief five shall profess the true faith and swear fealty to Jehovah. 
 The simplicity of this interpretation, and its strict agreement with the general 
 tenor of the passage as a prophetic picture of great changes in the state of 
 Egypt, serve at the same time to commend the common reading as the true 
 one. By the five cities Cocceius understands the five states in which the 
 Reformation was permanently established (Great Britain, Denmark, Swe- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 361 
 
 den, Holland, and northern Germany), and by desolation or destruction 
 what they subsequently suffered by war and otherwise from the popish 
 powers. 
 
 V. 1 9. In that day there shall be an altar to Jehovah in the midst of 
 the land of Egypt, and a pillar at (or near) its border to Jehovah. It has 
 been disputed whether we are here to understand an altar for sacrifice or 
 an altar to serve as a memorial (Josh. 22 : 26, 27). It has also been dis- 
 puted whether the prohibition of altars and consecrated pillars (Lev. 26: 1. 
 Deut. 12: 5. 16: 22) was applicable only to the Jews or to Palestine, 
 leaving foreign Jews or proselytes at liberty to rear these sacred structures 
 as the Patriarchs did of old (Gen. 28: 18. 35: 14). The necessity of 
 answering these questions is removed by a just view of the passage, as pre- 
 dicting the prevalence of the true religion and the practice of its rites, in 
 language borrowed from the Mosaic or rather from the patriarchal institu- 
 tions. As we might now speak of a missionary pitching his tent at Hebron 
 or at Shechem, without intending to describe the precise form of his hab- 
 itation, so the Prophet represents the converts to the true faith as erect- 
 ing an altar and a pillar to the Lord in Egypt, as Abraham and Jacob 
 did of old in Canaan. A still more exact illustration is afforded by the 
 frequent use among ourselves of the word altar to denote the practice of 
 devotion, especially in families. There is a double propriety and beauty 
 in the use of the word nnatE, because while it instantly recalls to mind the 
 patriarchal practice, it is at the same time finely descriptive of the obelisk, 
 an object so characteristic of Egypt that it may be regarded as its emblem. 
 Both the obelisk and the patriarchal pillar, being never in the human form, 
 are to be carefully distinguished from statues or images, although the latter 
 word is sometimes used to represent the Hebrew one in the English Version. 
 (See 2 Kings 3:2. 10: 26. Mic. 5: 13.) Those explanations of the 
 verse which suppose the altar and the pillar, or the centre and the border of 
 the land, to be contrasted, are equally at variance with good taste and the 
 usage of the language, which continually separates in parallel clauses words 
 and things which the reader is expected to combine. See an example of 
 this usage in the sixth verse of the preceding chapter. As the wintering of 
 the beasts and the summering of the birds are there intended to denote the 
 presence of both beasts and birds throughout the year, so here the altar in 
 the midst of the land and the pillar at its border denote altars and pillars 
 through its whole extent. This is much more natural than Ewald's suppo- 
 sition that the words are expressive of a gradual progress or extension of the 
 truth. 
 
 V. 20. And it shall be for a sign and for a testimony to Jehovah of 
 Hosts in the land of Egypt, that they shall cry to Jehovah from the pres- 
 
362 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 ence of oppressors, and he will send them a deliverer and a mighty one and 
 save them. The older writers for the most part construe r\*r\) with what 
 goes before : ' and it (or they) shall be etc.' In that case we must either 
 suppose an enallage of gender (so as to make trappq the subject of the verb) 
 or an enallage of number (so as to construe it with both the nouns), or else 
 refer it to the remoter antecedent nato. Any of these constructions would 
 be admissible if absolutely necessary ; but in the case before us they are all 
 superseded by a simpler one now commonly adopted. This refers hjni not 
 at all to what precedes but to what follows, taking 19 in its proper sense of 
 on, that. * This shall be a sign and a witness to (i. e. with respect to, in 
 behalf of) Jehovah in the land of Egypt, viz. that when they cry etc.' He 
 will afford a providential testimony in behalf of his own being, presence, and 
 supremacy, by saving those who cry to him. Those who refer rwi to what 
 goes before either take the other verbs in the past tense (a sign and a tes- 
 timony that they cried), which is entirely arbitrary, or give to ^a its usual 
 sense of for, because (for they shall cry), in which case the connexion is 
 not obvious between their crying and the altar's being a sign and witness for 
 Jehovah. Even then, however, we may understand the Prophet to mean 
 that wlien they cry at the altar of Jehovah, he will answer and deliver 
 them, and thus the altar will bear witness to him. But as nothing is said 
 of crying at the altar, the other construction is to be preferred, which makes 
 the hearing of their prayers and their deliverance from suffering the sign and 
 witness in behalf of Jehovah, a 1 ] may be either an adjective meaning great 
 or the participle of ari to strive, especially at law, and then to plead the 
 cause or take the part of any one, the participle of which might well be 
 used to signify an advocate, patron, or defender. Calvin and others, adopt- 
 ing the former explanation of the word (salvatorem et principem), apply it 
 to Christ. Vitringa, laying stress upon the word as meaning great, regards 
 it as a proof that the deliverer here mentioned was Alexander the Great, or 
 his Egyptian successor Ptolemy, also called the Great and (by a singular 
 coincidence) Soter or the Saviour. The whole force of this ingenious com- 
 bination lies in the explanation of 2ft as an adjective. It cannot, therefore, 
 be consistently maintained by those who adopt the other supposition, as 
 Henderson does. Barnes also weakens the argument in favour of Vitringa's 
 exposition by exchanging great for powerful. The other explanation of 
 a^ as a participle is found in all the ancient versions, and is adopted by most 
 modern writers. It is also favoured by the fact that the adjective is usually 
 written a*i when not in pause, although some cases of the other pointing 
 do occur (e.g. Gen. 36: 7. Josh. 11:4), and Hitzig thinks the form here 
 sufficiently accounted for by the accompanying accent. As to the appli- 
 cation of the term in either case, besides that adopted by Vitringa and 
 others, may be mentioned the rabbinical opinion that it means the angel 
 
\ 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 363 
 
 who destroyed Sennacherib's army, and the opinion of some modern writers 
 that it denotes Psammetichus. A name, which admits of being plausibly 
 applied to things so far apart and unlike, may safely be regarded as generic in 
 its import. Even if the language of this verse by itself might seem to point 
 to a particular deliverer, the comprehensive language of the context would 
 forbid its reference to any such exclusively. If, as we have seen reason to 
 believe, the chapter is a prophecy not of a single event but of a great pro- 
 gressive change to be wrought in the condition of Egypt by the introduction 
 of the true religion, the promise of the verse before us must be that when 
 they cried God would send them a deliverer, a promise verified not once but 
 often, not by Ptolemy or Alexander only but by others, and in the highest 
 sense by Christ himself. The assertion, that the meaning of the prophecy 
 was exhausted by events before the advent, is as easily contradicted as 
 advanced. It is admitted that the rise of Alexander's power was contem- 
 poraneous with a great increase of Jewish population and Jewish influence 
 in Egypt, and also with a great improvement in the social and political 
 condition of the people. This was still more remarkably the case when 
 Christianity was introduced, and who shall say what is yet to be witnessed 
 and experienced in Egypt under the influence of this same gospel ? In the 
 language of this verse there is an obvious allusion to the frequent statement 
 in the book of Judges, that the people cried to God and he raised them up 
 deliverers who saved them from their oppressors (Judg. 2 : 16. 3:9 etc.). 
 Cocceius applies these terms to the various deliverers who were raised up to 
 free the Reformed Church from its enemies. 
 
 V. 21 . And Jehovah shall be known to Egypt, and Egypt (or the Egyp- 
 tians) shall know Jehovah in that day, and shall serve (with) sacrifice and 
 offering, and shall vow a vow to Jehovah and perform it. This is not the 
 prediction of a new event, but a repetition in another form of the preceding 
 promise. The first clause may be understood as containing an emphatic 
 repetition, or r*iia may be taken in a reflexive sense as meaning he shall 
 make himself known, in which case each of the parties is the subject of an 
 active verb. The second clause is still but another variation of the same 
 idea. What is first described as the knowledge of the true God, is after- 
 wards represented as his service, the expressions being borrowed from the 
 ancient ritual. If the last clause be literally understood, we must either 
 regard it as an unfounded expectation of the Prophet which was never ful- 
 filled, or suppose that it relates to an express violation of the law of Moses, 
 or assume that the ancient rites and forms are hereafter to be re-established. 
 On the other hand, the figurative explanation is in perfect agreement with the 
 usage of both testaments and with the tenor of the prophecy itself. Bloody 
 and unbloody sacrifice is here combined with vows in order to express the 
 
364 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 
 
 totality of ritual services as a figure for those of a more spiritual nature. The 
 express mention of the Egyptians themselves as worshipping Jehovah shows 
 that they are also meant in the preceding verse, and not, as Hitzig imagines, 
 the Jews resident in Egypt, whose example and experience of God's favour 
 were to be the means of bringing those around them to the knowledge and 
 reception of the truth. Gesenius explains H*t3g as a synonyme of to, and 
 makes it govern the noun directly in the sense of performing or offering 
 sacrifice etc. Hitzig adopts the same construction, and moreover makes this 
 use of ^as symptomatic of a later writer. Hendewerk justly condemns this 
 reasoning as exceedingly unfair, when the common acceptation of the term 
 gives a perfectly good sense, and the absolute use of ins in the sense of serv- 
 ing God occurs elsewhere (Job 36: 11), and the same ellipsis in this very 
 chapter (v. 23). 
 
 V. 22. And Jehovah shall smite Egypt (or the Egyptians), smiting 
 and healing, and they shall return unto Jehovah, and he shall be entreated 
 of them and shall heal them. Here again the second clause contains no 
 advance upon the first, and the whole verse no advance upon the foregoing 
 context, but an iteration of the same idea in another form. This verse may 
 indeed be regarded as a recapitulation of the whole preceding prophecy, 
 consisting as it does of an extended threatening (vs. 1-17) followed by an 
 ample promise (vs. 18-21). As if he had said, thus will God smite Egypt 
 and then heal it. That great heathen power, with respect to which the 
 Jews so often sinned both by undue confidence and undue dread, was to be 
 broken and reduced ; but in exchange for this political decline, and partly 
 as a consequence of it, the Egyptians should experience benefits far greater 
 than they ever before knew. Thus would Jehovah smite and heal, or smite 
 but so as afterwards to heal, which seems to be the force of the reduplicated 
 verb. (See Ewald $ 540.) The meaning is not simply that the stroke 
 should be followed by healing, nor is it simply that the stroke should itself 
 possess a healing virtue ; but both ideas seem to be included. Returning 
 to Jehovah is a common figure for repentance and conversion, even in refer- 
 ence to the heathen. (See Psalm 22 : 28.) 
 
 V. 23. In that day there shall be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, 
 and Assyria shall come into Egypt and Egypt into Assyria, and Egyvt 
 (or the Egyptians) shall serve with Assyria. No translation will convey 
 the precise form of the original, in which the ancestral names d^nxa and 
 nws* are put not only for their descendants but for the countries which they 
 occupied. Thus in one clause we read of coming into B^Sfy while in the 
 next the same name is construed with a plural verb. No one, it is probable, 
 has ever yet maintained that a road was literally opened between Egypt 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 365 
 
 and Assyria, or that Isaiah expected it. All classes of interpreters agree 
 that the opening of the highway is a figure for easy, free, and intimate com- 
 munication. This unanimous admission of a metaphor in this place not only 
 shows that the same mode of interpretation is admissible in the other parts 
 of the same prophecy, but makes it highly probable that what is said of 
 altars and sacrifices is to be likewise so understood. The Chaldee Paraphrast 
 alone seems to have understood the second clause as having reference to 
 hostile communication. Some understand it as relating only to commercial 
 intercourse ; others confine it to religious union. But the same thing is true 
 here and in v. 18, that while the language itself denotes intimate connexion 
 and free intercourse in general, the context renders the idea of spiritual 
 union prominent. The last clause admits of two constructions, one of 
 which regards n« as the objective particle and understands the clause to 
 mean that the Egyptians shall serve the Assyrians ; the other makes ra a 
 preposition and explains the clause to mean that the Egyptians shall serve 
 (God) ivith the Assyrians, In favour of the first is the constant usage of 
 TSP with nil (Gen. 14:4. 27 : 40. 31:6. Ex. 14 : 12 etc.) and the unani- 
 mous agreement of the ancient versions. But the sense thus yielded is at 
 variance with the context, what precedes and follows being clearly expressive 
 of a union so complete and equal as to exclude the idea of subjection or 
 superiority. Some have attempted to evade this difficulty by attaching to 
 nss the sense of serving by benevolence (Gal. 5 : 13) or of simply treating 
 with respect or reverence. But even if this explanation of the word were 
 justified by usage, why should this deference be confined to one party 
 instead of being mutual, especially when what precedes and follows so em- 
 phatically expresses the idea of reciprocity ? In favour of the other con- 
 struction is the constant use of las to denote the service of Jehovah, and the 
 omission of the divine name after it, not only in Job 36: 11, but in v. 21 
 of this very chapter. For although the latter place admits, as we have 
 seen, of two interpretations, the very fact that the elliptical construction is 
 appropriate in both, and that no other sense but that of serving God is 
 equally appropriate to both, would seem to be decisive in favour of this 
 sense and this construction as the true one. Some understand the clause to 
 mean that the Egyptians should serve with the Assyrians in the same army 
 under the same leader, viz. Alexander the Great or his successors. But 
 na$ is nowhere absolutely used, if at all, in this modern military sense, which 
 is moreover wholly inadmissible in v. 21. The sense of serving God to- 
 gether is adopted by Luther and all the later German writers except Hitzig, 
 who agrees with Cocceius and the ancient versions. Some remove the 
 ambiguity by supplying the ellipsis, others by giving a specific meaning to 
 the verb, as Lowth (worship) and Ewald (huldigen). 
 
^ 
 
 366 ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX.' 
 
 V. 24. In that day shall Israel be a third with respect to Egypt and 
 Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth. The meaning obviously is 
 that Israel should be one of three or a party to a triple union, ri^biu there- 
 fore does not agree with ^snb? considered as a feminine noun, because in- 
 tended to denote not the country but the nation. This explanation, the one 
 suggested by Gesenius, is directly contrary to usage, which makes countries 
 feminine and nations masculine, as stated by Gesenius himself in his com- 
 ment on the next verse. Nor is it necessary to suppose a reference to rns> 
 or any other noun understood. " As the fractional numerals are all abstract 
 nouns, the feminine form of the ordinals is employed exclusively for their 
 representation." (Nordheimer <§> 627. Compare Gesenius <§> 96.) The 
 word therefore means a third part or one equal part out of three. The idea 
 meant to be conveyed, however, is not, as Cocceius supposes, merely that 
 of equality in magnitude or power, but also that of intimate conjunction, as 
 in the preceding verse. Blessing is here used in a comprehensive sense, as 
 denoting at the same time a source of blessing, a means of blessing, and an 
 object to be blessed. Luther supplies a preposition before it and a relative 
 after it (through the blessing which is in the midst of the earth). Knobel 
 simply supplies the verb of existence (blessing shall be in the midst etc.). 
 The simplest construction is to put it in apposition with bx-mr or rnVvto, 
 a blessing in the midst of the earth, which is equivalent to saying as a 
 blessing or (as Ewald has it) for a blessing in the midst of \he earth. The 
 restricted sense of land, whether understood to mean the land of Israel or 
 the land of the three united powers now reckoned as one, is not only arbi- 
 trary, i. e. assumed without necessity, but greatly impairs the strength of the 
 expressions. 
 
 V. 25. Which Jehovah of Hosts has blessed (or with which Jehovah of 
 Hosts has blessed it) saying, Blessed be my people Egypt, and the work of 
 my hands Assyria, and my heritage (or peculiar people) Israel. The perfect 
 union of the three great powers in the service of God and the enjoyment of 
 his favour is now expressed by a solemn benediction on the three, in which 
 language commonly applied to Israel exclusively is extended to Egypt and 
 Assyria. The force of the expressions would be much enhanced by the 
 habitual associations of a Jewish reader. It arises very much from the 
 surprise excited by the unexpected termination of the clauses. Instead of 
 Blessed be my people Israel, the formula is blessed be my people Egypt. 
 That the work of my hands does not merely mean my creature, or a creature 
 perfectly at my disposal, but my creature in a special and a spiritual sense, 
 the same in which God is said to be the maker or founder of Israel (Deut. 
 32 : 6. Isai. 43 : 6,1), is evident from this consideration, that the clause 
 would otherwise say nothing peculiar or distinctive of Assyria, as those 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XIX. 367 
 
 before and after it do of Egypt and Israel. Some writers understand the 
 last clause as still making I distinction in favour of Israel, as if he had said, 
 Egypt is indeed my people and A->\ri;i my handiwork, but Israel after all 
 and alone is my inheritance. The objections to this interpretation are, first, 
 that it is wholly arbitrary, that is, it assumes a peculiar emphasis in the 
 word inheritance which neither usage nor the context warrants ; and second- 
 ly, that it contradicts or makes unmeaning the varied and reiterated forms 
 of speech by which the Prophet had before expressed the ideas of equality 
 and union. Where his very object seems to be to represent the three united 
 powers as absolutely one in privilege, it cannot be supposed that he would 
 wind up by saying that they are not absolutely equal after all. Much less 
 is such a meaning to be put upon his words when there is nothing in the 
 words themselves to require or even authorize it. The correct view of the 
 verse seems to be this. In order to express once more and in the most 
 emphatic manner the admission of Egypt and Assyria to the privileges of 
 the chosen people, he selects three titles commonly bestowed upon the latter 
 exclusively, to wit, God^s people, the work of his hands, and his inheritance, 
 and these three he distributes to the three united powers without discrimina- 
 tion or invidious distinction. If this view of the matter be correct, the mean- 
 ing of the whole will be distorted by attaching any undue emphasis to the 
 concluding words. As to the application of the prophecy there are three 
 distinct opinions. One is that the Prophet here anticipates a state of peace 
 and international communion between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria in his own 
 times, which may or may not have been actually realized. Another is that 
 he predicts what actually did take place under the reign of Alexander and 
 the two great powers that succeeded him, viz. the Graeco-Syrian and Egyp- 
 tian monarchies, by which the true religion was protected and diffused and 
 the way prepared for the preaching of the gospel. A third is that Egypt 
 and Assyria are here named as the two great heathen powers known to the 
 Jews, whose country lay between them and was often the scene if not the sub- 
 ject of their contests, so that for ages they were commonly in league with the 
 one against the other. To describe these two great belligerent powers as at 
 peace with Israel and one another, was not only to foretell a most surprising 
 revolution in the state of the world, but to intimate at least a future change 
 in the relation of the Jews and Gentiles. When he goes still further and 
 describes these representatives of heathenism as received into the covenant 
 and sharing with the church of God its most distinctive titles, we have one 
 of the clearest and most striking predictions of the calling of the Gentiles 
 that the word of God contains. One advantage of this exposition is that 
 while it thus extends and elevates the scope of the prediction, it retains 
 unaltered whatever there may be of more specific prophecy or of coinci- 
 dence with history. If Alexander is referred to, and the spread of Judaism 
 
368 ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 
 
 under him and his successors, and the general pacification of the world and 
 progress of refinement, these are so many masterly strokes added to the great 
 prophetic picture ; but they cannot be extracted from it and made to consti- 
 tute a picture by themselves. As to the construction of the first clause, it 
 may be observed that most writers refer the relative pronoun to fiNft, or 
 give *rc&j the sense of for, because, but Ewald and Knobel make fwa the 
 antecedent — the blessing wherewith God has blessed it — as in Deut. 12:7. 
 15: 14. In either case, the suffix tens refers not to YWl as a masculine 
 because denoting people, but to Egypt, Assyria, and Israel, considered as a 
 single nation. The preterite form of the verb has reference to the benedic- 
 tion as preceding and occasioning the union just before described. When 
 Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are thus united, it will be because God has 
 already blessed them, saying, etc. There is therefore no necessity or ground 
 for an arbitrary change of the preterite into a future, nor even for evading 
 an exact translation by the substitution of the present form. How far the 
 early Jews were below the genuine spirit of the Prophecies may be gathered 
 from the fact that both the Septuagint and Targum make this a promise to 
 Israel exclusively, Assyria and Egypt being mentioned merely as the places 
 where they had experienced affliction. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 About the time of the Assyrian attack on Ashdod, the Prophet is directed 
 to walk naked and barefoot as a sign of the defeat and captivity of the Egyp- 
 tians and Ethiopians who were at war with Assyria. The first verse fixes the 
 date of this symbolical transaction ; the second contains the divine command 
 and the record of its execution ; the third and fourth explain the meaning 
 of the symbol ; the fifth and sixth predict its effect, or rather that of the 
 event which it prefigured. The questions which have been raised, as to 
 the date of the composition and the fulfilment of the prophecy, will be most 
 conveniently considered in the course of the detailed interpretation. It may 
 be added here, however, that Cocceius, with all other interpreters, applies 
 this chapter to the literal Egypt, but instead of admitting any inconsistency 
 between this hypothesis and that which supposes ch. 19 to relate to the 
 mystical Egypt, he ingeniously converts the juxtaposition into an argument 
 for his opinion, by alleging that the chapter now before us was added for 
 the very purpose of showing that the foregoing promises and threatenings 
 did not belong to the literal Egypt. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 369 
 
 V. 1. In the year of Tartan's coming to Ashdod, in Sargon king of 
 Assyria's sending him (i. e. when Sargon king of Assyria sent him), and he 
 fought with Ashdod (i. e. besieged it) and took it, Ashdod was one of the 
 five cities of the Philistines (Josh. 11 : 22. 15: 46. 1 Sam. 5: 1), consid- 
 ered on account of its strong fortifications (from which its name is supposed 
 to be derived) the key of Egypt, and therefore frequently attacked in the 
 wars between Egypt and Assyria. According to Herodotus, Psammetichus 
 besieged it twenty-nine years. This, if not an exaggeration, is the longest 
 siege in history, and probably took place after what is here recorded, to 
 recover Ashdod from Assyria. Its site is marked by a village still called 
 Esdud (Robinson's Palestine II. 368). The name of Sargon nowhere else 
 occurs. Tartan appears again as a general under Sennacherib (2 Kings 
 18 : 17). From this Usher, Grotius, Lowth, and Doederlein infer that Sargon 
 and Sennacherib are one and the same person. According to Jerome, this 
 king had seven names ; according to Kimchi and the Talmud, eight. This 
 looks very much like a Jewish figment designed to render the alleged iden- 
 tity more probable. Marsham and J. D. Michaelis identify Sargon with 
 Esarhaddon ; Sanctius, Vitringa, and Eichhorn, with Shalmaneser. All 
 these suppositions are less probable than the obvious one, that Sargon was a 
 king of Assyria mentioned only here, because his reign was very short, and 
 this was the only occurrence that brought him into contact with the Jews. 
 That he was not the immediate successor of Sennacherib, is clear from ch. 
 37 : 38, and from the fact which seems to be implied in 2 Chr. 32 : 21, that 
 Tartan perished in the great catastrophe. The most plausible hypothesis, and 
 that now commonly adopted, is, that he reigned three or four years between 
 Shalmaneser and Sennacherib (according to Knobel's computation, from 
 718 to 715 B. C). It is said indeed in one of the Apocryphal books (Tob. 
 1:15) that Sennacherib was the son of Enemessar (i. e. Shalmaneser) ; but 
 even allowing more weight to this authority than it deserves, Sargon may 
 have been an elder brother. In the Vatican text of the Septuagint this 
 name is written *Aqva y in the Complutensian Naova, by Aquila and Theo- 
 dotion Haoayav. The immediate succession of these two kings readily 
 accounts for Tartan's being named as an officer of both, as Vitringa observes 
 that Abner served under Saul and Ishbosheth, and Benaiah under David 
 and Solomon. So the Duke of Wellington, in our day, has served under 
 four successive sovereigns. Nothing, therefore, can be proved in this way 
 as to the identity of Sargon and Sennacherib. Hendewerk even questions 
 the propriety of inferring that they reigned in immediate succession, on the 
 ground that Tartar like Rabshakeh and Rabsaris (2 Kings 18: 17), was 
 not a proper name but an official title. Hendewerk himself, however, 
 acquiesces in the common chronological hypothesis, although he questions 
 
 this mode of proving it. The name Tartan is written in the Alexandrian 
 
 24 
 
370 ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 
 
 text of the Septuagint Nd&av, in the Vatican Tavd&av. Here, as in ch. 
 6 : 1, it is disputed whether in the year of Tartan's coming means before or 
 after that occurrence. The truth is, it means neither, but leaves that ques- 
 tion undetermined, or at most to be determined by the context. Those 
 who refer the last two verses of the chapter to the Philistines, and suppose 
 the prophecy to have been intended to forewarn them of the issue of the 
 siege of Ashdod and of the folly of relying on Egyptian or Ethiopian aid 
 against Assyria, must of course assume that this symbolical transaction took 
 place before the arrival of Tartan, or at least before the end of the siege. 
 Those, on the other hand, who suppose it to refer to the Jews themselves, 
 find it more natural to assume that the prophecy was uttered after the fall 
 of Ashdod. In this case, the recording of the prophecy may have been 
 contemporaneous with its publication. In the other case, we must suppose 
 it to have been reduced to writing after the event. Here, as in ch. 7 : 1-16, 
 Gesenius infers from the use of the third person, that the chapter was not 
 written by Isaiah himself, but by a scribe or amanuensis. Here too, as in 
 ch. 7:1, Ewald regards the last clause as a parenthetical anticipation, and 
 the next verse as continuing the narrative directly. As if he had said : f in 
 the year that Tartan came to Ashdod (which he besieged and finally took), 
 at that time etc' But this supposition is at least unnecessary. On the 
 change of construction from the infinitive to the future, and the collocation 
 of the subject and the object in the first clause, vide supra, ch. 5 : 24. 
 
 V. 2. At that time spake Jehovah by the hand of Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz, saying, Go, and thou shalt open (i. e. loose) the sackcloth from 
 upon thy loins, and thy shoe thou shalt pull off from upon thy foot. And 
 he did so, going naked and barefoot. Maimonides, Kimchi, Staudlin, and 
 Hendewerk, suppose this to have been done merely in vision. This suppo- 
 sition is not only altogether arbitrary, i. e. without any intimation in the 
 text, but is rendered more improbable by the expression and he did so, as 
 well as by the statement in the next verse that the act required was to be a 
 sign or symbol to the spectators, which certainly implies that it was really 
 exhibited. This supposition of an ideal exposure seems to have been 
 resorted to, in order to avoid the conclusion that the Prophet really appeared 
 before the people in a state of nudity. It is commonly agreed, however, 
 that this was not the case. The word naked is used to express partial 
 denudation in all languages. The examples quoted by Vitringa from 
 Seneca, Suetonius, and Aurelius Victor, have been copied or referred to by 
 •most later writers. As biblical examples, may be cited 1 Sam. 19: 24. 
 2 Sam. 6 : 20. Amos 2: 16. John 21 : 7. In the case before us, we may 
 either suppose that the pto was an upper garment which he threw en- 
 tirely off, or an inner garment which he opened by ungirding it, or a 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 371 
 
 girdle itself which he loosened and perhaps removed. Sackcloth was a 
 common mourning dress, and some suppose that Isaiah was now wearing it 
 in token of his grief for the exile of the ten tribes (Kimchi, Lightfoot). 
 Others understand it as an official or ascetic dress worn by the prophets 
 (Zech. 13: 4), as for instance by Elijah (2 Kings 1 : 8) and by John the 
 Baptist (Matt. 3: 4). Others again suppose that it is mentioned as a cheap 
 coarse dress worn by the Prophet in common with the humbler class of 
 people. The name p : r appears to have reference merely to the coarseness 
 of the texture ; but the cloth would seem to have been usually made of hair, 
 and, in later times at least, of a black colour (Rev. 6 : 12). The expression 
 by the hand denotes ministerial agency or intervention, and is often used in 
 reference to communications made to the people through the prophets. 
 (Ex.4: 13. 1 Sam. 16: 20. Jer. 37: 2.) So in this case, the divine 
 communication was really addressed to the people, though the words imme- 
 diately ensuing are addressed to the Prophet himself. There is no ground, 
 therefore, for suspecting, with Hendewerk, that the words 1*2 etc. were 
 interpolated afterwards as an explanatory gloss, or for assuming, with Gese- 
 nius, that *ns is here used like a corresponding phrase in Arabic to mean 
 before or in the presence of, as some suppose it does in 1 Sam. 21: 14 
 and Job 15: 27. It is not even necessary to suppose that the phrase has 
 exclusive reference to the symbolical action. Gill ; " he spoke by him by 
 the sign he used according to his order, and he spoke to him to use the sign." 
 The simplest and most natural solution is, that what was said to the Prophet 
 was obviously said through him to the people. Above thirty manuscripts 
 and several editions read ybn in the plural, but of course without a change 
 of meaning. 
 
 V. 3. And Jehovah said, As my servant Isaiah hath gone naked and 
 barefoot three years a sign and symbol concerning Egypt and concerning 
 Ethiopia. Here begins the divine explanation of the symbolical act before 
 commanded. Although the design of this transaction was to draw attention 
 by exciting surprise, reia does not merely mean a wonder, but a portent or 
 extraordinary premonition, b? might here be taken in the more specific 
 sense of against, but the more general meaning is sufficient and agrees well 
 with the context. Cush has been variously explained to mean a part of 
 Arabia on the coast of the Red Sea (Bochart), or this part of Arabia with 
 the opposite part of Africa (Vitringa) ; but the latest authorities confirm the 
 ancient explanation of the word as meaning Ethiopia. In the prophecies 
 belonging to the reign of Hezekiah, Egypt and Ethiopia are frequently com- 
 bined, either because they were in close alliance, or because an Ethiopian 
 dynasty then reigned in Upper Egypt. It has been a question with inter- 
 preters whether the words three years are to be connected with what follows 
 
372 ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 
 
 or what goes before. The Septuagint gives both solutions by repeating tqik 
 ttrj. The masoretic interpunction throws the words into the second clause? 
 three years a sign etc. This construction is adopted by some modern writers 
 for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that Isaiah walked naked and bare- 
 foot for the space of three years, which is certainly the obvious and prima 
 facie meaning of the words. Those who adhere to the masoretic accents, 
 understand the second clause to mean a three years' sign and wonder, i. e, 
 either a sign of something to occur in three years or to continue three years, 
 or a sign for three years of a subsequent event. Those who connect three 
 years with what precedes either understand the language strictly as denoting 
 that the Prophet continued to go naked and barefoot for that space of time, 
 or palliate the harshness of this supposition by assuming that he only 
 appeared thus when he went abroad, or at certain set times, or occasionally. 
 The most improbable hypothesis of all is that of a transposition in the text, 
 WW D^ia t&V for epsd cfctJ aix (Gesenius), unless the preference be due to 
 that of Lowth, that the original reading was three days, or to that of Vitringa, 
 that three days was meant to be supplied by the reader. On the whole, the 
 simplest and most satisfactory solution is that proposed by Hitzig, who sup- 
 poses the Prophet to have exposed himself but once in the way described, 
 after which he continued to be a sign and wonder for three years, i. e. till 
 the fulfilment of the prophecy. This explanation avoids the difficulty as to 
 the three years' exposure, and at the same time adheres to the masoretic 
 interpunction. The three years have been variously understood, as the 
 duration of the siege of Ashdod, as the duration of the exile threatened in 
 the next verse, and as the interval which should elapse between the prophecy 
 and its fulfilment. Of these three hypotheses the second is the least proba- 
 ble, while the first and third may be combined. 
 
 V. 4. So shall the king of Assyria lead the captivity (i. e. the captives) 
 of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot 7 
 with their buttocks uncovered, the nakedness (or disgrace) of Egypt. This 
 verse completes the comparison begun in that before it. arna is commonly 
 applied to flocks and herds, and like the Latin ago, corresponds both to lead 
 and drive in English. Our language does not furnish two equivalents to 
 ^nb and Mba as abstract nouns, exile being never used as a collective for 
 exiles. The sense of the original is expressed, with a change of form, in 
 the English Version (the Egyptians prisoners and the Ethiopians captives), 
 and by Luther (das gefangene Egypten und vertriebene Mohrenland). The 
 phrase & n ?|5n D*nS3 is not meant to exclude men in the prime of life because 
 already slain in battle (Musculus), but comprehends all ages. It is clear 
 from this verse that Isaiah's exposure did not prefigure the spoliation of the 
 Egyptians (Barnes), but their personal captivity. It is also clear from a 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 373 
 
 comparison of the type and antitype, that the nakedness of v. 2 was a par- 
 tial one, since captives were not commonly reduced to a state of absolute 
 nudity. This is confirmed by the addition of the word barefoot in both 
 cases, which would be superfluous if naked had its strictest sense. The 
 last clause is separately construed by Ewald : they who are thus uncovered 
 are the shame of Egypt. Other interpreters continue the construction from 
 the previous clause, rnr is not to be taken in its strict sense, as in appo- 
 sition with the phrase before it, but in its secondary sense of shame or igno- 
 miny, with or without a preposition understood. The omission of Ethiopia 
 in this last clause is no ground for supposing it to be interpolated in the other 
 (Hitzig), nor is there an allusion to the greater sensitiveness of the Egyp- 
 tians (Vitringa). The omission is, so to speak, an accidental one, i. e. 
 without design or meaning. Even Hendewerk exclaims against the tasteless 
 and unmeaning maxim, that a writer who repeats his own expressions must 
 do it with servile exactness, or be suspected of some deep design in the 
 omission. Connected as Egypt and Ethiopia were in fact and in the fore- 
 going context, either name includes the other. The Icing of Assyria here 
 meant is neither Nebuchadnezzar (Cocceius), nor Esarhaddon, nor Shalma- 
 neser ; but either Sennacherib or Sargon himself. The modern German 
 writers suppose this prediction to have been fulfilled in the conquest of No- 
 Ammon (i. e. Diospolis or Thebes) mentioned in Nah. 3 : 8 as a recent 
 event. How long beforehand the prediction was uttered, is a question of 
 small moment and one which cannot be decided. There is no ground, 
 however, for the supposition that the interval was so short as to convert the 
 prophecy into a mere conjecture or an act of sagacious forecast. Equally 
 vain are the attempts to determine whether the king of Assyria remained at 
 home during the siege of Ashdod, or was then engaged in his attack upon 
 Egypt. The chronological hypotheses of Usher, Marsham, and Vitringa, 
 all assume that Sargon was identical either with Shalmaneser, Esarhaddon, 
 or Sennacherib, wim is explained by Jarchi as a singular with a supernu- 
 merary syllable, by Kimchi and Gesenius as an old form of the plural abso- 
 lute, by Ewald as an old form of the plural construct. On the construction 
 with the following noun, vide supra, ch. 1:4. 3 : 16. 
 
 V. 5. And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expecta- 
 tion and of Egypt their boast. This is the effect to be produced by the 
 catastrophe just threatened. Both the Hebrew verbs take ft after them, as 
 afraid and ashamed take of in English ; but the full sense of Wl is that 
 they shall be confounded, filled with consternation, at the fate of those in 
 whom they trusted for deliverance. »lq is that to which they look for help. 
 It is used in the same sense Zech. 9 : 5. According to Hitzig, 1:2^2 properly 
 belongs to ff^JR, but was taken from it to be joined with the interpolated 
 
374 ISAIAH, CHAP. XX. 
 
 sfos, its place being supplied by the inappropriate word rnKtfc. Knobel, 
 on the contrary, sees a peculiar beauty in the distinction between Ethiopia, 
 to which they merely looked for help,^ and Egypt, from which they had 
 formerly received it, and in which they therefore gloried. The verbs in this 
 verse are indefinite. Some refer them to the Philistines, others to the Jews, 
 and a third class to an Egyptian faction in Jerusalem. These are mere 
 conjectures, nor can any thing more be ascertained from the intentionally 
 vague terms of the text. That the words refer to the Philistines, is inferred 
 from the mention of the siege of Ashdod in the first verse. But this is by 
 no means a necessary inference, since Ashdod was attacked and taken, not 
 as a town of the Philistines, but as a frontier post of great importance to 
 both parties in the war. So far then as the Jews were interested in the war 
 at all, they were interested in the fate of Ashdod, and the mention of this 
 siege as one of the principal events of the campaign is altogether natural. 
 In favour of the reference to Judah may be also urged the want of any clear 
 example in Isaiah of a prophecy exclusively intended for the warning or 
 instruction of a foreign power. In either case, the meaning of the verse is, 
 that they who had relied on Egypt and its ally Ethiopia for aid against 
 Assyria, whether Jews or Philistines or both, should be confounded at 
 beholding Egypt and Ethiopia themselves subdued. 
 
 V. 6. And the inhabitant of this isle (or coast) shall say in that day, 
 Behold, thus (or such) is our expectation, whither we fled for help, to be 
 delivered from the presence of the Icing of Assyria. And hoiv shall we 
 (ourselves) escape ? The disappointment described in the foregoing verse 
 is now expressed by those who felt it. The argument is one a fortiori. If 
 the protectors were subdued, what must become of the protected ? The 
 pronoun in the last clause is emphatic, as it usually is when not essential to 
 the sense. The Hebrew ^ has no exact equivalent in English. Three 
 distinct shades or gradations of meaning seem to be clearly marked in usage. 
 The first is that of land as opposed to water ; the second that of coast as- 
 opposed to inland ; the third that of island as opposed to mainland. The 
 last, although commonly expressed in most translations, is perhaps the least 
 frequent of the three. The word here denotes, not Lower Egypt or the 
 Delta of the Nile (Clericus), but the southeastern shore of the Mediterra- 
 nean, here called this coast, as Hendewerk observes, in order to distinguish 
 it from that coast, viz. Ethiopia and Egypt, which had just before been 
 mentioned. As to the extent of country meant to be included, nothing of 
 course can be determined from the word itself, which is designedly indefinite. 
 Hitzig, in accordance with his view of the whole prophecy, restricts the 
 application to the land of the Philistines, as the maritime tract in the south- 
 west of Palestine, adjacent to Egypt. Others with more probability regard 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 375 
 
 it as denoting Palestine itself, in the large modern sense, but with particular 
 reference to Judah. — Thus or such is our expectation i. e. this is the end 
 of it, you see what has become of it, you see the fate of that to which we 
 looked for help (''^~) ; how then can we ourselves (i5H2k) be delivered 
 or escape? See a similar expression 2 Kings 10: 4. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 As three of the verses of this chapter begin with the word R*ts» (vs. 1, 
 11, 13), it is now commonly supposed to consist of three distinct prophe- 
 cies. It is also agreed that the first of these (vs. 1-10) relates to the con- 
 quest of Babylon by the Medes and Persians; the second (vs. II, 12) 
 either to Edom or the Arabian tribe Dumah, and the third (vs. 13-17) 
 to another Arabian tribe or to Arabia in general. The second and third 
 of these divisions are admitted by the recent German writers to be genuine, 
 that is to say, composed by Isaiah himself, while the first is with almost 
 equal unanimity declared to be the product of a later age. This critical 
 judgment, as in other cases, is founded partly on alleged diversities of phrase- 
 ology, but chiefly on the wonderful coincidences with history both sacred 
 and profane, which could not be ascribed to Isaiah or to any contemporary 
 writer, without conceding the reality of prophetic inspiration. The princi- 
 ple involved in this decision is consistently carried out by Paulus, Eichhorn, 
 and Rosenmiiller, who regard the passage as an ex post facto prophecy, while 
 Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Evvald, Umbreit, and Knobel, arbitrarily reject 
 this supposition, and maintain that it was written just before the event, when 
 Isaiah, as a politician or a poet, could foresee what was to happen. Upon 
 this we may observe, first, that all such reasoning proceeds, not upon the 
 want of satisfactory evidence, but upon the impossibility of inspiration or 
 prophetic foresight, so that even supposing it to have existed, no proof could 
 establish it. There is nothing, therefore, in the reasoning of such writers to 
 shake the faith of any who do not hold their fundamental principle of unbe- 
 lief. In the next place, this hypothesis entirely fails to account for the minute 
 agreement of the prophecy with history in circumstantials, which must therefore 
 be explained away by forced constructions and interpretations. Taking the 
 language in its obvious meaning and excluding all gratuitous assumptions, 
 we shall be constrained to look upon this passage as one of the most striking 
 instances of strict agreement between prophecy and history. As to the re- 
 mainder of the chapter, while it cannot be denied that the connexion of the 
 
376 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 
 
 parts, and the meaning of each in itself, are exceedingly obscure, it may be 
 doubted whether there is sufficient ground for their entire separation as distinct 
 and independent prophecies. The extreme brevity, especially of the second 
 part (vs. 11, 12), makes this very dubious, and the doubt is strengthened by 
 the recurrence of the figure of a watchman in v. 1 1. The conclusion drawn 
 from the use of the word N'tsa rests upon the dubious assumption that it is to 
 be regarded as a formal title or inscription. It is worthy of remark, that 
 some of the same writers who reject these titles as no part of the text, ap- 
 peal to their authority in settling the division and arrangement of the chap- 
 ter. The truth is that this formula, in many cases, seems to indicate at 
 most the subdivisions of an unbroken context. In the case before us, as in 
 ch. 14 : 28, it is safer to assume the unity of the composition than rashly to 
 dismember it. However difficult it may be, therefore, to determine the con- 
 nexion of these parts, they may safely be regarded as composing one ob- 
 scure but continuous prediction. This is the less improbable because they 
 can all be brought into connexion, if not unity, by simply supposing 
 that the tribes or races, to which vs. 1 1—17 relate, were sharers with the 
 Jews in the Babylonian tyranny, and therefore interested in its downfall. 
 This hypothesis, it is true, is not susceptible of demonstration ; but it is 
 strongly recommended by the very fact that it explains the juxtaposition of 
 these prophecies, or rather entitles them to be considered one. 
 
 The first part of the prophecy opens with an emphatic intimation of its 
 alarming character, vs. 1-4. We have then a graphic representation of the 
 march of the Medes and Persians upon Babylon, vs. 5-9. This is followed 
 by a hint of the effect which this event would have upon the people of 
 Jehovah, v. 10. 
 
 The remainder of the chapter represents the neighbouring nations as in- 
 volved in the same sufferings with the Jews, but without any consolatory 
 promise of deliverance, vs. 11-17. 
 
 V. 1 . The burden of the desert of the sea. Like whirlwinds in the south, 
 as to rushing (or driving) , from the wilderness it comes, from a terrible land. 
 By the desert of the sea, Grotius understands the country of the Edomites, 
 extending to the Red Sea as it did in the days of Solomon (I Kings 9 : 26). 
 Other interpreters are agreed that the phrase is an enigmatical description 
 of Babylonia as a great plain (Gen. 11:1. Isai. 23 : 13), watered by a 
 great river which, like the Nile (ch. 19 : 5), is sometimes called a sea (ch. 
 27 : 1). This designation was the more appropriate because the plain of 
 Babylon, according to Herodotus, was often overflowed before Semiramis 
 took measures to prevent it, and Abydenus says expressly that it then had 
 the appearance of a sea. The threatened danger is compared to the ap- 
 proach of a tempest from the south, i. e. from the great Arabian desert, in 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 377 
 
 which quarter the most violent winds are elsewhere represented as prevailing. 
 ^ hefore epbn denotes relation in general, and indicates the point of the com- 
 parison. N3 is indefinite and may either be referred to the enemy or made 
 to agree with something or the like understood. As watt cannot be re- 
 ferred to the countries through which Cyrus passed, Knobel disregards the 
 accents and connects it with what goes before. ■ Like south-winds sweep- 
 ing from the wilderness, one comes (or they come) from a terrible land.' 
 This, however, is unnecessary, as the phrase "Ugftfq may be figurative and 
 refer to the foregoing comparison, as if he had said, they come as storms 
 come from the desert. 
 
 V. 2. A hard vision — it is revealed to me — the deceiver deceiving and 
 the spoiler spoiling — go up, oh Elam — besiege, oh Media — all sighing (or all 
 its sighing) I have made to cease. The first phrase of course means a vision 
 of severe and awful judgments. The feminine form of the noun is connected 
 with a masculine verb, as Henderson imagines, to intimate the dreadful na- 
 ture of the judgment threatened. It is hard to see how this end is attained by 
 an irregularity of syntax. Others regard it as a mere enallage, which is the 
 less probable, however, as the noun precedes the verb. Perhaps the simplest 
 explanation is that nan is indefinite and governs the preceding words, as if 
 he had said, a revelation has been made to me (consisting of) a grievous 
 vision. The older writers understand the next clause as a description of 
 the Babylonian tyranny, and give tata its usual meaning of a treacherous 
 dealer. The late writers apply the clause to the conquerors of Babylon, 
 and make Via nearly synonymous with ^tytt. But this sense of the word 
 cannot be justified by usage. Nor is it necessary, even if the clause be ap- 
 plied to Cyrus, since one of the terms may describe the stratagems of war as 
 the other does its violence. This is the more natural, as Babylon was ac- 
 tually taken by stratagem. Go up, i. e. against Babylon, either in reference 
 to its lofty defences (ch. 26 : 5), or according to a more general military 
 usage of the phrase. (Vide supra, ch. 7: 1.) The Medes and Per- 
 sians were united under Cyrus, but the latter are here named first, as 
 Knobel thinks, because they were now in the ascendant. The final letter of 
 nnn:i< is commonly regarded as a suffix, though without mappik, all its sigh- 
 ing, sc. Babylon's, i. e. all the sighing it has caused by its oppression, or 
 all the sighing of it, sc. the rv&a, or captivity. Some however make the let- 
 ter paragogic, and read all sighing, which amounts to the same thing, the 
 limitation which is expressed in one case being understood in the other. 
 Elam, a province of the Persian empire, is here put for the whole. Knobel 
 sees a designed paronomasia in the similar forms tab*** 1^5. 
 
 V. 3. Therefore my loins are filled with pain ; pangs have seized me 
 lilce the pangs of a travailing (woman) ; I writhe (or am convulsed) from 
 
378 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 
 
 hearing ; I am shocked (or agitated) from seeing. Some regard these as 
 the words of a captive Jew, or of a Babylonian ; but there is no objection 
 to explaining them as expressive of the Prophet's own emotions, a very- 
 common method of enhancing the description even of deserved and right- 
 eous judgments. The reduplicated form tfotfom is intensive. Lowth's 
 translation convulsed is perhaps too strong, as the common version bowed 
 down is too weak. The older writers give the ya a causal meaning, from, 
 i. e. by or on account of. The later writers make it privative, away from 
 hearing, i. e. so as not to hear. Ewald obtains the same sense by making 
 it comparative, too much confounded to hear, too much frightened to see. 
 
 V. 4. My heart wanders (reels, or is bewildered) ; horror appals me ; 
 the twilight (night or evening) of my pleasure (or desire) he has put for 
 (or converted into) fear (or trembling) for me. Compare the combination 
 22b 15*$] Ps. 95 : 10. There are two interpretations of the last clause. One 
 supposes it to mean that the night desired as a time of rest is changed into a 
 time of terror ; the other, that a night of festivity is changed into a night of 
 terror. As this last brings the prophecy into remarkable coincidence with 
 history, the modern Germans commonly prefer the former. That the court 
 was revelling when Cyrus took the city, is stated in the general by Herodotus 
 and Xenophon, and in full detail by Daniel. That the two first, however, did 
 not derive their information from the prophet, may be inferred from their not 
 mentioning the writing on the wall, which would have seemed incredible to 
 neither of them. 
 
 V. 5. Set the table, spread the cloth, eat, drink, arise ye chiefs, anoint 
 the shield ! The Hebrew verbs are not imperatives but infinitives, here used 
 in the first clause for the historical tense in order to give brevity, rapidity, and 
 life to the description. For the same purpose the English imperative may be 
 employed, as the simplest form of the verb and unencumbered with the per- 
 sonal pronouns. The sense, however, is, that while the table is set etc. the 
 alarm is given. Luzzatto makes the whole verse antithetical : they set the 
 table, they had better set a watch ; they eat and drink, they had better arise 
 and anoint the shield. r^SSJl nbit is commonly explained to mean watching the 
 watch, i. e. setting a guard to prevent surprise. But the context implies 
 that they were surprised. Ewald refers it to the watching of the stars, 
 which agrees well with the Babylonian usages, but like the first explana- 
 tion seems misplaced between the setting of the table and the sitting at it. 
 Hitzig and Knobel give Stss the usual sense of M52 to overspread or cover, 
 and rv^Bs (which occurs only here) that of the thing spread, whether it be the 
 cloth or skin which serves the orientals for a table, or the carpet upon which 
 they sit at meals. The anointing of the shield is supposed by some to be 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 379 
 
 a means of preserving it or of repelling missiles from its surface, by others 
 simply a means of cleansing and perhaps adorning it. Both agree that 
 it is here poetically used to express the idea of arming or preparing for bat- 
 tle. There are two interpretations of the last clause. One makes it an 
 address by Jehovah or the Prophet to the Medes and Persians, as in the last 
 clause of v. 2 ; the other a sudden alarm to the Babylonians at their feast. 
 Both explanations, but especially the last, seem to present a further allusion 
 to the surprise of the king and court by Cyrus. This coincidence with his- 
 tory can be explained away only by giving to the verse a vague and gene- 
 ral meaning which is wholly at variance with the graphic vividness of its 
 expressions. 
 
 V. 6. For thus saith the Lord to me : Go set (or cause to stand) the 
 watchman (or sentinel) ; that which he sees let him tell. Instead of simply 
 predicting or describing the approach of the enemy, the Prophet introduces 
 an ideal watchman, as announcing what he actually sees. According to 
 Knobel, he is himself the watchman (Hab. 1 : 8), which is hardly consist- 
 ent with the language of this verse. The last clause may be also construed 
 thus — who may see (and) tell ; but the first construction seems more natural. 
 
 V. 7. And should he see cavalry — a pair (or pairs of horsemen) — ass- 
 riders — camel-riders — then shall he hearken with hearkening a great heark- 
 ening (i. e. listen attentively). This is Ewald's construction of the sentence, 
 which supposes the divine instructions to be still continued. All other 
 writers understand the Prophet as resuming his own narrative: and he 
 saw (or he sees) etc. Against this construction, and in favour of the first, 
 is the form of the verbs, which are all in the preterite with vav conversive, 
 because following the futures of the foregoing verse (Nordheimer § 219). 
 Besides, if the usual construction be adopted, v. 9 is a mere repetition of v. 
 7, and v. 8 is obviously misplaced between them. But on the other sup- 
 position, this verse contains the order and the ninth its execution, while the 
 eighth, as a preface to the latter, is exactly in its proper place, nox is pro- 
 perly a yoke of oxen, then a. pair in general. It is here collective and 
 means pairs of horsemen, i. e. horsemen in pairs or marching two and two. 
 The sense of steeds or riding-horses (as opposed to c^D chariot-horses) 
 given to c^^fi by Gesenius, is extremely rare and doubtful, and ought not 
 to be assumed without necessity. M/n in a very great majority of cases 
 means a chariot. But as this would seem to make the Prophet speak 
 of chariots drawn by asses and camels, most of the late writers either 
 take the word in the sense of rows or troops, which seems entirely 
 arbitrary, or in that of mounted troops or cavalry, which seems to be easily 
 deducible from -5^, to ride, and may be justified by the analogy of 1 Sam. 
 
380 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 
 
 8:4. 10: 18, where the word must mean either riders or the beasts on 
 which they rode, although the English translators, in order to retain the 
 usual sense of chariot, supply horses in one place and men in the other. On 
 the first of these hypotheses, the camels and asses would be mentioned only 
 as beasts of burden ; but we know from Herodotus and Xenophon that the 
 Persians also used them in their armies for riding, partly or wholly for the 
 purpose of frightening the horses of the enemy. It is a slight but obvious 
 coincidence of prophecy and history that Xenophon represents the Persians 
 advancing Jwo by two (slg 8vo). 
 
 V, 8. And he cries — a lion — on the watch-tower. Lord, I am standing 
 always by day, and on my ward (or place of observation) lam stationed all 
 the nights (i. e. all night, or every night, or both). That the setting of 
 this watch is an ideal process, seems to be intimated by the word *£vk one 
 of the divine names (not *t<* my lord or sir), and also by the unremitted 
 vigilance to which he here lays claim. From the first of these particulars, 
 Knobel infers that the Prophet is himself the watchman stationed by Jehovah. 
 But see v. 7, and the comment on it. Another view of the passage may 
 be suggested as possibly the true one, viz. that the Prophet, on receiving 
 the order to set a watch, replies that he is himself engaged in the perform- 
 ance of that duty. According to the usual interpretation, these are the words 
 of the delegated watchman, announcing that he is at his post and will re- 
 main there and announce whatever he may see. There are two explanations 
 of h?}& lfcjf>*3. The first makes svnx the beginning of the watchman's speech 
 — he cries, a lion! i. e. I see a lion coming, meaning the invader. The ob- 
 jection to this is not, as Henderson alleges, that the usage of the language 
 does not authorize such an application of the figure of a lion ; but rather that 
 this abrupt and general announcement of the enemy would hardly have been 
 followed by aprefatory declaration of the watchman's diligence. This, it 
 is clear, must come before not after the announcement of the enemy, and 
 accordingly we find that announcement in the next verse, corresponding ex- 
 actly to the terms of the instructions in the seventh. These considerations 
 seem decisive in favour of the other hypothesis, now commonly adopted, viz. 
 that irna forms no part of the sentinel's report, but is rather a description of 
 the way in which he makes it. The true sense of the words is given in a 
 paraphrase in Rev. 10 : 3, he cried with a loud voice as when a lion roareth. 
 As to the syntax, we may either supply 3 before n^x, of which ellipsis there 
 are some examples, or still more simply read the lion cries, thus converting 
 the simile into a metaphor. The first construction agrees best however with 
 the masoretic accents. Luzzatto explains hj*}B as the usual cry of shepherds 
 when they saw wild beasts approaching. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 381 
 
 V. 9. And behold, this comes (or this is what is coming), mounted 
 men, pairs of horsemen. And he answers (i. e. speaks again) and says, 
 Fallen, fallen, is Babylon, and all the images of her gods he has broken (or 
 crushed) to the earth. The last verb is indefinitely construed, but obviously 
 refers to the enemy as the instrument of Babylon's destruction, rather than to 
 God as the efficient cause. The omission of the asses and camels in this 
 verse is explained by Knobel on the ground that the enemy is now to be 
 conceived as having reached the city, his beasts of burden being left behind 
 him. But the true explanation seems to be that the description given in v. 
 7 is abbreviated here, because so much was to be added. Still the corres- 
 pondence is sufficiently exact, &% 3J1 is supposed by some to mean 
 chariots containing men ; but according to the analogy of v. 7, it rather 
 means mounted men. As the phrases camel-riders, ass-riders, there used, 
 from the nature of the case can only mean riders upon camels and asses, so 
 here man-riders, from the nature of the case, can only mean men who are 
 riders themselves. The structure of the passage is highly dramatic. In the 
 sixth verse, the prophet is commanded to set a watch. In the seventh, the 
 sentinel is ordered to look out for an army of men, mounted on horses, camels, 
 and asses. In the eighth, he reports himself as being at his post. In the 
 ninth, he sees the very army which had been described approaching. An- 
 swer is used, both in Greek and Hebrew, for the resumption of discourse by 
 the same speaker, especially after an interval. It is here equivalent to spoke 
 again. During the interval implied, the city is supposed to have been 
 taken, so thatwhen the watchman speaks again, it is to say that Babylon is 
 fallen. The omission of all the intermediate details, for the purpose of 
 bringing the extremes together, is a masterly stroke of poetical description, 
 which would never have occurred to an inferior writer. The allusion to 
 idols in the last clause is not intended merely to remind us that the conquest 
 was a triumpji of the true God over false ones, but to bring into view the 
 well known aversion of the Persians to all images. Herodotus says they not 
 only thought it unlawful to use images, but imputed folly to those who did 
 it. Here is another incidental but remarkable coincidence of prophecy even 
 with profane history. 
 
 V. 10. Oh my threshing and the son of my threshing-floor ! What I 
 have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, I have told you. This 
 part of the prophecy closes with an apostrophe, showing at once by whose 
 power and for whose sake the downfall of Babylon was to be brought about. 
 Threshing here means that which is threshed, and is synonymous with the 
 following phrase, son of the threshing-floor, i. e. (according to the oriental 
 idiom which uses son to signify almost any relation) threshed grain. The 
 comparison of severe oppression or affliction to threshing is a common one, 
 
382 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 
 
 and though the terms here used are scarcely intelligible when literally rendered 
 into English, it is clear that they mean, oh my oppressed and afflicted people, 
 and must therefore be addressed not to the Babylonians but the Jews, to whom 
 the fall of Babylon would bring deliverance, and for whose consolation this 
 prediction was originally uttered. The last clause assures them that their 
 own God had sent this message to them. 
 
 V. 1 1 . The burden of Dumah. To me (one is) calling from Seir, 
 Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night] It has been 
 already stated that most interpreters regard this and the next verse as an in- 
 dependent prophecy ; but that the use of the word xiyq is an insufficient 
 reason, while the extreme brevity of the passage, and the recurrence of the 
 figure of a sentinel or watchman, seem to indicate that it is a continuation of 
 what goes before, although a new subject is here introduced. Of Dumah 
 there are two interpretations. J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, 
 Ewald, Umbreit, understand it as the name of an Arabian tribe descended 
 from Ishmael (Gen. 25: 14. 1 Chr. 1 : 30), or of a place belonging to that 
 tribe, perhaps the same now called Dumah Eljandil on the confines of Arabia 
 and Syria. In that case, Seir, which lay between Judah and the desert of 
 Arabia, is mentioned merely to denote the quarter whence the sound pro- 
 ceeded. But as Seir was itself the residence of the Edomites or children of 
 Esau, Vitringa, Rosenmuller, and Knobel, follow the Septuagint and Jar- 
 chi in explaining now as a variation of the name fefaKj intended at the same 
 time to suggest the idea of silence, solitude, and desolation. This enigmati- 
 cal name, as well as that in v. 1, is ascribed by Knobel to the copyist or 
 compiler who added the inscriptions. In favour of the first interpretation is 
 the mention of Arabia and of certain Arabian tribes in the following verses. 
 But even Edom might be said to form a part of Arabia. Jerome also 
 mentions Dumah as a district in the south of Edom. The greater import- 
 ance of Edom and the frequency with which it is mentioned in the prophets, 
 especially as an object of divine displeasure, also recommend this exegetical 
 hypothesis. Knobel adds that the Edomites were subject to Judah till the 
 year B. C. 743, and would therefore naturally take part in its sufferings 
 from Babylonian tyranny. Clericus understands the question to be, what 
 has happened since last night ? The English Version seems to mean, what 
 have you to say of the night ? Interpreters are commonly agreed, however, 
 that the ")» is partitive, and that the question is, what part of the night is it, 
 equivalent to our question, what o'clock ? This may have been a custom- 
 ary method of interrogating watchmen, vftp is indefinite, or may agree 
 with Vip understood. (Vide infra, ch. 40 : 3.) Night is a common meta- 
 phor to represent calamity, as daybreak does relief from it. Some regard 
 this as a taunting inquiry addressed to Judah by his heathen neighbours. It 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 383 
 
 is much more natural, however, to explain it as an expression of anxiety 
 arising from a personal concern in the result. 
 
 V. 12. The watchman says, Morning comes and also night ; if ye wiU 
 inquire, inquire ; return, come, Grotius understands this to mean that 
 though the natural morning might return, the moral or spiritual night would 
 still continue. Gesenius explains it as descriptive of vicissitude: morning 
 comes, but night comes after it. Most writers understand it as relating to 
 different subjects : morning comes (to one) and night (to another) ; which 
 would seem to mean that while the Jewish night was about to be dispelled, 
 that of Edom or Arabia should still continue. Those who regard these verses 
 as genuine but deny the inspiration of the writer, are under the necessity of 
 referring them to something which took place in the days of Isaiah. Knobel 
 for example understands him here as threatening Edom with a visit from the 
 Assyrians on their return from Egypt. But connected as the words are with 
 the foregoing prophecy, it is far more natural to understand them as referring 
 to the Babylonian conquest of Judea and the neighbouring countries. The 
 last clause intimates that the event was still uncertain. Henderson and 
 others give to OU the spiritual sense of repentance and conversion ; but 
 there seems to be no need of departing from the literal import of the word. 
 The true sense of the clause is that given by Luther. If you wish to know 
 you must inquire again ; you are come too soon ; the time of your deliver- 
 ance is not at hand; return or come again. On any hypothesis, however, 
 these two verses still continue enigmatical and doubtful in their meaning. 
 
 V. 13. The burden of Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, 
 oh ye caravans of Dedanim. The genuineness of this verse and of those 
 which follow is questioned by Eichhorn, Paulus, Bauer, and Rosenmuller, 
 but defended by Knobel on the ground that Th», ikb5, and w& *rt are 
 expressions belonging to Isaiah's dialect. Hitzig and Hendewerk, with the 
 older writers, regard these verses and vs. 11, 12 as forming one prophecy. 
 But Knobel maintains that vs. 11, 12 are of a later date, for the singular 
 reason that they speak with uncertainty of that which is confidently foretold 
 in the others. He also alleges that the title or inscription was taken from 
 the word a^sa in the next clause, even the preposition being retained. But 
 a is often interposed between words most closely connected, and this very 
 combination occurs in Zech. 9: 1, where no such explanation can be given. 
 The Prophet here passes from Edom to Arabia, or from one Arabian tribe 
 or district to another. The answer in v. 12, that the dawn was approaching 
 for the Jews but not for them, is here explained. The country was to be 
 in such a state that the caravans which usually travelled undisturbed would 
 be obliged to leave the public road and pass the night among the bushes or 
 
384 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI. 
 
 thickets, which seems to be here (and perhaps originally) the meaning of 
 ns\ Forests properly so called do not exist in the Arabian desert. Gese- 
 nius explains nirnj* as the participle of rn«, used as a noun in the sense of 
 travelling companies or caravans. The Dedanim are mentioned elsewhere 
 in connexion with Edom and Teman (Jer. 49:8. Ez. 25 : 13), to whom 
 they were probably contiguous. Their precise situation is the less important 
 as they are not the subjects of the prophecy, but spoken of as strangers 
 passing through, the interruption of whose journey is mentioned as a proof 
 of the condition of the country. For Sfn^J the ancient versions seem to read 
 n^sa, in which they are followed by Lowth, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Kno- 
 bel, the last of whom defends the emendation on the twofold ground, that 
 5h3 is a name found only in the later Hebrew writers, and that the addition 
 of this name would be superfluous, as the caravans of Dedanim must pass 
 of course through the desert of Arabia. The first of these arguments admits 
 the easy answer that this place is itself a proof of earlier usage. To the 
 second it may be replied, that Arabia is not half so superfluous as evening 
 in connexion with •B^Mj, which strictly means to spend the night. How 
 easy it would be to retort upon such criticism by demanding whether they 
 could pass the night in the day-time. 
 
 V. 14. To meet the thirsty they bring water, the inhabitants of the land 
 of Tema ; with his bread they prevent (i. e. meet or anticipate) the fugitive. 
 The men of Tema, another Arabian tribe, also engaged in trade (Jer. 
 25: 23. Job 6: 19), are described as bringing food and drink, not to the 
 Dedanim mentioned in v. 13, but to the people of the wasted country. His 
 bread is rendered in the English Version as a collective (their bread) refer- 
 ring to the men of Tema ; but the suffix relates rather to the fugitive him- 
 self, and the whole phrase means his portion of food, the food necessary for 
 him, his daily bread. The ancient versions make the verbs imperative and 
 understand the sentence as an exhortation to the people of Tema. This 
 construction, which is adopted by Henderson, requires a change in the 
 pointing of the text, for which there is no sufficient authority, much less a 
 necessity. On the contrary, the context makes it far more natural to under- 
 stand the Prophet as describing an act than as exhorting to it. 
 
 V. 15. Because (or when) from the presence of swords they Jled,from 
 the presence of a drawn sword and from the presence of a bended bow, and 
 from the presence of a weight of war. This verse describes them as not 
 only plundered but pursued by a blood-thirsty enemy, Mtito, according to 
 usage, seems to mean not only drawn or thrust forth, but given up, aban- 
 doned to itself, and as it were allowed to do its worst, im is properly 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 385 
 
 weight, pressure, burden, or oppression. The corresponding verb is con- 
 nected with the same noun in 1 Sam. 31 : 3. 
 
 V. 16. For thus saith the Lord to me, In yet a year (or in a year longer) 
 like the years of a hireling (i. e. strictly computed) shall fail (or cease) all 
 the glory of Kedar. This verse seems to fix a time for the fulfilment of 
 the foregoing prophecy. Here, as in chap. 17: 3, glory comprehends all 
 that constitutes the dignity or strength of a people. On the meaning of the 
 phrase T!#j m -'A-., vide supra, ch. 16: 14. Kedar was the second son of 
 Ishmael (Gen. 25 : 13). The name is here put either for an Arab tribe or 
 for Arabia in general (Isai. 42: 11. 60 : 7. Ez. 27: 21). The Rabbins 
 call the Arabic the language of Kedar. The chronological specification in 
 this verse makes it necessary either to assume a later writer than Isaiah, as 
 some do in ch. 16 : 14 ; or a terminus a quo posterior to his time, as if he 
 had said, within a year after something else before predicted ; or an abrupt 
 recurrence from the days of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus to those of Hezekiah. 
 The last would be wholly in accordance with the usage of the prophets ; 
 but the best solution seems to be afforded by the second hypothesis. The 
 sense will then be that the Arabians who suffered with the Jews, so far from 
 sharing their deliverance, should within a year after that event be entirely 
 destroyed. At the same time, due allowance should be made for diversity 
 of judgment in a case so doubtful. 
 
 V. 17. And the remnant of the number of bows (or archers), the mighty 
 men (or heroes) of the children of Kedar, shall be few (or become few), for 
 Jehovah God of Israel hath spoken it. rnup is here collective and may 
 either be in regimen or apposition with the words which follow. The latter 
 construction is favoured by the accents. We read elsewhere of the archery 
 of Ishmael (Gen. 21 : 20) and Kedar (Ps. 120: 4). Another construction, 
 which refers the first clause to the remnant left by the bows of the enemy, 
 is possible, but should not be assumed without necessity. The last clause 
 intimates that God, as the God of Israel, has a quarrel with Kedar, and at 
 the same time that his power and omniscience will secure the fulfilment of 
 the threatening. It is not impossible that future discoveries may yet throw 
 light upon these brief and obscure prophecies. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 This chapter naturally falls into two parts. The first describes the 
 conduct of the people of Jerusalem during a siege, vs. 1-14. The second 
 
 25 
 
386 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 predicts the removal of Shebna from his post as treasurer or steward of the 
 royal household, vs. 15-25. The modern critics are of course inclined to 
 treat these parts as independent prophecies, although they admit that both 
 are by Isaiah, and that both were written probably about the same time. 
 Against this supposition, and in favour of regarding them as one connected 
 composition, we may argue, first, from the want of any title to the second 
 part. This, it is true, is not conclusive, but creates a presumption which 
 can only be rebutted by strong direct evidence. Another reason is that the 
 second part of this chapter is the only example in Isaiah of a prophecy 
 against an individual. This again is not conclusive, since there might be 
 one such prophecy if no more. But the presumption is against it, as ana- 
 logy and usage give the preference to any exegetical hypothesis which 
 would connect this personal prediction with one of a more general nature. 
 A third reason is that in the second part the ground or occasion of the 
 threatening is not expressed, and it is certainly less probable that the design 
 was meant to be conjectured or inferred from the prophecy itself, than that 
 it is explained in the passage which immediately precedes it. The result 
 appears to be, that by considering the parts as independent prophecies 
 we leave the second incomplete and sui generis, whereas by combining 
 them, we make the one explain the other ; and as no philological or critical 
 objection has been urged against this supposition, it is probably the true one. 
 The whole may then be described as a prophecy against the people of 
 Jerusalem in general, and against Shebna in particular, considered as their 
 leader and example. 
 
 It has been disputed whether the description in the first part of this 
 chapter was intended to apply to the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, or 
 by Esarhaddon in the reign of Manasseh, or by Nebuchadnezzar, or by 
 Titus. An obvious objection to the last two is that they leave the predic- 
 tion against Shebna unconnected with the one before it. Cocceius inge- 
 niously suggests that Eliakim and his family were to retain their official rank 
 and influence until the city was destroyed and the kingdom of Judah at an 
 end ; but this, though possible, will scarcely be preferred to any more natu- 
 ral and simple supposition. The objection to Sennacherib's invasion is that 
 no such extremities were then experienced as the Prophet here describes. 
 The objection to Nebuchadnezzar's is that vs. 9-11 contain an exact de- 
 scription of the measures taken by Hezekiah, as recorded in 2 Chron. 32 : 
 3-5. Moved by this consideration, some have assumed a reference to both 
 events, the siege by Sennacherib, and that by Nebuchadnezzar. According 
 to Vitringa, the Prophet first describes the later event (vs. 1-5), and then 
 recurs to one nearer at hand (vs. 6-14), this being placed last partly for the 
 purpose of bringing it into juxtaposition with the threatening against Shebna. 
 According to Calvin, vs. 1-5 predict the siege by Nebuchadnezzar, while 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 387 
 
 vs. 6-11 describe that by Sennacherib as already past. These suppositions, 
 though admissible in case of necessity, can be justified by nothing short of 
 it. As the measures described in vs. 9-11 were temporary ones which may 
 have been frequently repeated, it is not absolutely necessary to apply that 
 passage to the times of Hezekiah. If the whole must be applied to one 
 specific point of time, it is probably the taking of Jerusalem by the king of 
 Assyria in the days of Manasseh, when the latter was himself carried captive 
 with his chief men, and Shebna possibly among the rest. The choice seems 
 to lie between this hypothesis and that of a generic prediction, a prophetic 
 picture of the conduct of the Jews in a certain conjuncture of affairs which 
 happened more than once, particular strokes of the description being drawn 
 from different memorable sieges, and especially from those of Sennacherib 
 and Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 V. 1. The burden of the Valley of Vision. What (is) to thee (what 
 hast thou ? or what aileth thee ?) that thou art wholly (literally the whole 
 of thee) gone up on the house-tops 1 The first clause is not an inscription 
 of later date, erroneously copied from v. 5 (Hitzig etc.), but the original 
 commencement of the prophecy, or of this part of it. The modern Germans 
 pronounce all the titles in this form spurious, and then make the use of the 
 word x ; J3« in each particular case a proof of later date. It is just as easy 
 and far more reasonable to assert that the use of this word in such connex- 
 ions is a characteristic of Isaiah's mariner. The enigmatical form is inten- 
 tional. By the valley of vision we are not to understand Babylon, nor 
 Judea (Calvin, Lightfoot), but Jerusalem, as being surrounded by hills with 
 valleys between them. There is no allusion to the degradation which 
 awaited Jerusalem (Kimchi), nor to the name Moriah (J. D. Michaelis), 
 nor to the school of the prophets in the valley at its foot (Vitringa), nor to 
 the spectacle which was soon to be there exhibited (J. H. Michaelis), but 
 to Jerusalem as the seat of revelation, the abode of the prophets, and the 
 place where God's presence was manifested. T^'tv? as usual expresses both 
 surprise and disapprobation. (Vide supra, ch. 3: 15.) The oriental roofs 
 are flat and used for various purposes. The ascent here mentioned has been 
 variously explained, as being designed to gratify curiosity by gazing at the 
 approaching enemy or the crowds of people seeking refuge in Jerusalem, or 
 to assail the invaders or take measures for resisting them, or to indulge in 
 grief, or to engage in idolatrous worship, or to celebrate a feast. The truth 
 probably is, that the expression is here used as a lively description of an ori- 
 ental city in commotion, without any intention to intimate as yet the cause 
 or the occasion, just as we might say that the streets of our own cities were 
 full of people, whether the concourse were occasioned by grief, joy, fear, or 
 any other cause. Some suppose the Prophet to inquire as a stranger what 
 
383 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 is the matter; but he seems rather to express disapprobation of the stif 
 which he describes. 
 
 / 
 V. 2. Full of stirs, a noisy town, a joyous city, thy slain are not 
 slain with the sword nor dead in battle. The first clause is commonly 
 explained by the older writers as descriptive of the commotion and alarm 
 occasioned by the enemy's approach. But this makes it necessary either to 
 give nnb a sense not justified by usage, or to refer it to a past time, while 
 the other epithets are applied to the present. Thus Junius makes the Pro- 
 phet ask, how is it that the city is now full of confusion and alarm which 
 was once so joyous ? But this distinction of times is altogether arbitrary. 
 The same remark applies, but in a less degree, to another construction 
 which refers the whole clause to past time. The latest writers are agreed 
 in making it descriptive of the present, not in reference however to alarm 
 and agitation, but to the opposite condition of joyous excitement, frivo- 
 lous gayety, and reckless indifference, described in v. 13. Kennicott and 
 Tingstad make "pr^n mean thy warriors, but it is now universally taken 
 in its usual sense. The expression thy slain are not slain with the sword 
 cannot mean that none were slain, but necessarily implies mortality of 
 another kind. The allusion is supposed by some to be to pestilence, by 
 others to famine, such as prevailed in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar and also by the Romans. As neither is specified, the words may 
 be more generally understood as describing all kinds of mortality incident to 
 sieges, excepting that of actual warfare, 
 
 V. 3. All thy chiefs fled together — from the bow — they were bound — - 
 all that vjere found of thee were bound together — from afar they fled. This 
 verse describes the people, not as crowding from the country into Jerusalem, 
 nor as fleeing from the public places in Jerusalem to hide themselves, but as 
 flying from the enemy, and being nevertheless taken. T&p is neither a civil 
 nor a military chief exclusively, but may be applied to either, tts is not to 
 wander but to flee. The masoretic accents connect ruBpa with t "H&K, ac- 
 cording to which construction we may either read, they are bound (i. e, 
 made prisoners) by the bow (i. e. the archers, as light-arrived troops), or 
 ivithout the bow (i. e. not in battle, as the slain were not slain with the 
 sword) ; or it may mean without resistance, without drawing a bow. Some 
 understand it to mean, they are restrained (by fear) from (using) the bow. 
 Ewald and some older writers disregard the accent and connect nwpa with 
 FfW, they fled from the bow, but are nevertheless taken prisoners together* 
 All that were found of thee may be in antithesis to thy chiefs, as if he had 
 said, not only thy chiefs but all the rest. Some understand this as describ- 
 ing the voluntary confinement of the people in Jerusalem during a siege ; 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 389 
 
 others apply it to their vain endeavours to escape from its privations and 
 dangers. It is best to give the verse its largest meaning as descriptive of 
 the hardships and concomitant evils not of one siege merely but of sieges in 
 general, 
 
 V. 4. Therefore I said (or say), Look away from me ; let me be bitter 
 in weeping (or weep bitterly) ; try not to comfort me for the desolation of the 
 daughter of my people. These are not the words of Jerusalem in answer to 
 the question in v. 1 (Junius), but those of the Prophet expressing his sym- 
 pathy with the sufferings which he foresees and foretells, as in ch. 16 : 11. 
 21:3. tt^Kfl seems to include the idea of obtruding consolation upon one 
 who is unwilling to receive it. The daughter of my people does not mean the 
 towns dependent on Jerusalem (Junius), nor Jerusalem itself as built by 
 the people (Clericus), nor the sons of the people expressed by a feminine col- 
 lective (Gesenius), but the people itself, poetically represented as a woman, 
 and affectionately spoken of as a daughter. 
 
 V. 5. For there is a day of confusion and trampling and perplexity to 
 the Lord Jehovah of Hosts in the valley of vision — breaking the wall and 
 crying to the mountain. *¥ivfc does not mean from or by the Lord, as the 
 efficient cause, but to the Lord as the possessor. It is equivalent to our 
 phrase the Lord has, which cannot be otherwise expressed in Hebrew. He 
 has a day i. e. he has it appointed, or has it in reserve. (Vide supra, ch. 2: 12.) 
 Trampling does not refer to the treading down of the fields and gardens, 
 but of men in battle, or at least in a general commotion and confusion. -!p H p?2 
 has been variously explained as a participle and a noun, and as expressing 
 the ideas of breaking down, shouting, and placing chariots or wagons in 
 array, siis is not simply a cry but a cry for help. To the mountain are 
 not the words of the cry, but its direction. The mountain is not Jerusalem 
 or Zion as the residence of God, but the mountains round about Jerusalem 
 (Ps. 125: 1.) The meaning is not that the people are heard crying on 
 their way to the mountain, but rather that their cries are reverberated from 
 it. The whole verse is a vivid poetical description of the confusion of a siege. 
 
 V. 6. And Elam bare a quiver, with chariots, men (i. e. infantry), 
 horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield. Elam was a province of Persia, 
 often put for the whole country. Its people were celebrated archers. Some 
 read chariots of men i. e. occupied by men, which would seem to be a su- 
 perfluous description. Others read cavalry or riding of men i. e. mounted 
 men as in ch. 21 : 5, but in that case c--2 would be superfluous. Others 
 give aai, here and in ch. 21, the sense of row, line, troop, or column, which 
 is not sufficiently sustained by usage. Others give - its usual sense of in, 
 which cannot however be applied to horsemen. The sense of horses, doubt- 
 
390 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 ful at best, is entirely unnecessary here. On the whole, the simplest and 
 most natural construction seems to be that which supposes three kinds 
 of troops to be here enumerated ; cavalry, infantry, and men in chariots. 
 Kir is now agreed to be identical with Kvqog, the name of a river 
 rising in the Caucasus and emptying into the Caspian sea, from which 
 Georgia (Girgistan) is supposed to derive its name. Kir was subject 
 to Assyria in the time of Isaiah, as appears from the fact that it was 
 one of the regions to which the exiles of the ten tribes were transported. It 
 may here be put for Media, as Elam is for Persia. The uncovering of the 
 shield has reference to the involucra clypeorum and the tegimenta scuiis detra- 
 henda, of which Cicero and Cesar speak, leathern cases used to protect the 
 shield or keep it bright. The removal of these denotes preparation for battle. 
 The ancient versions and some modern writers make "pp an appellative and 
 translate the clause, the shield leaves the wall bare by being taken down 
 from the place where it hung, or the enemy deprives the wall of its shield 
 i. e. its defenders. Some even suppose an allusion to the testudo or covered 
 way of shields, under which the Roman soldiers used to advance to the walls 
 of a besieged town. All the latest writers are agreed in making *Pp a pro- 
 per name. The verbs are in the past tense, which proves nothing however 
 as to the date of the events described. 
 
 V. 7. And it came to pass (that) the choice of thy valleys (thy choicest 
 valleys) were fall of chariots, and the horsemen drew up (or took up a posi- 
 tion) towards the gate. The most obvious construction of the first clause, 
 and the one indicated by the accents, is, the choice of thy valleys was, or it 
 was the choice of thy valleys ; but as this seems forbidden by the following 
 words, most writers either omit W1 as a mere pleonasm, or give it the 
 usual idiomatic meaning when it introduces or continues a narrative. It 
 seems here to mark the progress of events. The Prophet sees something 
 which he did not see before. He had seen the chariots and horsemen com- 
 ing ; but now he sees the valleys around full of them. The future form 
 adopted by some versions is entirely unauthorized. Whatever be the real 
 date of the events described, the Prophet evidently meant to speak of them 
 as past or present, and we have neither right nor reason to depart from his 
 chosen form of expression. The address is to Jerusalem. The valleys are 
 mentioned as the only places where the cavalry or chariots could be useful 
 or could act at all. As the only level approach to Jerusalem is on the north, 
 that quarter may be specially intended, and the gate may be a gate on that 
 side of the city. Otherwise it would be better to take msttJ indefinitely as 
 denoting the direction of the movement. MB may either be explained as an 
 emphatic infinitive, in which case the verb will be reflexive or govern some- 
 thing understood, or as a verbal noun equivalent in this connexion to our 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XX11. 391 
 
 post or station. Another admissible construction is to make BMpnMl the ob- 
 ject of the verb, and the verb itself indefinite : ' they station the horsemen 
 opposite the gate.' 
 
 V. 8. And he removed the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in 
 that day to the armour of the house of the forest. The first verb, which 
 some connect with the enemy and others with Jehovah understood, is really 
 indefinite and may be resolved into an English passive, the covering was 
 removed. This expression has been variously explained to mean the dis- 
 closure of long hidden treasures — the taking of the fortified towns of Judah 
 by Sennacherib — the disclosure of the weak points of the country to the 
 enemy — the opening of the eyes of the Jews themselves to their own con- 
 dition — the ignominious treatment of the people, represented by the oriental 
 figure of an unveiled virgin. The analogous expression of taking away the 
 veil from the heart (2 Cor. 3: 15, 16), and the immediate mention of the 
 measures used for the defence of the city, are perhaps decisive in favour of 
 explaining the words to mean that the Jews' own eyes were opened. As 
 aan cannot well agree with rfWT*, which as the name of the people must be 
 masculine, it is best to understand it as the second person, and to suppose an 
 abrupt apostrophe to Judah, a figure of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah. 
 nsvi mn is not a proper name, but the designation of a house built by Solo- 
 mon, and elsewhere called the house of the forest of Lebanon, because erect- 
 ed on that mountain, as some writers think, but according to the common 
 opinion, because built of cedar-wood from Lebanon. This house is com- 
 monly supposed to have been either intended for an arsenal by Solomon him- 
 self, or converted into one by some of his successors, and to be spoken of in 
 Neh. 3:19 under the name of P'i'3. There is no need of supposing that the 
 house contained only the golden shields of Solomon and Rehoboam. The 
 fact that these were there deposited might naturally lead to a more exten- 
 sive use of the building for the purpose mentioned. Looking to this arsenal 
 implies dependence on its stores as the best means of defence against the 
 enemy, unless we understand the words to signify inspection, which agrees 
 well with what follows, but is not sufficiently sustained by the usage of the 
 verb and preposition. In that day seems to mean at length, i. e. when made 
 aware of their danger. 
 
 V. 9. And the breaches of the city of David ye saw, that they were 
 many, and ye gathered the waters of the lower pool. The breaches meant 
 are not those made by the enemy in the siege here described, but those 
 caused by previous neglect and decay. The city of David may be either 
 taken as a poetical name for Jerusalem at large, or in its strict sense as de- 
 noting the upper town upon Mount Zion, which was surrounded by a wall 
 
392 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 of its own, and called the city of David because he took it from the Jebusites 
 and afterwards resided there. Ye saw may either mean, ye saw them for 
 the first time, at length became aware of them, or, ye looked at them, ex 
 amined them, with a view to their repair. The last is more probably im- 
 plied than expressed. ^ may with equal propriety be rendered for, imply- 
 ing that they could no longer overlook or fail to see them, because they 
 were so many. The last clause describes a measure of defence peculiarly 
 important at Jerusalem where there are very few perennial springs. This 
 precaution (as well as the one previously hinted at) was actually taken by 
 Hezekiah in the prospect of Sennacherib's approach (2 Chr. 32 : 4), and has 
 perhaps been repeated in every siege of any length which Jerusalem has 
 since experienced. The lower pool is probably the tank or reservoir still in 
 existence in the valley of Hinnom opposite the western side of Mount Zion. 
 This name, which occurs only here, has reference to the upper pool higher 
 up in the same valley near the Jaffa gate. (Vide supra, ch. 7 : 3. Compare 
 Robinson's Palestine, I. 483-487.) 
 
 V. 10. And the houses of Jerusalem ye numbered, and ye pulled down 
 the houses to repair (rebuild or fortify) the walL The numbering of the 
 houses probably has reference, not to the levying of men or of a tax, but to 
 the measure mentioned in the last clause, for the purpose of determining what 
 houses could be spared, and perhaps of estimating the expense. The 
 houses are destroyed, not merely to make room for new erections, but to fur- 
 nish materials. Ancient Jerusalem, like that of our day, was built of stone. 
 
 V. 11. And a reservoir ye made between the two walls (or the double 
 wall) for the waters of the old pool, and ye did not look to the maker of 
 it, and the former of it ye did not see. ^pn according to its etymology is 
 a place of gathering, and according to usage a place where waters are col- 
 lected. As the Hebrew dual is not a mere periphrasis for two (vide supra 
 ch. 6 : 2), Danish cannot simply mean two walls, but must denote a double 
 wall in some situation where but one had been before, or might have been 
 expected. The reference is probably to a wall built out from that of the 
 city and returning to it, so as to enclose the tank or reservoir here mentioned. 
 As this was a temporary measure, perhaps often repeated, there is no need 
 of tracing it in other parts of history or in the present condition of Jerusalem. 
 It is altogether probable, however, that the old pool here mentioned is the 
 same with the upper pool of ch. 7 : 3. Some have identified it with the 
 lower pool of the ninth verse, but this would hardly have been introduced 
 so soon by another name. The last clause shows that the fault, with which 
 the people of Jerusalem were chargeable, was not that of guarding them- 
 selves against attack, but that of relying upon human defences, without re- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 393 
 
 gard to God. The verbs look and see are evidently used in allusion to the 
 last clause of v. 8 and the first of v. 9. They looked to the arsenal but not 
 to God. This seems to put the clause before us in antithesis to the whole 
 foregoing context from v. 8. If so, the sufiixes in rYW and ffW cannot re- 
 fer merely to the pool or reservoir, but must have respect either to the city, 
 or to the calamity now coming on it. In the latter case, the feminine pro- 
 noun may be indefinitely understood as a neuter in Greek or Latin, it, i. e. 
 this crisis or catastrophe, or the whole series of events which led to it. 
 Maker and former are not distinctive terms referring to God's purpose or 
 decree on one hand, and the execution of it on the other, but poetical equi- 
 valents both denoting the efficient cause. 
 
 V. 12. And the Lord Jehovah of Hosts called in that day to ivecping 
 and to mourning and to haldness and to girding sackcloth. The meaning 
 is not that he called or summoned grief to come, but that he called on men 
 to mourn, not only by his providence, but by his word through the pro- 
 phets. By baldness we may either understand the tearing of the hair, or 
 the shaving of the head, or both, as customary signs of grief. The last 
 phrase, rendered in the English Bible girding with sackcloth, does not mean 
 girding up the other garments with a sackcloth girdle, but girding the body 
 with a sackcloth dress, or girding on i. e. wearing sackcloth. The provi- 
 dential call to mourning here referred to must be the siege before described. 
 
 V. 1 3. And behold mirth and jollity, slaying of oxen and killuig of 
 sheep, eating of flesh and drinking of wine ; eat and drink, for to-morrow 
 we die. This verse presents the contrast of their actual behaviour with 
 that to which God called them by his providence. The construction in 
 the common version is ambiguous, as slaying etc. seem to be participles 
 agreeing with joy and gladness, whereas the Hebrew verbs are all infini- 
 tives. Some suppose the words of the revellers to begin with aHn (let us 
 kill etc.), others with bbx (let us eat flesh etc.) ; but the common division 
 of the sentence is most natural, because there is then no repetition or tauto- 
 logy. In the one case, the people themselves say, let us eat flesh and drink 
 wine, let us eat and drink. In the other it is said that they do eat flesh and 
 drink wine, and they are then introduced as saying, let us eat and drink. 
 On the same ground, the common interpretation is to be preferred to Hen- 
 dewerk's idea, that the whole verse contains the words of the Prophet, and 
 that those of the people are not introduced at all. ' Slaying of oxen, killing 
 of sheep, eating of flesh, drinking of wine, eating, drinking, though to-mor- 
 row we die !' Another objection to this construction is, that it supposes the 
 event to be still future even to the Prophet's view ; whereas the whole fore- 
 going context represents it as already past, if not in fact, at least in his per- 
 
394 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 ceptions. The common version, let us eat and drink, is perfectly correct 
 as to sense, but needlessly departs from the peculiar and expressive form of 
 the original. I have substituted eat and drink, not as imperatives, but as 
 the simplest forms of the English verbs. (Vide supra, ch. 21 : 5.) To eat 
 and to drink might be considered more exact, but would not exhibit the com- 
 pression and breviloquence of the original. It has been disputed whether 
 these last words are expressive of contemptuous incredulity or of a desper- 
 ate determination to spend the residue of life in pleasure. It is by no means 
 clear that these two feelings are exclusive of each other, since the same man 
 might express his disbelief of the threatening, and his resolution, if it should 
 prove true, to die in the enjoyment of his favourite indulgences. At all 
 events, there can be no need of restricting the full import of the language, 
 as adapted to express both states of mind, in different persons, if not in 
 the same. 
 
 V. 14. And Jehovah of Hosts revealed himself in my ears (i. e. made 
 a revelation to me, saying) If this iniquity shall be forgiven you (i. e. it 
 certainly shall not be forgiven you) until you die. Some take rfca? as a sim- 
 ple passive and supply a preposition before HjiTji it was revealed in my ears 
 by Jehovah of Hosts. This is no doubt the true sense ; but the construc- 
 tion of the verb as a reflexive with ttjm for its subject, is fully justified by 
 the analogy of 1 Sam. 2 : 27. 3: 21. It is wholly unnecessary, therefore, 
 to read ^ta, l in the ears of Jehovah of Hosts,' or to supply ■»*, < in my 
 ears, saith Jehovah of Hosts.' (Vide supra, ch. 5 : 9.) The i before r&aa is 
 not conversive, as it does not connect it with the future hWSj which is 
 merely a quotation, but with the infinitives in the first clause of v. 13, which 
 represent historical or descriptive tenses. (Nordheimer <§> 219.) The 
 conditional form of expression, so far from expressing doubt or contingency, 
 adds to the following declaration the solemnity of an oath. What is said is 
 also sworn, so that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for 
 God to lie, the truth of the threatening may be confirmed. On the elliptical 
 formula of swearing, vide supra, ch. 5 : 9. This iniquity of course means 
 the presumptuous contempt of God's messages and providential warnings, 
 with which the people had been charged in the preceding verse. This 
 offence is here treated as the sin against the Holy Ghost is in the New Tes- 
 tament, and is indeed very much of the same nature. IBS? strictly means 
 shall be atoned for or expiated. Until you die is equivalent to ever, the 
 impossibility of expiation afterwards being assumed. This use of until is 
 common in all languages. Some of the Jewish writers understand the 
 words to mean at death but not before, and draw the inference that death 
 does or may atone for sin. But the Targum has the second death (xma 
 Wssn), a phrase found also in the Greek of the New Testament (6 dwTsoog 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 395 
 
 tidvcuog), and constantly employed in modern religious phraseology to sig- 
 nify eternal perdition. In this case, however, there is no ground for de- 
 parting from the simple and ordinary meaning of the words. * As long as 
 you live you shall not be forgiven' is equivalent to saying 'you shall never 
 be forgiven. ' 
 
 V. 15. Thus said the Lord Jehovah of Hosts, Go, go in to this trea- 
 surer (or steward, or chamberlain), to Shebna who (is) over the house. 
 From the people in general the threatening now passes to an individual, no 
 doubt because he was particularly guilty of the crime alleged, and by his 
 influence the means of leading others astray likewise. The word ',=b has 
 been variously derived and explained to mean a Sochenite (from Sochen in 
 Egypt), a sojourner or dweller (i. q. ^to) in the sanctuary, a steward or 
 provider, a treasurer, and an amicus regis or king's friend, i. e. his confi- 
 dant and counsellor. Some understand the last words of the verse as 
 simply explanatory of this title ; while others argue that the Prophet would 
 hardly have described the man by two titles meaning the same thing. A 
 third class deny that ",3b is here applied to Shebna at all, and understand the 
 words to mean this steward of Shebna? s, or this (person) labouring for 
 Shebyia, i. e. making his monument. But Shebna himself is undoubtedly the 
 object of address in the remainder of the chapter. Whatever yzb may denote, 
 it must be something compatible with the description in the last clause of 
 the verse. Whatever Shebna may have been as "jab-, he was certainly over 
 the house. Some of the ancient versions give to house here the sense of tem- 
 ple or the house of God, and infer that Shebna, if not High Priest or a Priest 
 at all, was at least the treasurer of the temple. But the phrase here used 
 is nowhere else employed in reference to the temple, whereas it repeatedly 
 occurs as the description of an officer of state or of the royal household, a 
 major-domo, chamberlain, or steward. As the modern distinction between 
 state and household officers is not an ancient or an oriental one, it is not 
 unlikely that the functionary thus described, like the medieval maires du 
 palais, was in fact prime-minister. This would account for the influence 
 tacitly ascribed to Shebna in this chapter, as well as for his being made the 
 subject of a prophecy. The phrase this treasurer may either be expressive 
 of disapprobation or contempt, or simply designate the man as well known 
 to the Prophet and his readers. These familiar allusions to things and per- 
 sons now forgotten, while they add to the obscurity of the passage, furnish 
 an incidental proof of its antiquity and genuineness. The double imperative 
 lt*"*ft admits of different explanations. The second may perhaps mean go, 
 and the first be a particle of exhortation like the Latin age. It might then 
 be rendered come go, although this would be really an inversion of the He- 
 brew phrase, which strictly means go come. On the whole, however, it is 
 
396 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 better to give Tj«> the sense of go, and aa that of enter or go in, meaning into 
 Shebna's house, or into the sepulchre which he was preparing, and in which 
 some suppose him to have been accosted by the Prophet. The use of b) for 
 hx before xsaai is supposed by some' to imply the unfavourable nature of the 
 message ; but the interchange of the particles is not so unusual as to make 
 this explanation necessary. Some manuscripts and versions add and say to 
 him, which any reader can supply for himself without an emendation of 
 the text. 
 
 V. 16. What hast thou here, and whom hast thou here, that thou hast 
 hewn thee here a sepulchre 1 Hewing on high his sepulchre, graving in 
 the rock a habitation for himself I The negation implied in the interroga- 
 tion is not that he had none to protect and aid him, or that none of his kin- 
 dred should be buried there because they should be banished with him, but 
 rather that he had none buried there before him ; it was not his birth-place 
 or the home of his fathers. What interest, what part or lot, what per- 
 sonal or hereditary claim, hast thou in Judah ? Here then refers not to the 
 sepulchre, but to Jerusalem. The foreign form of the name Shebna, which 
 occurs only in the history of Hezekiah, and for which no satisfactory He- 
 brew etymology has been proposed, seems to confirm this explanation of the 
 first clause as representing him to be a foreigner, perhaps a heathen. An- 
 other confirmation is afforded by the otherwise unimportant circumstance, 
 that the name of Shebna's father is nowhere added to his own, as in the 
 case of Eliakim and Joah (v. 20. ch. 36 : 3). These seem to be sufficient 
 reasons for concluding that the Prophet is directed to upbraid him, not with 
 seeking to be buried in the royal sepulchres although of mean extraction, 
 but with making provision for himself and his posterity in a land to which 
 he was an alien, and from which he was so soon to be expelled. The third 
 person in the last clause is not to be gratuitously changed into the second 
 (thy sepulchre, a habitation for thyself), nor is the syntax to be solved by 
 introducing a comparison (as he that heweth), but rather by supposing that 
 the Prophet, after putting to him the prescribed question, was to express his 
 own contemptuous surprise at what he saw, or as Maurer says, to let his 
 eyes pass from the man to the sepulchre which he was hewing. It is not 
 necessarily implied however in this explanation that the conversation was 
 to take place at the sepulchre. &*ftt) is properly a noun, and means a high 
 place, but is here and elsewhere used adverbially. The labour and expense 
 bestowed on ancient sepulchres (of far later date however than Isaiah's time) 
 is still attested by the tombs remaining at Jerusalem, Petra, and Persepolis, 
 where some are excavated near the tops of lofty rocks in order to be less 
 accessible, to which practice there may be allusion in the cho of the verse 
 before us, as well as in the words of 2 Chr. 32 : 33, as explained by most 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 397 
 
 interpreters, viz. that Hezekiah was buried in the highest of the tombs of the 
 sons of David. (See Robinson's Palestine, I. 516-539. II. 5-25.) The 
 •jsttj^a is supposed by some to have allusion to the oriental practice of mak- 
 ing tombs in shape (and frequently in size) like houses, by others more 
 poetically to the idea of the grave, as a long home (ubis rna), the very 
 name applied to it by Solomon (Ecc. 12: 5). In this case, as in many 
 others, the ideal and material allusion may have both been present to the 
 writer's mind. What (is) to thee and who is to thee are the usual unavoid- 
 able periphrases for what and whom hast thou, the verb to have being 
 wholly wanting in this family of languages. 
 
 V. IT. Behold, Jehovah is casting thee a cast, oh man I and covering 
 thee a covering. The addition of the infinitive or verbal noun as usual adds 
 emphasis to the expression, while the participle denotes a present act or a 
 proximate futurity. The idea is that he is certainly about to cast and cover 
 thee, or to do it completely and with violence. bS'^v is by some rendered 
 casting out, by others casting doivn. The latter agrees best with the ety- 
 mology and with the rest of the description. Those who give the other 
 sense are under the necessity of assuming, that the Prophet, after saying that 
 the Lord would cast him off, goes back to the preliminary acts of seizing 
 him and rolling him. The other explanation gives the natural order. First 
 he is thrown upon the ground, then rolled into a ball, and then violently 
 thrown away. Some of the latest writers give H122? the sense of seizing, 
 grasping, founded on an Arabic analogy, and justified as they suppose by 
 the usage of the Hebrew word in 1 Sam. 14 : 32. 15 : 19. 25 : 14. But 
 except in these few doubtful cases the word uniformly signifies to veil or 
 cover. As this is the term used in the law which requires the leper to cover 
 his upper lip (Lev. 13:45), Grotius, with perverse ingenuity, infers that 
 Shebna was to be smitten with leprosy, excluded from the city on that ac- 
 count, and afterwards restored, but not reinstated in his former office. Ge- 
 senius gives nar the sense of wrapping up, and makes it thus synonymous 
 with ?}%. As both the terms have reference to the figure of a ball, the dis- 
 tinction seems to be that the first denotes the imposition of a covering or 
 wrapper, and the second the formation of the whole into a regular and com- 
 pact shape. There are several different ways of construing ina with the 
 words before it. Some suppose it to be governed by hW&e — with the 
 cast of a man, i. e. a manly, vigorous, or powerful cast. In this case we 
 must either suppose r&dbu to be an absolute form put for the construct — or 
 nb^ba to be understood after it— or "OS to be in apposition with it, or in agree- 
 ment with it as an adjective — all which are gratuitous and forced 
 assumptions. A better method of obtaining the same sense is by trans- 
 lating 'iss — like a man i.e. a mighty man. (Compare Job 38: 3.) Ac- 
 
393 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 cording to Hendewerk, hV«5«a is a verbal noun construed as an infinitive 
 and governing *iai as t&i does MiW in ch. 11: 9. The sense is then 
 with the casting of a man i. e. as a man is cast or thrown. But the throw- 
 ing of a man is the very thing here likened to the throwing of a ball. The 
 simplest construction is the one given by Ewald and by many older writers, 
 which takes *ea as a vocative. J. D. Michaelis reads !ifc$ and translates it 
 oh robber ! But this is not the meaning even of that word. Others take 
 15a in its proper sense of mighty man, others in the simple sense of man as 
 distinguished from God, of which use there are several unequivocal exam- 
 ples. (Job 22: 2. 10: 5. Prov. 20: 4.) 
 
 V. 18. Rolling he will roll thee in a roll, like a ball (throw?i) into a 
 spacious ground — there shalt thou die — and there the chariots of thy 
 glory — shame of thy master's house. The ejection of Shebna from the 
 country is compared to the rolling of a ball into an open space where there 
 is nothing to obstruct its progress. The ideas suggested are those of vio- 
 lence, rapidity, and distance. Maurer supposes tpx to denote a rolling mo- 
 tion ; but most interpreters apply it to the act of rolling up into a ball, which 
 agrees better both with usage and the context. The ellipsis of thrown or 
 cast before ba is altogether natural and easily supplied. Instead of spacious 
 the original has ta^T* ram wide on both hands or sides, i. e. extended and 
 open in every direction. All the interpreters appear to apply this directly 
 to Shebna, and are thence led to raise the question, what land is meant ? 
 Some say Assyria, some Mesopotamia, Ewald the wilderness, Grotius 
 the open fields out of Jerusalem where lepers were obliged to dwell. It 
 seems to me however that the phrase in question has relation not to Shebna 
 as a man but to the ball with which he is compared, and that "pa should be 
 taken in the sense of ground. To the three derivatives of tps in the first 
 clause Henderson cites as illustrative parallels ch. 27 : 7. 10: 16. 29: 14. 
 Mic. 2 : 4, and from the classics, the novog n6v<# novov yeast of Sophocles and 
 the doaiv xaxav xaxwv xuxoig of iEschylus. There are several different con- 
 structions of the last clause. The oldest versions make mn3*ra the subject 
 and V'P tne predicate of the same proposition : ' the chariots of thy glory 
 (shall be) the shame of thy lord's house.' This can only mean that the 
 king would be disgraced by having honoured such a man, chariots being then 
 put as an outward sign of dignity and wealth. Most writers make "jiVp and 
 what follows a description of Shebna addressed to himself Q thou shame of thy 
 master's house'), and construe maaiB either with nn»n (< and there shall 
 thy splendid chariots perish') or with the verb of existence understood, 
 (< there shall thy splendid chariots be.') As Siatt properly means thither, 
 it may be so taken here, the construction with rnan being then a pregnant 
 one : thither shalt thou die (i. e. thither shalt thou go to die) and thither 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 399 
 
 shall thy splendid chariots (convey thee.) The allusion will then be simply 
 to Shebna's return to his own country (whether Syria, Phenicia, Mesopota- 
 mia, or Assyria), and not to captivity in war or to suffering in exile, of 
 which there is no intimation in the text. All that the prophet clearly threat- 
 ens Shehna with, is the loss of rank and influence in Judah and a return to 
 his own country. An analogous incident in modern history (so far as 
 these circumstances are concerned) is Necker's retreat from France to 
 Switzerland at the beginning of the French Revolution. 
 
 V. 19. And it shall come to pass in that day that I will call for my 
 servant, for Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, i. e. will personally designate 
 him. Eliakim appears again in ch. 36 : 3, and there as here in connexion 
 with Shebna. There is probably no ground for the rabbinical tradition that 
 Eliakim is identical with Azariah mentioned 2 Chr. 31 : 13 as the ruler 
 of the house of God. The epithet my servant seems to be intended to 
 describe him as a faithful follower of Jehovah, and as such to contrast him with 
 Shebna who may have been a heathen. The employment of such a man 
 by such a king as Hezekiah is explained by some upon the supposition that 
 he had been promoted by Ahaz and then suffered to remain by his suc- 
 cessor. It is just as easy to suppose however that he had raised himself by 
 his abilities for public business. 
 
 V. 20. And I will thrust thee from thy post, and from thy station 
 shall he pull thee down. The verb in the last clause is indefinite and really 
 equivalent to a passive (thou shalt be pulled down). It should not there- 
 fore be translated in the first person as a mere enallage, nor made to agree 
 with Jehovah understood, which would be a very harsh construction, and 
 though not without example should be assumed only in case of necessity. 
 
 V. 21. And I will clothe him with thy dress, and with thy girdle will 1 
 strengthen him, and thy power will I give into his hand, and he shall be 
 for a father (or become a father) to the dweller in Jerusalem and to the 
 house of Judah. We may either suppose a reference to an official dress, or 
 a metaphor analogous to that of filling another's shoes in colloquial English. 
 The Piel of P*n may simply mean to bind fast, but the strict sense of 
 strengthening agrees well with the oriental use of the girdle to confine the 
 flowing garments and to fit the wearer for active exertion. Father is not a 
 mere oriental synonyme of ruler, but an emphatic designation of a wise and 
 benevolent ruler. It seems therefore to imply that Shebna's administration 
 was of an opposite character. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family 
 of Judah comprehend the whole nation. 
 
 V. 22. And I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder; 
 he shall open and there shall be no one shutting, he shall shut and there 
 
400 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII. 
 
 shall be no one opening. In other words, he shall have unlimited control 
 over the royal house and household, which according to oriental usages 
 implies a high political authority. Some suppose a reference to the actual 
 bearing of the key by the royal steward or chamberlain, and explain its 
 being carried on the shoulder by the fact that large wooden locks and keys 
 of corresponding size are still used in some countries, the latter being some- 
 times curved like a sickle so as to be hung around the neck. Against this 
 explanation it may be objected, that the phrase house of David seems to 
 imply a metaphorical rather than a literal palace, and that dstt) does not mean 
 the shoulder merely but includes the upper part of the back, as the place for 
 bearing burdens. (Vide supra, ch. 9:3. 10 : 27.) There is still less to be 
 said in favour of supposing an allusion to the figure of a key embroidered on 
 the dress. The best interpreters appear to be agreed that the government 
 or administration is here represented by the figure of a burden, not merely 
 in the general as in ch. 9 : 5, but the specific burden of a key, chosen in 
 order to express the idea of control over the royal house, which was the title 
 of the office in question. The application of the same terms to Peter 
 (Matt. 16: 19) and to Christ himself (Rev. 3: 7) does not prove that 
 they here refer to either, or that Eliakim was a type of Christ, but merely 
 that the same words admit of different applications. 
 
 V. 23. And 1 will fasten him a nail in a sure place, and he shall 
 be for a throne of glory to his father's house. The figure in the first 
 clause naturally conveys the idea of security and permanence. The refer- 
 ence is not to the stakes or centre post of a tent, but to the large pegs, pins 
 or nails often built into the walls of oriental houses for the purpose of sus- 
 pending clothes or vessels. The last clause is obscure. Some suppose the 
 figure of a pin or peg to be still continued, and that it is here represented as 
 so large that men may sit upon it. Others suppose the nail to be here 
 described as fastened in a throne : it shall be (attached) to the glorious 
 throne of his father's house. This would seem to warrant Calvin's suppo- 
 sition that Eliakim was of the blood royal. But such a construction, if not 
 wholly ungrammatical, is very forced, and aw is the Hebrew name for any 
 seat (answering to stool or chair), and denotes a throne or chair of state 
 only as being a seat par eminence. The most natural interpretation of the 
 words, and that most commonly adopted, is that the figure of a nail is here 
 exchanged for that of a seat, this being common to the two, that they alike 
 suggest the idea of support though in different ways. Those whom Eliakim 
 was the means of promoting might be said, with a change of figure but 
 without a change of meaning, both to sit and hang upon him. He was to 
 be not only a seat but a seat of honour, which is nearer to the meaning of 
 the Hebrew phrase than throne of glory. 
 
1SA1AII, < ' 11 A 1>. XXII. 401 
 
 V. 24. And thnj shall hakg upon him all the honour of his fat heft 
 house—the offspring and (he issue—all vessels of small ip/a/t/ity—from 
 vessels of cups even to all vessels ofjlagons. Here the figure of a nail is 
 resumed. The dependents of Eliakim are represented as suspended on him 
 as their sole support, n^xsxs and msDX are expressions borrowed from the 
 vegetable world. Henderson imitates the form of the original by rendering 
 them offspring and offset. It is commonly assumed by interpreters that the 
 two words are in antithesis, denoting either different sexes (sons and daugh- 
 ters), or different generations (sons and grandsons), or different ranks, which 
 last is the usual explanation, and derives some countenance from the 
 etymology of nrss and the analogy of Ezek. 4:15. The next phrase is de- 
 signed to show that even the least are not to be excepted. In the last clause 
 mass and o^bsa may either be taken as equivalent expressions or as contrast- 
 ing the gold and silver vessels of the altar (Ex. 24 : 6) with common earthen 
 utensils (Jer. 48: 12. Lam. 4 : 2). The old interpretation ofa^b^as 
 denoting musical instruments, though justified by usage, is forbidden by the 
 context. The Targum explicitly applies the clause to the Priests who 
 served the altar, and the Levites who conducted the music of the temple. This 
 explanation is connected with that of rnn in v. 1 as denoting the temple or 
 the house of God. 
 
 V. 25. In that day, saith Jehovah of Hosts, shall the nail fastened in 
 a sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall, and the burden which 
 was on it shall be cut off , for Jehovah speaks. The most natural and ob- 
 vious application of these words is to Eliakim, who had just been represented 
 as a nail in a sure place. But as this would predict his fall, without the slight- 
 est intimation of the reason, and in seeming contradiction to the previous 
 context, most interpreters reject this exposition as untenable. Hitzig indeed 
 maintains that this is the only meaning which the words will bear, but assumes 
 that these two verses were added at a later date, shortly before or after Elia- 
 kim's own disgrace. Hendewerk adopts the same hypothesis but applies it 
 to the last verse only. J. H. Michaelis alone gives a favourable meaning to 
 the figures of v. 25, as signifying that Eliakim should die in peace, to the 
 irreparable loss of Judah and of his own dependents in particular. Another 
 exegetical expedient is to apply even v. 23 to Shebna, not as a promise of 
 what God would do, but as a narrative of what he had done. The obvious 
 objections are, that the verbs in that verse are as certainly future as those in 
 the one before it ; and that both verses must be referred to the same subject, 
 unless the supposition of a change be absolutely necessary. Such a necessity 
 does seem to exist in v. 25, and is the more easily assumed because the 
 grammatical objection is not applicable there. Most writers, therefore, seem 
 to be agreed, that the twenty-fifth verse relates to Shebna, and that the 
 
 26 
 
402 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 
 
 Prophet, after likening Eliakim to a nail fastened in a sure place, tacitly ap- 
 plies the same comparison to Shebna, and declares that the nail which now 
 seems to be securely fastened shall soon yield to make way for the other. 
 Those who refer the verse to Eliakim suppose his fall to have been occasion- 
 ed by his nepotism or excessive patronage of his relations, a conjectural in- 
 ference from v. 24. The partial fulfilment of this prophecy is commonly sup- 
 posed to be recorded in ch. 36 : 3, where Eliakim actually fills the place here 
 promised to him, and Shebna appears in the inferior character of a scribe or 
 secretary. Some indeed suppose two persons of the name of Shebna, which 
 is not only arbitrary in itself, but rendered more improbable by this considera- 
 tion, that Shebna is probably a foreign name and certainly occurs only in these 
 and the parallel places, whereas Hilkiah is of frequent occurrence, and yet is 
 admitted upon all hands to denote the same person. It seems improbable 
 no doubt that Shebna, after such a threatening, should be transferred to 
 another office. But the threatening may not have been public, and the 
 transfer may have been merely the beginning of his degradation. But even 
 supposing that the Shebna of ch. 36 : 2 is a different person, and that the 
 execution of this judgment is nowhere explicitly recorded, there is no need 
 of concluding that it was revoked or that it was meant to be conditional, much 
 less that it was falsified by the event. It is a common usage of the Scrip- 
 tures, and of this book in particular, to record a divine command and not its 
 execution, leaving the latter to be inferred from the former as a matter of 
 course. Of this we have had repeated examples, such as ch. 7 : 4 and 8 : 1. 
 Nay in this very case, we are merely told what Isaiah was commanded to 
 say to Shebna, without being told that he obeyed the order. If the execu- 
 tion of this order may be taken for granted, so may the fulfilment of the pro- 
 phecy. If it had failed, it would not have been recorded or preserved among 
 the prophecies. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIIL 
 
 This prophecy consists of two parts. The first predicts the fall of 
 Tyre, vs. 1-14. The second promises its restoration and conversion, vs. 
 15-18. The fall of Tyre is predicted, not directly, but in the form of apos- 
 trophes, addressed to her own people or her colonies, vs. 1-7. The destruc- 
 tion is referred to God as its author, and to the Chaldees as his instruments, 
 vs. 8-14. The prediction in the latter part includes three events. Tyre 
 shall be forsaken and forgotten for seventy years, v. 15. She shall then be 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 403 
 
 restored to her former activity and wealth, vs. 16, 17. Thenceforth her 
 gains shall be devoted to the Lord, v. 1 8. 
 
 Tyre, one of the chief cities of Phenicia, was situated partly on a rocky 
 island near the coast, and partly in a wide and fertile plain upon the coast 
 itself. It was long a current opinion that the insular Tyre had no existence 
 before the time of Nebuchadnezzar ; but Hengstenberg has made it probable 
 that from the beginning the chief part of the city was situated on the island, 
 or rather a peninsula connected with the mainland by a narrow isthmus. 
 (See his elaborate and masterly tract, De Rebus Tyriorum, Berlin, 1832.) 
 The name Palaetyrus (Old Tyre), given by the ancient writers to the con- 
 tinental city, he supposes to have come into use after that part of Tyre was 
 destroyed and while the other was still standing. Tyre is remarkable in 
 history for two things ; its maritime trade, and the many sieges it has under- 
 gone. The first of these on record was by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, 
 who according to Menander, a historian now lost but quoted by Josephus, 
 blockaded Tyre for five years, so as to cut off the supply cf water from the 
 mainland, but without being able to reduce the city. The next was by 
 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, who besieged it thirteen years ; with 
 what result, is not expressly mentioned either in profane or sacred history. 
 A third siege was by Alexander the Great, who after seven months and 
 with the utmost difficulty finally reduced it. It was afterwards besieged by 
 the Syrian king Antigonus, and more than once during the Crusades, both 
 by Franks and Saracens. After this period it entirely decayed, and has 
 now disappeared, its site being marked by the insulated rock, by the cause- 
 way between it and the mainland still existing as a bar of sand, and by col- 
 umns and other architectural remains mostly lying under water. 
 
 It has been much disputed which of these events is the subject of the 
 prophecy before us. Grotius, as usual, sees the fulfilment in the days of 
 Isaiah himself, and refers the prediction to the siege by Shalmaneser. Cle- 
 ricus gives it a wider scope, and seems to make the siege by Alexander its 
 main subject. But the great body of the older writers refer it to an inter- 
 mediate event, the siege by Nebuchadnezzar. The arguments in favour of 
 this application are stated with great learning, force, and clearness, by Vi- 
 tringa on the passage. 
 
 The German writers of the new school are divided on this question. 
 Eichhorn, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, and others, admit the reference to Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, but ascribe the prophecy of course to a contemporary writer. 
 Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, and Knobel, admit its genuineness, but refer it 
 to the siege by Shalmaneser. Hendewerk also admits the genuineness of 
 the passage, but denies its having reference to any particular historical event. 
 Ewald refers it to the siege by Shalmaneser, but infers from the inferiority 
 of the style that it may be the production of a younger contemporary and 
 
404 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 
 
 disciple of Isaiah. The discussion of the subject by these writers is in one 
 respect interesting and instructive. In most other cases they occupy com- 
 mon ground against the truth. But here they are reduced to a dilemma, 
 and by choosing different horns of it, are placed in opposition to each other, 
 clearly betraying, in the conflict that ensues, the real value of their favourite 
 style of criticism. Thus while Ewald thinks the style unlike that of Isaiah, 
 and Eichhorn and Hitzig see the clearest indications of a later age, Gesenius 
 and Hendewerk are struck with the tokens of antiquity and with the charac- 
 teristics of Isaiah. So too with respect to the literary merit of the passage, 
 Hitzio* treats it almost with contempt, while Hendewerk extols it as a mas- 
 terpiece of eloquence. There could not be a stronger illustration of the fact, 
 already evident, that the boasted diagnosis of this school of critics is always 
 dependent on a foregone conclusion. Had there been no siege of Tyre in 
 the days of Isaiah, Gesenius would easily have found abundant proofs that 
 the chapter was of later date. But this not being necessary for his purpose 
 here, he treats as inconclusive even stronger proofs than those which he 
 himself employs in other cases. 
 
 To the reference of this prophecy to Shalmaneser there are two main 
 objections. The first is the express mention of the Chaldees in v. 13. 
 Ewald easily disposes of this difficulty by reading ti^sas instead of tfWttS. 
 Gesenius and the rest maintain that the Chaldees are mentioned only as 
 tributaries or auxiliaries of Assyria. As this, though arbitrarily assumed, is 
 not impossible, the first objection cannot be regarded as decisive. The 
 second is that Shalmaneser's attempt upon Tyre was perfectly abortive. 
 This argument of course has no effect upon Gesenius and others who deny 
 the inspiration of the Prophet. Even such however must admit that if the 
 descriptions of the prophecy were actually realized in another case, it is more 
 likely to have been the one intended. They allege however that the very 
 same objection lies against the supposition of a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 on the ground that no historian, sacred or profane, records the fact of his 
 having taken Tyre. To account for this omission, and to show by various 
 incidental proofs that the event did nevertheless happen, is the main design 
 of Hen gsten berg's tract already mentioned, in which he has performed 
 his task with a rare combination of minute learning, ingenuity, and good 
 sense, although not to the satisfaction of contemporary German writers. 
 His argument from the nature of the case turns in a great measure on 
 minute details, and sometimes on intricate calculations in chronology. It 
 will be sufficient therefore to record the result, which is that the actual con- 
 quest of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, even leaving out of view the prophecy 
 before us, and the more explicit one in Ezek. ch. 26, is much more 
 probable than the contrary hypothesis. But there is still another difficulty 
 in the way of applying the prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar's siege and con- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 405 
 
 quest. Isaiah intimates and Ezekiel explicitly foretells an entire desolation 
 of Tyre, which did not take place till the middle ages. Hengsten berg's 
 solution of this difficulty is, that the prophets constantly connect the imme- 
 diate consequences of the events which they predict with their remoter and 
 more gradual results. On the same general principle of interpretation, but 
 with a difference of form, it may be said that the prophecy before us is 
 generic not specific, a panoramic picture of the downfall of Tyre, from the 
 beginning to the end of the destroying process, with particular allusion to 
 particular sieges, as for instance to that of the Chaldees in v. 13, and perhaps 
 to that of Alexander in v. 6. Antiquarian research and discovery may yet 
 bring to light coincidences still more striking. 
 
 While the great majority of writers understand the passage as referring 
 to the literal Tyre, a few prefer to take it in a mystical sense. Some of the 
 older Jewish writers say that whenever the literal Tyre is meant, the name 
 is fully written ("^2), but that when it is defectively written, as it is here, 
 (is) it signifies Rome. Abarbenel refutes this dictum by showing that both 
 forms, occur in the same context, but himself makes Tyre here mean Ven- 
 ice. But these hypotheses are modest in comparison with that of Cocceius, 
 who understands by Tyre the Church of Rome, by Egypt Germany, by 
 Chittim Spain, by Tarshish France, by Assyria Turkey, by the land of the 
 Chaldees Hungary, and by the whole passage a chapter from the history of 
 the Reformation. Of such interpretations it may surely be said without undue 
 severity : ' hariolationes hae sunt ; sequamur certa ; incerta aequo animo ig- 
 noremus ; neque etiam hanc prophetiam cum quibusdam veterum allegorice 
 interpretabimur nam si Scriptura non indicet debere nos in re una cernere 
 imaginem alterius, etiamsi res diversae a Scriptura explicatae similitudinem 
 et conformitatem aliquam habeant, non possumus tamen asserere hoc illius 
 typum et figuram esse, nisi quatenus ilia conformitas ex Scripturarum com- 
 paratione demonstratur.' These are the words of Cocceius himself, reprov- 
 ing Grotius for his groundless hypothesis of Shebna's leprosy in ch. 22, and 
 declaring his own dissent from the old interpretations of that chapter. 
 
 V. 1. The burden of Tyre. Howl, ships of Tarshish, for it is laid 
 waste — wo house, no entrance — from the land of Chittim it is revealed to 
 them. Here, as inch. 13: 1. 15: 1. 17: 1. 19: 1. 21: 1, 11, 13. 22: 1, 
 there is not the slightest reason for rejecting the first words as the addition of 
 a copyist or compiler. The command or exhortation to howl implies that 
 those to whom it is addressed have peculiar cause for grief. By ships of 
 Tarshish we are not to understand merchant-ships in general, but strictly 
 those which carried on the trade between Phenicia and its Spanish colony 
 Tartessus. For the other meanings which have been attached to ti^tta, 
 vide supra, ch. 2: 15. Rosenmuller condemns the generic explanation of 
 
406 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 
 
 the phrase as unpoetical, but does not scruple to make ships mean sailors, 
 which is wholly unnecessary. The masculine form Ttttf may either be re- 
 ferred to lis by a common license, or indefinitely taken to mean desolation 
 has been wrought, or something has been desolated, without saying what. 
 Ewald resolves it into an indefinite active verb (zerstort hat man) without a 
 change of meaning. The preposition in n^^a and vtiihq has a privative 
 effect. The meaning strictly is, away from house, away from entrance. It 
 may be less concisely rendered, so that there is no house etc. Some make 
 the two expressions strictly parallel and correlative, so that there is neither 
 house nor entrance, in which case the latter may have reference to the enter- 
 ing of ships into the harbour. Others make the second dependent on the 
 first, so that there is no house left to enter. This may refer particularly to 
 the mariners returning from their long voyage and finding their homes de- 
 stroyed. Chittim is neither Macedonia (Clericus), Italy (Vitringa), Susiana 
 (Bochart), Cilicia (Junius), nor a region in Arabia (Hensler), but the island 
 of Cyprus (Josephus), in which there was a city Citium, which Cicero 
 explicitly refers to as a Phenician settlement. The wider explanation of 
 the name as denoting other islands or the Mediterranean coasts in general, 
 though not without authority from usage, is uncertain and in this case need- 
 less. These words are connected with what goes before by Calvin (ut non 
 sit commeatus e terra Cittim) and others ; but most interpreters adhere to 
 the masoretic interpunction. It is revealed (i. e. the event announced in 
 the preceding clause) to them (the Tyrian mariners on their way home from 
 Tarshish). The meaning seems to be, that the news of the fall of Tyre has 
 reached the Phenician settlements in Cyprus, and through them the Tyrian 
 manners that touch there. 
 
 V. 2. Be silent oh inhabitants of the isle (or coast), the merchants of 
 Sidon crossing the sea filed thee. This may either be addressed to the 
 coasts and islands of the Mediterranean which had long been frequented by 
 the Phenician traders, or to Phenicia itself, which foreign commerce had 
 enriched. The last explanation is commonly preferred ; but the first is 
 recommended by the fact that it assigns a reason for the mention of the for- 
 eign trade of Sidon, as accounting for the interest which other nations are 
 supposed to feel in the fall of Tyre. On either supposition, Sidon, the 
 other great city of Phenicia, is put for the whole country. The plural verb 
 in the last clause agrees with ">nb as a collective. 
 
 V. 3. And in great waters (was) the seed of the Nile; the harvest of 
 the river (ivas) her revenue ; and she was a mart of nations. "M, and "iiK? 
 are the Hebrew and Egyptian names of the Nile. The first, according to 
 its etymology, means black, and corresponds to Mt'lag and Melo, Greek and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 407 
 
 Latin names of the same river, all derived from the colour of the water or 
 the mud which it deposits. The use of the word -Trie; is one of the proofs, 
 adduced by Eichhorn and Kosenniiilier, that the chapter is of later date. It 
 is true the name occurs in Josh. IS : 13; but that is also classed among the 
 later books. Gesenius observes however that an inference can hardly be 
 drawn from one or two examples. Of the whole verse there are three inter- 
 pretations. The first supposes an allusion to the fact that the grain of Egypt 
 was exported in Phenician vessels on the great waters i. e. over the sea. 
 The objection that Phenicia is described by Ezekiel as trading not with Egypt 
 but with Palestine in grain, though entitled to some weight, is not conclusive. 
 A stronger objection may be drawn from the apparent incongruity of naming 
 this one branch of commerce as a proof that Tyre was a mart of nations. 
 A second interpretation understands what is said of Egypt figuratively, or 
 as a comparison ; as if he had said that the wealth which Egypt derived from 
 the Nile, Phenicia derived from the great waters i. e. by her maritime trade. 
 The third differs from this only by supposing a distinct allusion to the insu- 
 lar situation of Tyre, which, though planted on a rock and girt by mighty 
 waters, reaped as rich a harvest as the fertile land of Egypt. This last 
 interpretation, which is that of J. D. Michaelis and Hengstenberg, is much 
 more poetical than either of the others, and at least in that respect entitled 
 to the preference. 
 
 V. 4. Be ashamed (or confounded) Zidon, for the sea saith, the strength 
 of the sea, saying, I have not travailed, and I have not borne, and I have 
 not reared young men (or) brought up virgins. One of the great cities of 
 Phenicia is here called upon to be confounded at the desolation of the other ; 
 or Zidon may be put for the whole country, as in the preceding verse. The 
 Targum gives to c^ its geographical sense of west (amr^). Some writers 
 understand the sea itself as the ideal speaker, and explain rfcrn as an allusion 
 to the turret-like appearance of the waves when in commotion. The correct 
 view of the case seems to be this. The Prophet hears a voice from the sea, 
 which he then describes more exactly as coming from the stronghold or 
 fortress of the sea, i. e. insular Tyre as viewed from the mainland. The 
 rest of the verse is intended to express the idea that the city thus personified 
 was childless, was as if she had never borne children. Here, as in chap. 
 I : 2, Hendewerk takes "wari-i in the sense of exalting, making great, which 
 is at once a violation of usage and of the Prophet's metaphor. Interpreters 
 are commonly agreed that the negative force of the last aib extends to both 
 the following verbs. Cocceius alone seems to make the last clause affirma- 
 tive (non educavi juvenes ; extuli vir^ines) as if she were complaining that 
 she had not borne sons but daughters. But the whole metaphor is clearly 
 intended to express the idea of depopulation. 
 
408 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII 
 
 V. 5. When the report (comes) to Egypt, they are pained at the report 
 of Tyre. There are three distinct interpretations of this verse. , The first 
 refers tifrfln to the Sidonians or Phenicians generally, and understands the 
 verse to mean that they would be as much grieved to hear of the fall of 
 Tyre as if they should hear of that of Egypt. The second makes the verb 
 indefinite, or understands it of the nations generally, who are then said to be 
 as much astounded at the fall of Tyre as they once were at the judgments 
 of Jehovah upon Egypt. The third, which is the one now commonly adopt- 
 ed, makes Egypt itself or the Egyptians the subject of the verb, and explains 
 3 and iujjo as particles of time, not of comparison. The first of these senses 
 is expressed by Vitringa (utfama de Egypto commoveret animos, sic dole- 
 bunt ad /amain Tyri), the second by Luther (gleichwie man erschrak da 
 man von Egypten horete, also wird man erschrecken wenn man von Tyrus 
 horen wird), the third by the Vulgate (cum auditum fuerit in Egypto dole- 
 bunt cum audient de Tyro). This last supposes the Egyptians to lament 
 for the loss of their great mart and commercial ally. The idea expressed 
 by the second construction is a much more elevated one, and it seems more 
 agreeable to usage to take a before a noun as a particle of comparison. 
 (Vide supra, ch. 18: 4.) TOK2 equally admits of either explanation. 
 Either of these interpretations appears preferable to the first, which yields 
 an unnatural and inappropriate sense. 
 
 V. 6. Pass over to Tarshish ; howl, ye inhabitants of the isle (or coast). 
 The mother country is exhorted to take refuge in her distant colonies. 
 J. D. Michaelis compares the resolution of the Dutch merchants in 1672 to 
 remove to Batavia if the mother country could not be delivered. According 
 to Diodorus, Curtius, and Justin, the Tyrians, when besieged by Alexander, 
 sent their old men, women and children, to Carthage. Aben Ezra gra- 
 tuitously makes "W a collective, and supposes the address to be to all the 
 islands where the Tyrians traded. 
 
 V. 7. Is this your joyous city (literally, is this to you a joyous one) ? 
 from the days of old is her antiquity ; her feet shall carry her afar off to 
 sojourn. Some adopt a relative construction, and continue the interrogation 
 through the verse ; whose feet etc. Of those who read the sentence thus, 
 some understand the last clause as descriptive of the colonial and commer- 
 cial activity of Tyre. But this requires n^i" 1 to be arbitrarily explained as 
 a preterite. Most writers understand the clause as applying, either to the 
 flight of the Tyrians to their colonies, or to their being carried into exile. 
 To the first, Gesenius objects that they could not cross the sea on foot. 
 Umbreit replies that they must have feet to go on board the ships. Knobel 
 rejoins that in that case it would not be their feet that carried them far 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 409 
 
 off. It does not seem to have occurred to either, that a city can no more 
 cross the sea in ships than dry-shod ; that the verse contains a bold personi- 
 fication ; and that having once converted Tyre into a woman, the writer may 
 naturally represent her as going any where on foot, without respect to the 
 actual method of conveyance used by individual emigrants. Grotius avoids 
 the difficulty mentioned by Gesenius, by making feet mean sails and oars. 
 The epithet ripr? has reference to the bustle of commerical enterprise and also 
 to the luxury and pride of Tyre. Hendewerk refers to the use of this word 
 in ch. 22 : 2, as an incidental proof that Isaiah wrote both chapters. The 
 resemblance between rro'Jg and cnp is imitated by Gesenius in his version 
 (Ursprung and Urzeit). These expressions may be referred either to the 
 real antiquity of Tyre, or to the exaggerated boastings of the Tyrians, of 
 which we have examples in Herodotus and other profane writers. 
 
 V. 8. Who hath purposed this against Tyre the crowning (city), whose 
 merchants (are) princes, her traffickers the honoured of the earth 1 The 
 Vulgate gives ttvwna a passive sense (quondam coronatam), which Sanctius 
 applies to the pinnacles and turrets of the city. Hitzig makes it mean the 
 crown-wearer. Most writers seem to be agreed that it denotes the crowner 
 or crown-giver, in allusion to the fact that crowned heads were among the 
 tributaries of Phenicia, according to the testimony of the Greek historians. 
 Gesenius refers to the oriental crowns dispensed by the East India Com- 
 pany, and to the crown of Corsica once subject to the Genoese Republic. 
 He also illustrates the use of the name Canaan to denote a trader, by the 
 analogous usage of Chaldean for astrologer, and that of Swiss, Savoyard, Jew, 
 in modern parlance, to denote certain callings or professions. The question 
 in this verse implies that no ordinary power could have done it. The sense 
 of rich which Gesenius gives to TOM in this place is entirely arbitrary. 
 That of land, which some writers put instead of earth, though it does not 
 change the sense of the expression, weakens it. 
 
 V. 9. Jehovah of Hosts hath purposed it, to profane the elevation of 
 all beauty, to degrade all the honoured of the earth. This is the answer to 
 the question in v. 8. The suffix in nss^ refers to txt. The supposition of 
 a chorus, or of choruses responding to each other, is gratuitous and artificial, 
 and better suited to a Greek play than a Hebrew prophecy. Not only in 
 poetry, but in animated prose, the writers of all languages ask questions to be 
 answered by themselves, ^s includes all that was splendid and beautiful 
 in Tyre. The exclusive reference of the word to the people can be justified 
 by nothing but the parallelism, and even that will admit of an antithesis be- 
 tween an abstract and a concrete term, ^n means strictly to profane or dese- 
 crate that which is reckoned holy, but is here used to express the making 
 
410 ISAIAH, CHAP. XX11I. 
 
 common of that which was distinguished by magnificence or beauty. The 
 force of the antithesis between bpn and D*T3M cannot be fully expressed in 
 a translation, as the roots respectively mean light and heavy. They are 
 also contrasted, but in a different application and connexion, in ch. 8 : 23. 
 
 V. 10. Pass through thy land like the river (Nile) ; Daughter of 
 Tarshish, there is no girdle (any) longer. Some read, pass over to thy land, 
 and make the verse an exhortation to the strangers from Tartessus to go 
 home. Others understand "WS to mean as (one would cross) the Nile or 
 any other stream, i. e. naked, or without a girdle, as in the other clause. It 
 is commonly agreed, however, that the phrase means, as the Nile passes, 
 i. e. quickly or without restraint. Some suppose the figure to be still con- 
 tinued in the last clause, and take nta in the sense of a dam, mound, or em- 
 bankment. Others, giving it its proper sense of girdle, apply it to the for- 
 tifications of Tyre which were now dismantled. The daughter of Tarshish 
 is not Tyre, or Phenicia now considered as dependent on her colonies ; nor 
 the population of Tarshish ; but Tarshish itself. There is no more girdle 
 may be taken in opposite senses, as denoting the failure of strength and gen- 
 eral dissolution, or the absence of restraint and freedom from oppression. 
 The former is preferred by Hengstenberg ; but it does not seem appropriate to 
 Tarshish, though it might be so if addressed to the mother country. 
 
 V. 11. His hand he stretched out over the sea; he made kingdoms 
 tremble ; Jehovah commanded respecting Canaan to destroy her strongholds. 
 The subject of the verbs in the first clause is the same as in the last. The 
 stretching out of God's hand, followed by the trembling of the earth or its 
 inhabitants, is urged by Hendewerk as a favourite expression of Isaiah (see 
 particularly ch. 5: 25). Eichhorn and Rosenmiiller, on the other hand, 
 make s-nitsa a Chaldaism and a proof of later origin. Gesenius denies that 
 there is any thing analogous in Chaldee or Syriac usage, and regards it as 
 either an anomalous case of epenthesis or an orthographical error. The 
 feminine suffix at the end refers to Canaan as the name of a country. 
 
 V. 12. And he said, Thou shalt not add longer (or continue) to tri- 
 umph, oppressed (or violated) virgin daughter of Zidon ; to Chittim arise, 
 pass over ; there also there shall be no rest to thee. The address is not to 
 Chittim (or the Macedonians) ; nor to Tyre as a daughter of the older city ; 
 but to Zidon itself. The fact that rtona is in apposition with ra (as to 
 sense) makes it altogether probable that ra sustains the same relation to yN*»*. 
 The reading "ji^s re, though found in sixteen manuscripts and several ancient 
 versions, is probably a mere mistake, arising from the frequent occurrence of 
 the combination elsewhere. Zidon is here put for Phenicia in general. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 411 
 
 -•:? is impersonal. This exhortation corresponds exactly to the one in v. 
 6, Tarshish and Chittim being both Phenician colonies. The last clause 
 implies, either that the colonists would not receive them, or that the enemy 
 would still pursue them, probably the latter. The figure of a violated vir- 
 gin, for a conquered city or country, is alleged by Eichhorn as a proof of 
 later origin ; but it is used by the contemporary prophet Nahum (3 : 5), 
 and as Knobel observes, occurs nowhere else in Isaiah because he nowhere 
 has occasion to employ it. 
 
 V. 13. Behold the land of the Chaldees ; this people was not; 
 Assyria founded it for dwellers in the wilderness ; they have set up his 
 towers ; they have roused up her palaces ; he has put it for (or rendered it) 
 a ruin. This difficult verse has been very variously understood. Some 
 apply it exclusively to the destruction of Tyre by the Assyrians ; but this 
 can only be effected by an arbitrary change of text. Thus J. Olshausen 
 (in his emendations of the text of the Old Testament) omits the words from 
 •px to *ttBH as a gloss, changes d^x into &" n s, and explains the rest to mean 
 that Assyria converted Tyre into a heap of ruins. The origin of the gloss 
 he supposes to be this, that some one wrote upon the margin by way of cor- 
 rection, ninira -px, meaning that it was not Assyria but Babylonia that de- 
 stroyed Tyre, and then added more explicitly, hti xb c;n J-it, all which after- 
 wards found its way into the text. This piece of criticism is too extrava- 
 gant even for the Germans, who accordingly reject it with contempt. Ew- 
 ald, however, also tampers with the text by reading D^rss for errs. His 
 version of the whole is : ' behold the land of the Canaanites (i. e. Phenicia) ; 
 this nation is no more ; Assyria has converted it into a wilderness ; they (the 
 Phenicians) set up their towers (and) built their palaces ; he (the Assyrian) 
 has turned it to a ruin.' Besides the arbitrary change of text, this explanation 
 gives to t^x and W9 senses which cannot be sustained by usage. The 
 great majority, both of the older and the later writers, leave the text unalter- 
 ed, and suppose that the Prophet here brings the Chaldees into view as the 
 instruments of Tyre's destruction. The words from hi to t^xb will then be 
 a parenthesis, containing an allusion to a historical fact not expressly men- 
 tioned elsewhere, but agreeing well with other facts of history, viz. that the 
 Chaldees were not the aboriginal inhabitants of Babylonia, but were brought 
 thither from the mountains of Armenia or Kurdistan by the Assyrians in the 
 days of their supremacy. This accounts for the fact, that Xenophon speaks 
 of the Chaldees as northern mountaineers, while in the sacred history we 
 find them in possession of the great plain of Shinar. The former statement 
 has respect, no doubt, to that portion of the people who were left behind in 
 their original territory. This incidental statement, it may also be observed, 
 is in strict accordance with the Assyrian policy of peopling their own pro- 
 
412 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 
 
 vinces with conquered nations. The construction commonly adopted, by 
 interpreters who thus explain the sentence, is as follows. ' Behold the land of 
 the Chaldees ; this people (the people now inhabiting it) was not (i. e. had 
 no existence until lately) ; Assyria founded (or established) it (the coun- 
 try) for dwellers in the wilderness (i. e. for the Chaldees who before had 
 led a wild nomadic life).' To this construction Knobel, though he acquiesces 
 in the exposition as a whole, makes two objections ; first, that while it ex- 
 plains "pa as denoting the people, it refers the suffix in smo^ to the country ; 
 secondly, that D*wx is really descriptive of the Chaldees, not before but after 
 their transportation to the plains of Babylonia. Knobel himself refers both "pa 
 and the suffix to the people considered as possessors of the land, and takes 
 h i&i in the sense of appointing, constituting, as in Hab. 1 : 12. ' Behold 
 the nation of the Chaldees ; this people was not (i. e. was unknown) till 
 Assyria changed them into inhabitants of the wilderness (or plain).' — -But 
 why should this fact in the history of the Chaldees be referred to here ? The 
 answer usually given to this question is, because the recent origin and present 
 insignificance of the chosen instruments made the conquest more humiliating 
 to the Tyrians. A kindred feeling would have been excited in the ancient 
 Romans by a prediction of their subjugation and destruction by the Goths. 
 If the reason assigned for the incidental mention of the Chaldee migration be 
 the true one, it has evidently far more force upon the supposition that the 
 prophecy relates to the Babylonian conquest under Nebuchadnezzar, than 
 upon the supposition that it relates to the attack of Shalmaneser. Indeed 
 the whole assumption, that the Chaldees are here mentioned as auxiliaries 
 only, is so perfectly arbitrary, that it would never have occurred to any writer, 
 who had not determined upon other grounds, that the event predicted took 
 place under the Assyrian domination. Even Umbreit, who assents to this 
 hypothesis, admits that it is only probable, not certain, and that this verse 
 taken by itself would rather prove the contrary, by mentioning the Chaldees 
 as the principal assailants, and Assyria only in a parenthesis containing a 
 historical allusion. According to the usual interpretation which has now 
 been given, the toivers mentioned are those used in ancient sieges ; the mas- 
 culine suffix refers to cs ; the feminine suffix to Tyre ; and Tito may be 
 taken either in the sense of raising (from "Vis), or in that of rousing (from 
 *rts), that is, filling with confusion and alarm. Besides the interpretations 
 which have now been given, there is another that deserves at least to be re- 
 corded. Schleyer, a recent German writer on this prophecy and that against 
 Babylon in ch. xm, xiv, gives the same sense to the words from nt to 
 niW* that is put upon them by Olshausen, but instead of rejecting them as a 
 marginal correction, retains them as a necessary part of the text. ' Behold, 
 the nation of the Chaldees ; this people (it was not Assyria) has assigned it 
 (i. e. Tyre) to the dwellers in the wilderness (i. e. made it desolate). Urn- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 413 
 
 breit, without dwelling on tin- violation of the masorctic accents, objects to 
 this interpretation, that it fails to account for the use of the word -px before 
 b+itCb t but especially that no reason can be given for the negative assertion 
 that it was not Assyria that desolated Tyre. If the interpretation, however, 
 were otherwise tenable, this, so far from being an objection, would in fact 
 recommend it. When Isaiah wrote, Assyria was the ruling power of the 
 world ; whatever changes were expected, were expected from that quarter. 
 But here the conquest of Phenicia is ascribed to a people then but little known, 
 if known at all. It was perfectly natural therefore to say negatively, that it was 
 no to be effected by Assyria, as well as positively, that it was to be effected by 
 Chaldea. In like manner, if the fall of the Roman stateJiad been foretold 
 during the period of the Punic wars, how naturally would the prophet have 
 said that it should fall, not before the Carthaginians, but before the Goths, 
 The sense therefore yielded by Schleyer's construction is a good sense in 
 itself and appropriate to the context. It cannot however be affirmed that 
 there is any sufficient reason for departing from the masoretic tradition as to 
 the interpunction of the sentence. But let it be observed, that on either of 
 these suppositions, the reference of the verse to the siege of Tyre by Ne- 
 buchadnezzar is far more natural than any other. 
 
 V. 14. Howl, ships of Tarshish, for destroyed is your stronghold. 
 The first part of the prophecy here closes very much as it began. The 
 description of Tyre is the same as in v. 4, except that it was there called 
 the fortress of the sea, and here the fortress of the Tyrian ships. 
 
 V. 15. And it shall come to pass in that day that Tyre shall be forgot- 
 ten seventy years, as the days of one Icing ; from the end of seventy years 
 shall be (or happen) to Tyre like the harlot's song. The remainder of 
 the chapter predicts the restoration of Tyre, not to its former dignity, but to 
 its wealth and commercial activity, the fruits of which should thenceforth 
 be consecrated to Jehovah. There is no difference of opinion with respect 
 to the meaning of the words or the grammatical construction of the sentence ; 
 but the utmost diversity of judgment in relation to the general sense and ap- 
 plication of the whole, and especially of the words, seventy years as the days 
 of one king. Vitringa and others take the seventy years strictly. Gesenius 
 and the later German writers make it a round number, as in Gen. 50 : 3. Ex. 
 15: 27. 24: 1. The following words are rejected by Umbreit as a gloss. 
 J. D. Michaelis and Paulus read ^ns (another) for *inx (one). Grotius reads 
 seven for seventy, forgetting that the following noun must then be in the plu- 
 ral, and assuming that Shalmaneser reigned seven years, or was seven years 
 at Tyre. Jarchi understands by the one king David, who died at the age of 
 threescore and ten, though he cannot explain why it should be here referred 
 
414 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 
 
 to. Kimchi suggests that it may be in allusion to the treaty between David 
 and Hiram, the breach of which was the occasion of this judgment. Kimchi 
 prefers however to explain the words as a description of the ordinary length 
 of human life, in which he is followed by Gesenius and Maurer, who account 
 for the mention of one king rather than one man, upon the ground that kings 
 and kingdoms are the subject of the prophecy. The same interpretation is 
 suggested by the double version of the Septuagint (cog %Qovog fiaoilimg, ag 
 XQovog av&Qmnov), which is found in all the manuscripts, though some mod- 
 ern critics reckon only part of it as genuine, Gesenius considering the first 
 phrase as an emendation of the second, Rosenmuller the second as a later 
 explanation of the first. Hitzig pretends that this form of expression was 
 borrowed from Jeremiah's expectation that Zedekiah was to be restored at 
 the end of seventy years. Movers supposes that the things compared are 
 not two periods of time, but two cases of oblivion, and understands the 
 clause as meaning that Tyre should be forgotten as completely as Jehoahaz 
 and his three months' reign. Henderson, more generally, makes the sense 
 to be that Tyre should be forgotten as completely as a king when he is 
 dead, in illustration of which general fact he strangely cites the case of Na- 
 poleon. Knobel understands the verse to mean that the oblivion of Tyre 
 for a time should be as fixed and unalterable as the decrees of an oriental 
 monarch during his own reign. Eichhorn and Ewald understand the phrase 
 as opposite in meaning to the one employed in ch. 16: 14. 21 : 16. As 
 the years of a hireling mean years computed strictly, so the days of a king 
 may mean days computed freely. Hengstenberg, without attempting to 
 explain the phrase (quomodocunque ilia explicentur), understands it to 
 imply that seventy years is here to be indefinitely understood, and carefully 
 distinguished from the seventy years of Jeremiah and from the other specifi- 
 cations of time contained in the writings of Isaiah himself. Those, on the 
 other hand, who give the words their strict sense, for the most part follow 
 Aben Ezra and Vitringa in supposing that the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar 
 and his successors are here computed as one. It is no sufficient answer to 
 say that !$>£ never means a dynasty. That idea may of course be implied 
 even if it is not expressed. The chronological hypothesis of this interpreta- 
 tion has however been denied by J. D. Michaelis, who puts the end of the 
 prescribed term thirty-three or four years later than the fall of Babylon. 
 That Tyre was a flourishing city in the time of Alexander the Great, is mat- 
 ter of history. When it again became so, is not. But since the fact is 
 certain and the prophecy explicit, the most rational conclusion is that they 
 chronologically coincide, or in other words, that Tyre did begin to recover 
 from the effects of the Babylonian conquest about seventy years after the 
 catastrophe itself. This of course supposes that the words are to be defi- 
 nitely understood. If, on the other hand, they are indefinite, there can be 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 415 
 
 still less difficulty in supposing their fulfilment. In either case, the words 
 nnx "iV» ra->3 remain so enigmatical, and all the explanations of them so 
 unsatisfactory, that some may be tempted to refer them to the future, and to 
 look for their development hereafter. Hengstenberg's view of the connexion 
 between this prediction of Isaiah and the parallel prophecies of Ezekiel (ch. 
 26 and 27) and Zechariah (ch. 9) is this, that the last should be regarded 
 as a supplement or sequel to the other two. When Zechariah wrote, the 
 Babylonian conquest predicted by Isaiah and Ezekiel had already taken 
 place. The change for the better, predicted by Isaiah alone, was then 
 already visible. The prophecies of both respecting the total destruction of 
 the city are renewed by Zechariah and referred to a period still future, with 
 particular ^reference, as Hengstenberg supposes, to the time of Alexander, 
 but it may be with a scope still more extensive. — The last clause foretells 
 the restoration of Tyre in a very peculiar and significant form. Instead of 
 a queen reinstated on the throne, she now appears as a forgotten harlot, 
 suing once more for admiration and reward. Although this metaphor, as we 
 shall see below, does not necessarily imply moral turpitude, it does necessa- 
 rily impart a contemptuous tone to the prediction. The best explanation 
 of this change of tone is not, as Eichhorn imagined, that these verses are a 
 later addition, but that the restoration here predicted was to be a restoration 
 to commercial prosperity and wealth, but not to regal dignity or national im- 
 portance. The song of a harlot (or the harlot) is now commonly agreed to 
 mean a particular song well known to the contemporaries of the Prophet. 
 It shall be to her like this song can only mean that what the song presents 
 as an ideal situation should be realized in the experience of Tyre. The 
 Hebrew words will scarcely bear the meaning put upon them in the text of 
 the English Version. 
 
 V. 16. Take a harp, go about the city, oh forgotten harlot, play well, 
 sing much, that thou mayest be remembered. These are now commonly ex- 
 plained as the words of the song itself, describing the only way in which the 
 harlot could recover her lost place in the memory of men, viz. by soliciting 
 their notice and their favour. The application of the song to Tyre implies 
 not only that she had lost her former position in the sight of the nations, but 
 that exertion would be needed to recover it. The literal meaning of the 
 words translated play well, sing much, is make good playing, multiply song. 
 See Gesenius <§> 139, 1. 
 
 V. 17. And it shall be (or come to pass), from (or at) the end of 
 seventy years, Jehovah will visit Tyre, and she shall return to her hire (or 
 gain), and shall play the harlot with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the 
 face of the ground. As God is said to visit men both in wrath and mercy, 
 
416 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIII. 
 
 and as the figure here employed is at first sight a revolting one, some of the 
 older writers understand this verse as describing the continued wickedness of 
 Tyre requiring further judgments. But this makes it necessary to explain 
 the next verse as referring to a still remoter future, which is done by insert- 
 ing tandem or the like at the beginning. It is evident, however, from the 
 repetition of the word pimpk in the next verse, that the prediction there has 
 reference to the very course of conduct here described. From this again 
 the inference is plain, that notwithstanding the apparent import of the figure, 
 the conduct is not in itself unlawful. The figure indeed is now commonly 
 agreed to denote nothing more than commercial intercourse without neces- 
 sarily implying guilt. In ancient times, when international commerce was a 
 strange thing and nearly monopolized by a single nation, and especially 
 among the Jews, whose law discouraged it for wise but temporary purposes, 
 there were probably ideas attached to such promiscuous intercourse entirely 
 different from our own. Certain it is that the Scriptures more than once 
 compare the mutual solicitations of commercial enterprise to illicit love. 
 That the comparison does not necessarily involve the idea of unlawful or 
 dishonest trade, is sufficiently apparent from the following verse. 
 
 V. 18. And her gain and her hire shall be holiness (or holy i. e. conse- 
 crated) to Jehovah ; it shall not be stored and it shall not be hoarded ; for 
 her gain shall be for those who sit (or dwell) before Johovah, to eat to 
 satiety, and for substantial clothing. By those who dwell before Jehovah 
 we are probably to understand his worshippers in general and his official 
 servants in particular. Henderson's objection, that the priests were not 
 allowed to sit in the temple, is applicable only to the primary meaning of the 
 verb. There may be an allusion to the chambers around the temple which 
 were occupied by priests and Levites when in actual service, pw, accord- 
 ing to the Arabic analogy, means ancient as an epithet of praise, and is ac- 
 cordingly resolved by the modern writers into^we or splendid. The older 
 interpreters deduced perhaps from the same original idea that of durable, sub- 
 stantial, wearing long and well. The latter agrees better with the application 
 of the words to private dress, the former to official robes, in which magnificence 
 was more important than solidity, and which might be transferred from one 
 incumbent to the next, and so be represented even in the stricter sense as 
 old or ancient. The general sense of the prediction evidently is, that the 
 commercial gains of Tyre should redound to the advantage of the servants 
 of Jehovah. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 417 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 Here begins a series of prophecies (ch. xxiv-xxxv), having refer- 
 ence chiefly to Judah. It is not divided into parts by any titles or express 
 intimations of a change of subject. The style is also homogeneous and 
 uniform. The attempts which have been made to subdivide this por- 
 tion of the book are for the most part arbitrary. The conventional division 
 into chapters may be retained as a matter of convenience. The first four 
 chapters (xxiv — xxvn) are now universally regarded as forming one 
 continuous composition. What is said of ch. xxiv is therefore in some 
 degree applicable to the whole. This chapter contains a description of a 
 country rilled with confusion and distress by a visitation from Jehovah in 
 consequence of its iniquities, vs. 1-12. It then speaks of a remnant scat- 
 tered among the nations and glorifying God in distant lands, vs. 13-16. 
 The Prophet then resumes his description of the judgments coming on the 
 same land or another, winding up with a prophecy of Jehovah's exaltation 
 in Jerusalem, vs. 16-23. Eusebius and Jerome explained this chapter as 
 a prediction of the end of the world, in which they have been followed by 
 Oecolampadius and some later writers. Cyril referred it to the same event, 
 but understood it in its primary meaning as a summary of the foregoing 
 prophecies against foreign nations. The older Jews (as we learn from 
 Jarchi and Aben Ezra) applied the first part of the chapter to the Assyrian 
 invasions of the Holy Land, and the last to the wars of Gog and Magog 
 in the days of the Messiah. But Moses Haccohen referred the whole to the 
 former period, Kimchi and Abarbenel the whole to the latter. Luther ap- 
 plied it to the desolation of Judea by the Romans. Calvin agreed with 
 Cyril in regarding it as a summary of the preceding prophecies both against 
 Israel and foreign nations, but denied any reference to the day of judgment. 
 Grotius adhered to Moses Haccohen, in applying the whole to the Assyrian 
 invasions. He referred the first part to the wasting of the ten tribes by 
 Shalmaneser, and the second to Sennacherib's invasion of Judah. Cocceius 
 is as usual in the opposite extreme, applying the chapter to the German 
 and Bohemian war, Gustavus Adolphus, Wallenstein, the taking of Ratisbon, 
 the battle of Norlingen, and the conflicts between Charles I. of England and 
 the Parliament. Clericus understood the chapter as a prophecy of the 
 Babylonian conquest of Judea, the captivity, and the restoration of the Jew- 
 ish commonwealth. Vitringa explained it as relating, in its primary sense, to 
 the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors, and 
 their deliverance by the Maccabees, but in its mystical or secondary sense 
 to certain changes which await the Christian church in future times. Lowth 
 
 27 
 
418 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 
 
 differed little in reality from Calvin, except that he confined the prediction 
 more exclusively to Judah and its sufferings at the hands of the Assyrians, 
 Babylonians, and Romans. None of the writers who have now been men- 
 tioned entertained the least doubt as to the genuineness of the prophecy. 
 The turning point between the old and new school of criticism is occupied 
 by J. D. Michaelis, who without suggesting any doubt as to the age or au- 
 thor, pronounces the passage the most difficult in the book, and is altogether 
 doubtful whether it has ever been fulfilled. Koppe divides the chapter into 
 two independent prophecies. Eichhorn approves of this division, and infers 
 from the style and phraseology, that the chapter was written after the de- 
 struction of Babylon. Bertholdt determines in the same way that it was 
 composed immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 Rosenmuller, in the first edition of his Scholia, agrees with Eichhorn. In 
 the second, he maintains that Isaiah was the author, and that he here ex- 
 presses a general anticipation of approaching changes. Gesenius pronounces 
 the style far inferior to that of Isaiah, and ascribes the passage to a writer in 
 the Babylonian exile just before the fall of Babylon. Hitzig on the other 
 hand ascribes it to an Ephraimite captive in Assyria, and supposes the de- 
 struction of Nineveh to be foretold. Ewald thinks the prophecy was written 
 in Palestine after the restoration of the Jews, and in anticipation of Cam- 
 byses' attack on Egypt. Umbreit agrees substantially with Gesenius, and 
 Knobel with Bertholdt. We have here another illustration of the value of 
 the boasted modern criticism. Gesenius is confident that the prophecy was 
 written in Babylon ; Ewald and Knobel are equally confident that it was 
 written in the Holy Land. Gesenius disparages the style as cold and ar- 
 tificial ; Hitzig speaks of it with contempt as awkward, feeble, and inelegant ; 
 Ewald treats it with respect as poetical and skilful, although not original ; while 
 Umbreit lauds it as a noble specimen of Hebrew poetry. In this case, as in 
 others, each writer first determines upon general grounds the age of the pro- 
 duction, and then confirms it by internal proofs. The points of resemblance to 
 the undisputed writings of Isaiah are set down as plagiarisms or imitations. 
 Ewald even goes so far as to mark certain passages as borrowed from older 
 writers no longer extant. The paronomasias and other verbal peculiarities of 
 the passage, instead of proving it the work of Isaiah, in whose acknowledged 
 writings they are also found, prove Ihe contrary because they are so numerous. 
 In this way all proof of the genuineness of a disputed passage is rendered 
 impossible. If it has not the usual characteristics of the author, it is therefore 
 spurious ; if it has, it is evidently an imitation. It is true, distinctions are 
 made as to the number, good taste, and connexion ; but they are always 
 made at will, and so as to confirm the previous conclusion. Setting aside 
 this empirical criticism as unworthy of attention, we may observe that the 
 endless diversity of judgment, both among the older and later writers, shows 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 419 
 
 that the prediction is generic. Henderson observes indeed on Lowth's 
 suggestion that the prophecy refers to more than one invasion of the Holy 
 Land, that " this hypothesis, though supplying an easy mode of interpreting 
 all its parts, is to be rejected, having been obviously framed for the purpose 
 of getting rid of the difficulties ;" as if hypotheses were ever framed for any 
 other purpose, and as if there could be a stronger proof th^t a hypothesis 
 is true, than the fact of its getting rid of the difficulties and supplying an 
 easy mode of interpreting all the parts. In this case, as in many others, the 
 exclusive restriction of the prophecy to one event is wholly arbitrary. What 
 the Prophet has left indefinite we have no right to make specific. Particular 
 allusions there may be ; but this, as we have seen in other cases, does not 
 limit the application of the whole. 
 
 V. 1. Behold Jehovah (is) pouring out the land and emptying it, and 
 he will turn down its face, and he will scatter its inhabitants. The figure 
 is that of a bottle or other vessel drained of its contents by being turned up- 
 side down. The face is not the soil or ground (Hendewerk), but the upper 
 part or mouth of the vessel. The last clause resolves the figure into literal 
 expressions, "pert is not to cause to flow, as in Arabic, but to scatter, 
 according to the uniform Hebrew usage. The allusion may be both 
 to flight and deportation. Gesenius admits that •"i|ii with the participle 
 commonly indicates present or future time ; but nevertheless applies 
 this verse to the Babylonian conquest of Judea, which was long past 
 at the time when he supposes the chapter to have been written. Ewald 
 and Hitzig, who refer it to events still future at the date of the predic- 
 tion, insist upon the future form. The simple truth is that Isaiah here 
 speaks of the Babylonian conquest as still distant, but at the same time as 
 infallibly certain. To avoid this conclusion, Gesenius denies that Isaiah was 
 the author, and violates the usage of the language by translating this whole 
 passage in the past tense. 
 
 V. 2. And it shall be, as the people so the priest, as the servant so 
 his master, as the buyer so the seller, as the borrower so the lender, as 
 the debtor so the creditor. That is, all ranks and classes shall fare alike. 
 The double a to express the idea as-so is like the use of ei-et in Latin 
 where we say both-and, or aut-aut where we say either-or. Kimchi says 
 that each term includes a double comparison, (the people) like the priest, 
 (and the priest) like the people, (the servant) like the master, (and the master) 
 like the servant. On the form N^3 see Gesenius § 74. 20. The mention 
 of the priest is no more a proof of later date in this case than in Hos. 4 : 9. 
 Saadias makes fts mean a prince or ruler, which is also given in the mar- 
 gin of the English Bible. 
 
420 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 
 
 V. 3. The land shall be utterly emptied and utterly spoiled, for Jehovah 
 speaks (or hath spoken) this word. Gesenius arbitrarily translates the 
 verbs as preterites, in which he is followed by Hendewerk. Ewald 
 explains them as descriptive presents. DeWette as usual disregards the 
 reduplication of the Hebrew verbs. It is no doubt emphatic, however, 
 and may be expressed by a simple repetition, emptied emptied (Ewald), 
 or by combining a verb and adjective, empty and emptied (Hitzig), 
 or by introducing an intensive adverb, utterly, wholly, as in the English 
 Version and most others. According to Knobel, pisn is put for the more 
 usual form psrn in order to assimilate it to the infinitive. The full ortho- 
 graphy with i is mentioned by Gesenius as a sign of later date, although he 
 does not deny that it also occurs in the older books. The land here men- 
 tioned is supposed by Hitzig to be Assyria ; by all other interpreters Pales- 
 tine. In order to justify his reference of this part of the chapter to past 
 time, Gesenius explains the last clause as relating to the divine purpose or 
 decree (for so Jehovah had commanded), whereas it elsewhere denotes the 
 certainty of the event because predicted by Jehovah. The necessity of this 
 departure from the usage of the phrase is a strong objection to his interpre- 
 tation of the chapter as written during the Babylonian exile by a captive Jew. 
 
 V. 4. The earth mourneth, fadeth ; the world languisheth, fadeth ; the 
 highest of the people of the earth languish, "pxn is not the land (Gesenius,) 
 as appears from the parallel expression bnn. Earth and world however are not 
 to be taken in their widest sense (Rosenmuller),but as poetical descriptions 
 of a country (Ewald) ; not Assyria (Hitzig), but Palestine. Jerome refers 
 the whole description to the end of the world. For nt-ia Koppe reads cha 
 from the height (i. e. cast down from it), for which there is neither authority 
 nor necessity. J. D. Michaelis inserts and after dtib (the high ones and 
 the people of the land) which is also unnecessary. The Septuagint and 
 Peshito omit ds, but it is found in all manuscripts, dtb is an abstract 
 used for a concrete, height for highest part or high ones. Henderson sup- 
 poses an allusion to the two thousand nobles carried away by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. The figures are borrowed from the vegetable world. Several of 
 the German writers amuse themselves with trying to copy the paronomasia 
 in the first clause. Gesenius has dchzet und lechzet, Ewald es welkt es 
 verwelkt, Knobel welkt und f'dllt die Welt. It is curious to observe the pains 
 laid out upon these useless and unsuccessful imitations by writers who often 
 disregard the idiomatic form of the construction. 
 
 V. 5. And the land has been profaned under its inhabitants, because 
 they have transgressed the laws, violated the statute, broken the everlasting 
 covenant. Knobel reads, and so the land, as if the verse contained the 
 punishment and not the sin of the chosen people. In accordance with this 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 421 
 
 hypothesis, he explains the profaning of the land to be its invasion and sub- 
 jection by the Babylonians. Under its inhabitants will then mean nothing 
 more than the land with those upon it. All other writers seem to apply the 
 passage to the Jews, and to understand it as referring their calamities to 
 their transgressions. The land is said to be profaned as being a holy land 
 or consecrated to Jehovah. Most interpreters suppose a special reference 
 to pollution by blood or the guilt of murder in accordance with Symmach- 
 us's version lyota xr awy Ofr The ancient versions give rnn the sense of for, 
 on account of; but the proper meaning under is far more appropriate and 
 expressive. The ancient versions also make pna plural, and this reading is 
 found in one manuscript and one edition. Aben Ezra explains the unusual 
 plural rmn as denoting not the law of Moses, but the laws common to all 
 nations. Vitringa in like manner makes it synonymous with the jus gentium 
 of the Roman writers. Hitzig understands by it the Noachic precepts, on 
 account of the allusion to the flood in v. 8. There seems to be no sufficient 
 reason for departing from the ordinary meaning of the Hebrew words as de- 
 noting the divine law generally. The three terms used are substantially 
 synonymous, law, statute, covenant, being continually interchanged. Hen- 
 derson needlessly refers the last to the covenant at Sinai, and Hendewerk 
 distinguishes between the moral and ceremonial parts of the Mosaic law. 
 The simple meaning of the verse is that they disobeyed the will of God. In 
 the phrase, they changed the ordinance, Gill finds a reference not only to the 
 popish corruptions of the eucharist, but to the substitution of infant sprink- 
 ling for adult immersion. 
 
 V. 6. Therefore a curse devoured the earth, and those dwelling in it 
 were reckoned guilty (and so treated). Therefore the inhabitants of the 
 earth burned, and there are few men left. nVx does not here mean false 
 swearing, as explained in the Targum and by Jarchi and Kimchi, but the 
 curse of God, attending the violation of his law. The mention of this pen- 
 alty is absurdly represented by Gesenius and Knobel as a proof of the late 
 date of the prophecy. DBS is taken by some of the early writers in the sense 
 of being desolate. Its true sense is that of being recognized as guilty and 
 treated accordingly. It therefore suggests the ideas both of guilt and pun- 
 ishment. Twenty-eight manuscripts and three editions with the Peshito 
 read nbzx instead of nbrx, a variation probably derived from v. 4, or from 
 Jer. 43: 10. The Septuagint makes inn mean they shall be poor ; Sym 
 machus they shall be exhausted ; J. D. Michaelis they shall be diminished. 
 The Targum gives the word the general sense of being consumed or des- 
 troyed ; but the latest writers all prefer the more specific sense of burning 
 or being burnt, either by internal heat like that of fever, or by the fire of out- 
 ward persecutions. Houbigant and Lowth without the least authority read 
 ■Dnn for inn. Gesenius supposes the imagery to be copied from Joel 1 : 8-20 
 
422 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 
 
 V. 7. The new wine mourneth ; the vine languisheth ; all the merry- 
 hearted do sigh. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Henderson understand ls-n^n as de- 
 noting the juice of the grape while on the vine ; Knobel by synecdoche the 
 grape itself. But as the whole description is figurative, there is no need of 
 departing from the usual sense of sweet or new wine. Rosenmuller and 
 Barnes think the wine is here described as mourning because none drink it ; 
 Hendewerk because it is drunk by foreigners and not by natives. This is 
 changing a natural and beautiful figure into a frigid conceit. Gesenius in- 
 forms us that this verse was also copied from Joel (ch. 1 : 10-12) where he 
 says it stands in a much more natural connexion. 
 
 V. 8. Still is the mirth of drums ; ceased is the noise of revellers ; still 
 is the mirth of the harp. Music is here mentioned as a common token and 
 accompaniment of mirth. Three manuscripts instead of futtt) read T»X 
 
 V. 9. With the song they shall not drink wine ; bitter shall strong 
 drink be to them that drink it. Hitzig understands this to mean that they 
 shall not drink wine at all ; Knobel, that it shall not be accompanied with 
 music. isib is neither beer (J. D. Michaelis) nor palm-wine (Lowth) 
 specifically, but intoxicating drinks in general. The last clause means of 
 course that they should lose the appetite for such enjoyments. 
 
 V. 10. Broken down is the city of confusion (emptiness or desolation), 
 shut up is every house from entering (i. e. so that it is not or cannot be en- 
 tered). The city meant is neither Nineveh (Hitzig) nor cities in general 
 (Rosenmuller), but Jerusalem. Hitzig and Knobel prefer the construction, 
 it is broken down into (i. e. so as to be) a city of desolation, but the com- 
 mon construction is more natural which makes inn tv+\p the subject of the 
 verb. The last clause might be understood to refer to the closing of the 
 houses by the inhabitants against the enemy, or to their being left unoccu- 
 pied ; but the first clause seems to show that it rather relates to the obstruc- 
 tion of the entrance by the ruins. Rosenmuller's explanation of inn n^p, as 
 denoting city of idols or idolatrous city, is very unnatural. Hitzig and others 
 make the yz before n^n simply equivalent to without. Compare the similar 
 expression in ch. 23 : 1 . 
 
 V. 11. A cry for wine in the streets — darkened is all joy — departed is 
 the gladness of the earth. To the critical acumen of Gesenius this verse 
 stands confessed as a plagiarism from Joel 1:15. To the exquisite taste of 
 Hitzig it is not only an unda redundans, but completely lame and flat 
 (yollends lahm und matt). One ground of objection to it is that a calling 
 for wine, though perfectly appropriate in Joel, is entirely out of place in this 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 423 
 
 description of a conquered and dismantled town. The later writers have 
 had taste enough to see that the cry meant is not that of drunkards for more 
 liquor, hut of the perishing inhabitants for necessary refreshment (Hende- 
 werk), perhaps with special reference to the sick and wounded (Henderson) 
 or to children (Hitzig). Knobel gives the words the still more general 
 sense of lamentation for the blasted vintage. Hendewerk points out that 
 wine alone is mentioned here, as bread is in Lam. 4 : 4, while in Lam. 2:12 
 both are combined. There is no need of taking nrv:£ in the sense of a call to 
 the wine-sellers from their customers (Kimchi), much less of supplying a nega- 
 tive, so as to make it mean that there is no call for wine in the streets 
 (Clericus). Houbigant and Lowth for n^is read mas (has passed away). 
 Rosenmiiller gives the same or nearly the same sense to the common text. 
 But all the latest writers acquiesce in BuxtorPs definition of the word as 
 meaning to grow dark, with special reference to the setting of the sun or the 
 coming on of twilight. This beautiful figure is itself an answer to the 
 aesthetical sneers of certain critics. J~'b:a may either have the general sense of 
 gone, departed (Henderson), or the more specific one of banished (Gesenius), 
 expatriated (J. D.Michaelis), carried captive (Umbreit). The first clause is 
 rendered more expressive in the versions of De Wette, Umbreit, and Hende- 
 werk, by the omission of the verb. The last mentioned writer understands 
 by the joy of the land the population of Jerusalem. Nine manuscripts have 
 bz before pixf!, and the Septuagint supplies it before ©TOO. 
 
 V. 12. What is left in the city is desolation, and into ruins is the gate 
 beaten down. The first clause is in apposition to the last of v. 11. Joy is 
 gone and desolation is left behind. All the modern writers take rrNtfD as an 
 adverbial accusative qualifying rs^ by describing the effect or result of the 
 action. The gate is here named as the most important part of the city ; 
 but it does not directly mean the city itself. On the form rs^ see Gesenius 
 § 66. Rem. 8. 
 
 V. 13. For so shall it be in the midst of the earth among the nations, 
 like the beating of an olive-tree, like gleanings when the gathering is done. 
 There is no need of rendering *3 but (Uosenmuller) or ye* (Henderson), as 
 the Prophet is stating more distinctly the extent of the desolation which he 
 had before described. The fact that some survive is indeed referred to, but 
 only indirectly and by implication, so that the verse is not properly an anti- 
 thesis to that before it. Instead of saying that Isaiah here repeats his beau- 
 tiful comparison in ch. 17: 5, 6, Gesenius and his followers set this down 
 as the plagiarism of a later writer. The Prophet is thus reduced to a dilem- 
 ma ; if he does not repeat his own expressions, he is a stranger to himself 
 and his own writings ; if he does, he is an imitator of a later age. Rosen- 
 
424 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 
 
 muller supposes an allusion not only to paucity but to inferiority of quality. 
 In the midst of the nations is explained by Hitzig as contrasting the condition 
 of the country with that of its neighbours. Others understand it of actual 
 dispersion among foreign nations. 
 
 V. 14. They shall raise their voice, they shall sing (or shout), for the 
 majesty of Jehovah they cry aloud from the sea. The pronoun at the 
 beginning is emphatic. They, not the nations (Schelling) or the Jews left 
 in the land (Barnes), but the few dispersed survivors of these judgments. 
 The 2 before p80 is not a particle of time (Rosenmuller), but points out the 
 subject (Maurer) or the occasion of the praise (Gesenius). Ewald supposes 
 the words of the song itself to be begun in the last clause of this verse and 
 continued through the next. But this compels him to change the pointing 
 of i^ns and make it an imperative. The Septuagint and Theodotion have 
 the waters of the sea, as if instead of s^ia they read d"ng or o^/a. Dathe 
 gives the "ja its comparative sense: more (i.e. louder) than the sea. Jarch 
 had before given the same construction but a different sense : more than (at) 
 the sea, i. e. more than they rejoiced at the deliverance from Egypt. Many 
 render the phrase from the west, which is rather implied than expressed. 
 Hitzig denies that there is here a transition to another subject, as admitted 
 by almost all interpreters. 
 
 V. 15. Therefore in the fires glorify Jehovah, in the islands of the sea 
 the name of Jehovah God of Israel. Ewald supposes the words of the song 
 or shout to be continued. Hendewerk and Barnes understand the Prophet 
 as here turning from the remnant of Israel in Palestine to the scattered exiles. 
 But it seems to be really an address to the persons who had already been 
 described as praising God, exhorting them to do so still. b**iM has been 
 variously explained as meaning valleys, caverns, doctrines, fires of affliction, 
 exile, Urim (and Thumim), Ur (of the Chaldees), etc. Clericus makes 
 c^ian the passive participle of "WO. It is now commonly agreed to be a 
 local designation. Doederlein deduces from an Arabic analogy the meaning 
 in the north. Barnes suggests that tn^x may denote the northern lights or 
 aurora borealis. Henderson thinks the Prophet means the region of volcanic 
 fires, viz. the Mediterranean coasts and islands. But the weight of exegetical 
 authority preponderates in favour of the meaning in the east (as the region 
 of sunrise or of dawning light) in opposition to the sea or west. Various 
 attempts have been made to mend the text by reading tr^xn (Lowth), 
 ta^a^o or tnasn (Houbigant), D*nfta or D-njra (Calmet). Hensler reads 
 D^'aa as a contraction for o-»ix*a, like ft*nka Amos 8 : 8. 
 
 V. 16. From the wing (skirt or edge) of the earth we have heard 
 songs, praise to the righteous, and I said, woe to me, woe to me, alas 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 425 
 
 for me ! The deceivers deceive, with deceit the deceivers deceive. We 
 hear promises and praise lo the righteous, but our actual experience is that 
 of misery. p*nx is not an epithet of God (Henderson) or Cyrus (Hende- 
 werk), but of righteous men in general. Gesenius infers from the second 
 clause that the writer was involved in the miseries of Babylon ; but the 
 same use might be made of every ideal situation which the book presents. 
 Several of the ancient versions and of the rabbinical interpreters take mi in 
 the sense of secret : my secret is to me, and I must keep it, i. e. I cannot 
 utter what I know. Aben Ezra and Kimchi, followed by Vitringa, give it 
 the specific sense of leanness. But the latest writers understand it as 
 denoting ruin, misery, or woe, and the whole exclamation as substantially 
 equivalent to that which follows. Here, as in ch. 21 : 2, the latest writers 
 make nan express not fraud but violence, which is contrary to usage and 
 entirely unnecessary. Ewald takes iyg in its usual sense of garment, and 
 explains the clause to mean, that robbers strip off the very clothes, *3BI 
 p^sb is commonly regarded as the very language of the song referred to ; 
 but it may as well be a description of it, (a song of) praise or honour to the 
 righteous. 
 
 V. 17. Fear and pit and snare upon thee, oh inhabitant of the land! 
 This may be either a warning (are upon thee) or the expression of a wish 
 (be upon thee). It is a probable though not a necessary supposition, that 
 the terms here used are borrowed from the ancient art of hunting. "ins 
 would then denote some device by which wild beasts were frightened into 
 snares and pitfalls. It is at least a remarkable coincidence that the Romans 
 gave the name formido to an apparatus used for this purpose. Henderson 
 explains the Hebrew word to mean a scarecrow. The paronomasia is copied 
 by Gesenius, Ewald, Umbreit, and Hitzig, in as many different forms. It 
 is of course regarded as a proof of recent origin, though no one undertakes 
 to say at what precise period the paronomasia became a favourite with the 
 Hebrew writers. 
 
 V. 18. And it shall be (that) the (one) flying from the voice of the fear 
 shall fall into the pit, and the (one) coming up from the midst of the pit 
 shall be taken in the snare ; for windows from on high are opened, and 
 the foundations of the earth are shaken. The first clause carries out the 
 figures of the foregoing verse ; the second introduces those of a deluge and 
 an earthquake. One manuscript instead of Vipa reads "^fiB, and some inter- 
 preters regard Vip as a mere idiomatic pleonasm. But it much more proba- 
 bly denotes the voice of the hunter or the noise made by the instrument called 
 -ins. The allusion to the flood is acknowledged by all writers except Kno- 
 bel, who objects that the Hebrews did not believe that there could be a 
 
426 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 
 
 second deluge ; as if this belief could prevent their understanding or employ- 
 ing such a figure of speech. There are thousands now who have the same 
 belief, but who do not for that reason feel debarred from representing over- 
 whelming evils as a deluge of misfortune or of wrath. Akin to this is the 
 assertion of the same writer, and of Gesenius before him, that the early- 
 Hebrews actually thought that there were windows in the solid vault of 
 heaven. In the same way it might be proved that Milton held the stars 
 and planets to be burning lamps, and that Gesenius himself when he speaks 
 of a column of smoke means a solid piece of masonry. It seems to be a 
 canon with some critics, that all the prosaic language of the Bible is to be 
 interpreted as poetry, and all its poetry as prose, especially when any colour 
 is afforded for the charge of ignorant credulity. Kimchi imagines that win- 
 dows are here mentioned as the apertures through which God looks upon 
 the earth : Knobel as those through which he sends down thunderbolts and 
 lightning. But the allusion to the flood is rendered certain by the resem- 
 blance of the language to that used in Gen. 7:11. 
 
 V. 19. Broken, broken is the earth; shattered, shattered is the earth; 
 shaken, shaken is the earth. This striking verse is pronounced by Gesenius 
 and Hitzig, in accordance with some mystical canon of criticism, very 
 inelegant and in bad taste. They both assign the reason that the word 
 earth is repeated. Hitzig adds that the verse contains an anticlimax, which 
 is not the case, as no natural phenomenon can be more impressive than an 
 earthquake. The reduplication of the Hebrew verbs is as variously ex- 
 pressed by the different translators as in v. 3. 
 
 V. 20. The earth reels, reels like a drunken man, and is shaken like a 
 hammock. And heavy upon her is her guilt, and she shall fall and rise no 
 more. The ideas earth and land, both which are expressed by the Hebrew 
 •px, run into one another and are interchanged in a manner not to be ex- 
 pressed in a translation. The old translation of the second clause (removed 
 like a cottage) is now commonly abandoned. Sia^Ei is properly a temporary 
 lodging-place. In ch. 1 : 8 it was applied to a watch-shed in a melon-field. 
 Here it seems to signify something more movable and something suspended 
 in the air. The latest writers are accordingly agreed in retaining the inter- 
 pretation put upon the word by the Targum, the Peshito, and Saadias, which 
 makes it mean a cloth or mat suspended between trees or boughs of trees 
 for the use of nocturnal watchers. Such are described by Niebuhr as com- 
 mon in Arabia, and are known throughout the east by a name essentially 
 identical with those used in the versions above cited. The readers of this 
 verse would never have discovered, without Hitzig's aid, that its figures are 
 extravagant and overstrained. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV. 427 
 
 V. 21. And it shall be in that day (that) Jehovah shall visit (for the 
 purpose of inflicting punishment) upon the host of the high place in the high 
 place and upon the kings of the earth upon the earth. Interpreters have 
 commonly assumed that the host of the high place is the same with the host 
 of heaven, and must therefore mean either stars (Jerome) or angels (Aben 
 Ezra) or both (Gesenius). Grotius understands by it the images of the 
 heavenly bodies worshipped in Assyria. Gesenius finds here an allusion to 
 the punishment of fallen angels, and then makes this a proof of recent origin, 
 because the Jewish demonology was later than the time of Isaiah. It may 
 be doubted whether there is any reference to the host of heaven at all. WW 
 is a relative expression, and although applied to heaven in v. 18, is applied 
 to earth or to human society in v. 4. The former sense may seem to be 
 here required by the antithesis of rianx ; but it is not clear that any antithesis 
 was intended, which is the less probable because rnanx is not the customary 
 opposite of heaven. The sense may simply be that God will judge the 
 high or lofty host viz. the kings of the land upon the land. But even if 
 there be an antithesis, and even if the host of heaven in the usual sense of 
 the expression be alluded to, the analogy of this whole context would seem 
 to indicate that this is merely a strong figure for different ranks or degrees of 
 dignity on earth. It is not indeed probable that the Jewish hierarchy is 
 specifically meant, as Barnes supposes ; but it is altogether natural to un- 
 derstand the words more generally as denoting kings and potentates. And 
 even on the supposition that the contrast here intended is between the hosts 
 of heaven and earth, the obvious meaning is that God will judge the princi- 
 palities and powers of both worlds, in order to accomplish his declared de- 
 signs. To pronounce the passage spurious because it seems to speak of evil 
 spirits and their doom, is to assume that nothing is ever mentioned for the 
 first time, but that all allusions to a doctrine must be simultaneous. Even 
 in the later books of Scripture, how few and incidental and obscure are the 
 allusions to this subject ! In the same taste and spirit and of equal value 
 are Gesenius's attempts to connect this verse with the doctrines of Zoroas- 
 ter. It is not unworthy of remark that Hitzig, who delights in all such 
 demonstrations of a later date and lower standard of opinion in the sacred 
 books, foregoes that pleasure here and flatly denies that there is any refer- 
 ence to demons in the text, because he had assumed the ground that it was 
 written in Assyria before the fall of Nineveh. 
 
 V. 22. And they shall be gathered with a gatnering as prisoners in a 
 pit, and shall be shut up in a dungeon, and after many days they shall be 
 visited. Whether nsox be construed with "^ex (the gathering of a prison- 
 er) or explained as an emphatic reduplication, the sense of the first clause 
 evidently is that they shall be imprisoned. The persons meant are of course 
 
428 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 
 
 the principalities and powers of the verse preceding. The affinity between 
 nao and "ir\0^ cannot well be expressed in English, as it is in the German 
 version of Gesenius (verschlossen ins Verschloss). There are two inter- 
 pretations of the verb nptt** According to one it means they shall be pun- 
 ished, or at least brought forth to judgment. This is the sense put upon it 
 by Eichhorn, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, and Hendewerk. 
 The other is, they shall be visited in mercy. This explanation is as old as 
 Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, if not as the Peshito. Calvin seems to favour it, 
 and it is adopted by Hitzig, Henderson, and Ewald. Barnes, who refers 
 these verses to the Jewish priests, gives the verb the specific meaning, shall 
 be mustered, with a view to their return from exile. 
 
 V. 23. And the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, for 
 Jehovah of Hosts is Icing in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his 
 elders there is glory. Before the splendour of Jehovah's reign all lesser 
 principalities and powers shall fade away. There is no need of supposing 
 an allusion to the worship of the sun and moon. Some give to ^9 the sense 
 of when, which is admissible but needless and indeed inadequate. It was 
 not merely when Jehovah reigned, but because he reigned, that all inferior 
 luminaries were to be eclipsed. The elders are the rulers of Israel as the 
 church. Henderson sees a distinct allusion to the form of government by 
 elders, as that which shall prevail in the last and best days of the church. 
 The simple meaning of the verse appears to be that Jehovah's reign over his 
 people shall be more august than that of any created sovereign. This is 
 true of the church in various periods of history, but more especially in those 
 when the presence and power of God are peculiarly manifested. The 
 affinity between this verse and the last of the preceding chapter seems to 
 show that their juxtaposition is by no means fortuitous. The Septuagint 
 renders the first clause thus, the brick shall moulder and the wall shall fall. 
 They evidently read h^S and tt»n, although Grotius imagines that the 
 deviation from the true sense was intentional, in order to avoid offending the 
 Platonists of Egypt by disparaging the sun and moon. If such a motive 
 could have influenced the authors of the version, its effects would not have 
 been confined to one or a few comparatively unimportant passages. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 This chapter consists of three distinguishable parts. The first is a 
 thanksgiving to God for the destruction of Babylon and the deliverance of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 429 
 
 the Jews, vs. 1-5. The second is a promise of favour to the gentiles and 
 the people of God, when united on Mount Zion, vs. 6-9. The third is a 
 threatening of disgraceful ruin to Moab, vs. 10-12. 
 
 It may be mentioned as a specimen of Ewald's bold and arbitrary criti- 
 cism, that he connects vs. 6-11 directly with ch. 24, puts the first four 
 verses together as a strophe, and the fifth, twelfth, and first four verses of 
 the next chapter, as another strophe. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that, though the modern German writers all regard 
 this chapter as the work of the same period, and indeed of the same author 
 as the one before it, they find here none of those strong proofs of deteriorated 
 taste and diction which are so abundant in the other case. To be consis- 
 tent, they should either ascribe the passages to different authors, or admit that 
 the twenty-fourth was written at a time and by a man not incapable of pure 
 and lofty composition. It ought to be observed however that the admirable 
 figure in v. 10 strikes the delicate taste of Gesenius as low (unedel) and of 
 Ewald as dirty (schmutzig). 
 
 Cocceius, in his exposition of this chapter, still enjoys his old hallucina- 
 tion that it is a chapter of church-history, referring the first part to the great 
 rebellion in England, and the last to the destruction of the Turks, etc. 
 
 V. 1 . Jehovah my God (art) thou ; I will exalt thee ; I will praise thy 
 name ; for thou hast done a wonder, counsels from afar off, truth, cer- 
 tainty. The song of praise opens in the usual lyric style. (See Ex. 15: 2, 
 11. Ps. 118:28. 145: 1.) Cocceius, Vitringa, and some others, read 
 oh thou my God, without supplying the substantive verb ; but the latter 
 construction is more agreeable to usage, sriix strictly means J will acknow- 
 ledge or confess. The whole phrase may either mean, I will acknowledge 
 thy goodness towards me, or I will confess thee to be what thy name im- 
 ports, I will acknowledge thy acts to be consistent with the previous reve- 
 lations of thine attributes. Some render »bfi simply as a plural. Rosenmuller 
 explains it as a collective implying that many particular wonders were in- 
 cluded. Vitringa more naturally makes it an indefinite expression, some- 
 thing wonderful (mirabile quid). What wonder is especially referred to, 
 the next verse explains. The last clause admits of several different con- 
 structions. Ewald, with many of the older writers, makes it an independent 
 proposition, of which niss is the subject and nr.ax the predicate. Thus 
 the English Version : thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth. Barnes 
 supplies another verb : thou hast shown to be faithful and true. Gesenius 
 makes rvnt* as well as xbt the object of the verb n*»w», and supplies a prepo- 
 sition before rttYDK or regards it as an adverbial accusative : thou hast ex- 
 ecuted ancient plans (with) faithfulness and truth. Hitzig simplifies the 
 same construction still more by making all the nouns in the last clause ob- 
 
430 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 
 
 jects of the verb in the first : thou hast brought to pass a wonder, ancient 
 counsels, faithfulness, truth. From afar off seems to imply, not only that 
 the plans were formed of old, but that they were long ago revealed. Even 
 long before the event they are certain. Hitzig, who applies the whole 
 prophecy to Nineveh, is disposed to understand this clause as referring to 
 the earlier prophecies of its destruction by Nahum and Zephaniah. The 
 Septuagint, followed by J. D. Michaelis, reads ftw Amen (ytvouo) which 
 would here be out of place, "pa and MtoNH are cognate forms, both de- 
 noting truth or certainty, and here combined, according to a very common 
 Hebrew idiom, for emphasis. 
 
 V. 2. For thou hast turned (it) from a city to a heap, a fortified town 
 to a ruin, a palace of strangers from (being) a city ; forever it shall not 
 be built. According to Rosenmiiller, city is here put for cities in general, 
 and the verse contains a promise or prophetic description of the golden age 
 when fortifications should no longer be needed, as Virgil says of the same 
 ideal period, that there shall then no more be oppida muris cincia. Most in- 
 terpreters however are agreed that it refers to a particular city ; Grotius 
 says Samaria ; Capellus, Jerusalem ; Hitzig, Nineveh ; the others, Babylon. 
 Cocceius applies the first clause to the overthrow of episcopacy in England, 
 and especially to the exclusion of the bishops from the house of lords. (Sen- 
 sus hie est : ex ecclesia episcopali fecisti acervum, hoc earn est totam diruisti.) 
 The other clause he applies to the subsequent change of the republic into a 
 tyranny (from a city to a palace of strangers), Prate means strictly thou hast 
 placed, but is often used with ^ to denote the conversion of a thing into 
 something else. Here it is separated from l$j by ^se, an unusual colloca- 
 tion, which led Houbigant to read w or WIJ, in which he is followed by 
 Lowth, Doderlein, Dathe, Gesenius, and Knobel. J. D. Michaelis reads W 
 fcprato, which instead of easing the construction makes it still more harsh. 
 The difficulty is entirely removed, without a change of text, by supposing 
 the object of the verb to be W or W}*Jfi understood. Thou hast changed (a 
 city) from a city to a heap. So Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and others. Ge- 
 senius doubts whether such an ellipsis is admissible ; but it is surely more so 
 than an arbitrary change of text. Another solution of the syntax is pro- 
 posed by Hitzig, c thou hast turned from a city to a heap a fortified town to 
 a ruin,' in which case nbsraMs an unmeaning repetition of b>\, without even 
 parallelism or rhythm to sanction it. The same construction had substan- 
 tially been given long before by De Dieu. Hendewerk goes still further 
 and connects rbtxb with tMl f&to : < thou changest the fortified town from 
 a city to a heap, the palaces of strangers from a city to ruins.' Gesenius 
 gives rt^WjMj here its primary and proper sense of inaccessible. Most of the 
 modern writers understand by a palace of strangers the royal city mention- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 431 
 
 ed in the first clause, called a palace on account of its splendour, or as being 
 a collection of palaces, or because the palace was the most important part 
 of it. V8MSJ must then be taken in a privative sense (so as not to be a city). 
 But as the same phrase in the first clause means from being a city, some 
 give it that sense here and understand the clause to mean that God had 
 changed it from a city to a palace (or royal residence) of strangers. But if 
 it ceased to be a city, how could it become a palace ? There is in fact no 
 inconsistency between the senses put upon "WW by the usual interpretation. 
 Even in the first clause it means strictly from or away from a city, which 
 can be clearly expressed in our idiom only by using a negative expression. 
 For d'ht Houbigant proposes to read Dint, wholly without reason or authority. 
 n^T has the same sense as in ch. 1 : 7. For the use of stranger in the 
 sense of enemy, Gesenius cites the authority of Ossian. Grotius explains it 
 to mean strange gods or their worshippers, and applies the whole phrase to 
 the idolatrous temple of Samaria. The Targum in like manner makes it 
 mean an idol-temple in Jerusalem itself. 
 
 V. 3. Therefore a powerful people shall honour thee, a city of terrible 
 nations shall fear thee. The destruction of Babylon, and the fulfilment of 
 prophecy thereby, shall lead even the boldest and wildest of the heathen to 
 acknowledge Jehovah as the true God. It is usual to apply the terms of 
 this verse specifically to the Medes and Persians as the conquerors of Baby- 
 lon. Hitzig refers them t» the Medes and Babylonians as the conquerors 
 of Nineveh. To this it may be objected that the epithets, according to 
 usage, imply censure rather than praise, and that a* 1 ^"^ is applied in the 
 next verse to the conquered Babylonians themselves as having once been 
 tyrants or oppressors. There seems to be no need of applying the verse to 
 a cordial voluntary recognition of Jehovah. It may just as well denote a 
 compulsory extorted homage, fear being taken in its proper sense. The 
 verse will then be an apt description of the effect produced by Jehovah's 
 overthrow of Babylon on the Babylonians themselves. There is still another 
 explanation, namely, that which understands the verse more indefinitely as 
 descriptive of an effect produced upon the nations generally. This how- 
 ever does not agree so well with the use of the terms people and city in the 
 singular number, for although they may be taken as collectives, such a con- 
 struction should not be assumed without necessity. But even on the other 
 supposition, there is something unusual in the expression city of nations. It 
 must either be explained as implying a plurality of subject nations, or d?ia 
 must be taken in its secondary sense of gentiles, heathen, as applied to in- 
 dividuals or to one community. 
 
 V. 4. For thou hast been a strength (or stronghold) to the weak, a 
 strength (or stronghold) to the poor, in his distress, a refuge from the 
 
432 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 
 
 storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible (or of the 
 tyrants) was like a storm against a wall. The nations shall reverence 
 Jehovah, not merely as the destroyer of Babylon, but as the deliverer of his 
 people, for whose sake that catastrophe was brought about. tisn is not 
 merely strength in the abstract, but a strong place or fortress. b*r and 
 •p'-ox are epithets often applied to Israel considered as a sufferer. The two 
 figures of extreme heat and a storm of rain are combined to express the idea 
 of persecution or affliction. tD may also be taken in its usual sense of for, 
 as pointing out the reason why protection was required, ton does not di- 
 rectly denote wrath, but breath, and here a violent breathing as indicative 
 of anger. It is thus explained by Gesenius (Zornhauch), while Ewald 
 gratuitously lowers the tone of the description by translating the word snort- 
 ing (Schnauben). Jarchi explains i^p ant (wall-storm) as denoting a storm 
 which overthrows or destroys a wall. The same idea is expressed in the 
 Targum, Peshito, and Vulgate, and approved by most of the recent writers. 
 Knobel objects that the phrase does not naturally suggest the idea of sub- 
 version or destruction, and on that account adopts the reading Tip proposed 
 by Cappellus, and approved by Vitringa, Lowth, and Dathe. The phrase 
 would then mean a cold or winter storm. There is no need, however, of a 
 change in the text, although Knobel's objection to the common explanation 
 is well founded. The Hebrew phrase naturally signifies precisely what the 
 English Version has expressed, to wit, a storm against a wall, denoting the 
 direction and the object of the violence, but not its issue. As a storm of 
 rain beats upon a wall, so the Babylonian persecution beat upon the captive 
 Jews. The simple but striking and impressive imagery of this verse is very 
 far from indicating an inferior writer or a recent date of composition. It is 
 not strange, however, that this fine passage should be deemed unworthy of 
 Isaiah or his times by those who look upon Macpherson's Ossian as a relic 
 of antiquity. 
 
 V. 5. As heat in a drought (or in a dry place), the noise of strangers 
 wilt thou bring down ; (as) heat by the shadow of a cloud, (so) shall the 
 song of the tyrants be brought low. The sufferings of Israel under oppres- 
 sion shall be mitigated and relieved as easily and quietly as the intense heat 
 of the sun by an intervening cloud. The noise mentioned in the first clause 
 is probably the tumult of battle and conquest, and the song in the last clause 
 the triumphal song of the victorious enemy. The meaning branch is more 
 agreeable to usage, but not so appropriate in this connexion. De Dieu's 
 translation of the last words, the pruning (or excision) of the tyrants shall 
 bear witness, is extremely forced. Still worse is that of Junius and Tre- 
 mellius : it (the heat) ansvjered (or favoured) the branch of the oppressors. 
 The same idea is expressed in both the clauses, though the first is elliptical, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 433 
 
 and the idea of a shadowy cloud must be supplied from the second. Ge se- 
 nilis makes rW intransitive; the later Germans take it as a lliphil form 
 (he shall bring low) corresponding to r^sn in the other clause. Barnes 
 removes the enallage by rendering r:r- in the second person. Koppe and 
 Bauer most gratuitously read it as a passive, n:y\ As "p" 1 * is properly an 
 abstract, it may be applied either to time or place, a dry season or a des- 
 ert, without affecting the sense. The Seventy appear to have read "ji'S 
 Zion, which would change the sense entirely. 
 
 V. 6. And Jehovah of Hosts will make, for all nations, in this mountain, 
 a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of ma r- 
 row, of wines on the lees well refined. Jerusalem, hitherto despised and 
 oppressed, shall yet be a source of attraction, nourishment, and exhilaration, 
 to mankind. This verse resumes the thread of the discourse, which was 
 interrupted at the end of the last chapter, for the purpose of inserting the 
 triumphal song (vs. 1-5). Having there said that Jehovah and his elders 
 should appear in glory on Mount Zion. he now shows what is there to be 
 bestowed upon the nations. tt"»sao properly means fatnesses, here put for 
 rich and dainty food. Clericus strangely supplies sheep, as if ta^saiD were an 
 adjective. ditoi!) means the lees of wine, as being the keepers (from ■HHJ to 
 keep) or preservers of the colour and flavour. It is here put for wine kept 
 long upon the lees, and therefore old and of superior quality. n^ppT^ pro- 
 bably means strained or filtered, b^rrac from nn« is put for the more usual 
 form Bfflim, i° order to assimilate it to the other word. This verse contains 
 a general statement of the relation which Jerusalem or Zion should sustain 
 to the whole world, as a source of moral influence. There is nothing to 
 indicate the time when the promise should be fulfilled, nor indeed to restrict 
 it to one time exclusively. As the ancient seat of the true religion, and as 
 the cradle of the church which has since overspread the nations, it has 
 always more or less fulfilled the office here ascribed to it. 
 
 V. 7. And he will swallow up (i. e. destroy) in this mountain the face 
 of the veil, the veil upon all peoples, and the web, the (one) woven over all 
 the nations. The influence to go forth from this centre shall dispel the 
 darkness, both of ignorance and sorrow, which now broods over the world. 
 The subject of jhe verb is of course Jehovah. By the face of the veil some 
 understand the veil itself. Others suppose a metathesis for the veil of the 
 face. Lowth adopts the reading in one manuscript, which sets tag before 
 D^sn ^a. Gesenius, with more probability, infers from the analogous ex- 
 pression in Job 41:5, that the veil or covering is here described as bein<* 
 the surface or upper side of the object covered. Most interpreters suppose 
 an allusion to the practice of veiling the face as a sign of mourning, 
 
 28 
 
434 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 
 
 which agrees well with the next verse and is no doubt included, but the 
 words seem also to express the idea of a veil upon the understanding. (Vide 
 supra, ch. 22: 8.) Some have explained the words as relating to the cov- 
 ering of the faces of condemned criminals; but this is neither justified by 
 usage nor appropriate in this connexion. Gesenius makes the second D*& an 
 active participle of unusual form, chosen in order to assimilate it to the fore- 
 going noun (the cover covering). But as the language contains traces of the 
 usual form s&, and as the forms here used are not only similar but identical, 
 it seems more natural to suppose an emphatic repetition of the noun itself, 
 especially as such repetitions are so frequent in the foregoing chapter. Some 
 of the ancient versions, deriving FP&B from a verbal root meaning to anoint, 
 explain the clause as threatening the fall of a tyrannical power. Thus the 
 Targum has ' the face of the chief who rules over all peoples and the face 
 of the king who rules over all kingdoms.' Henderson deduces from the 
 Arabic analogy the specific and appropriate sense of web or weaving. 
 
 V. 8. He has swallowed up death forever, and the Lord Jehovah 
 wipes away tears from off all faces, and the reproach of his people he will 
 take away from off all the earth, for Jehovah hath spoken (it). The people 
 of God, who seemed to be extinct, shall be restored to life, their grief ex- 
 changed for joy, and their disgrace for honour in the presence of the world, 
 a result for which he pledges both his power and foreknowledge. The pre- 
 terite form 3>!bs ma y either be explained as a descriptive present, or as indi- 
 cating something previous in point of time to what is mentioned afterwards. 
 Henderson objects to the rendering of the Piel by the English swallow up ; 
 but the sense of destroying, which he prefers, is evidently secondary and 
 derivative. Barnes, on the other hand, supposes a specific allusion to a 
 maelstrom, which is erring in the opposite extreme. Rosenmiiller under- 
 stands the first clause as a promise, that in the golden age which Isaiah anti- 
 cipated, wars and mutual violence should cease; Gesenius, as a promise of 
 immortality like that which man enjoyed before the fall. Hendewerk applies 
 it to the death and immortality of Israel as a nation. The true sense seems 
 to be that all misery and suffering, comprehended under the generic name of 
 death, should be completely done away. It is then a description of the 
 ultimate effects of the influence before described as flowing from Mount 
 Zion or the church of God. In its highest sense this may never be realized 
 by any individual till after death. Paul says accordingly (1 Cor. 15: 54), 
 that when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal 
 shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that 
 is written, xarETzo&v 6 ■davaiog dg rwog. As this is not an explanation of 
 the text before us, nor even a citation of it in the way of argument, but 
 merely a sublime description, all that it was necessary to express was the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 435 
 
 final, perpetual, triumphant abolition of death. The phrase elg vixog there- 
 fore (which is also found in Theodotion's version), although not a strict 
 translation of nssb, is no departure from its essential meaning. In its pri- 
 mary import, the clause is a promise to God's people, corresponding to the 
 foregoing promise to the nations. While on the one hand he would lift 
 the veil from the latter, and admit them to a feast upon Zion, on the 
 other he would abolish death and wipe tears from the faces of his people. 
 The restriction of these last expressions to the pains of death, or to the sor- 
 row of bereavement, detracts from the exquisite beauty of the passage, which 
 the poet Burns (as Barnes informs us) could not read without weeping, a 
 sufficient proof that he was not aware of the German discovery, that this 
 prediction is an extremely lame and flat composition, quite unworthy of the 
 Prophet to whom it has from time immemorial been erroneously ascribed. 
 
 V. 9. And one shall say (or they shall say) in thai day, Lo, this is our 
 God ; we have waited for him, and he will save us ; this is Jehovah ; we 
 have waited for hi?n ; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation. When 
 these gracious promises shall be fulfilled, those who have trusted in them 
 shall no longer be ashamed of their strong confidence, because it will be 
 justified by the event, and they will have nothing left but to rejoice in the 
 fulfilment of their hopes. This is our God, this is Jehovah ; as if they had 
 said, this is the God of whom we have spoken, and for trusting in whom we 
 have so often been derided. We have waited long, but he is come at last, 
 to vindicate hi^ truth and our reliance on him. The augmented futures at 
 the close may either denote fixed determination (we ivill rejoice, we will be 
 glad) or a proposition (let us then rejoice) for which the language has no 
 other distinct form. 
 
 V. 10. For the hand of Jehovah shall rest upon this mountain, and 
 Moab shall be trodden down under him (or in his place) as straw is trodden 
 in the water of the dunghill. While Israel shall thus enjoy the permanent 
 protection of Jehovah, his inveterate enemies shall experience ignominious 
 destruction. God's hand is the symbol of his power. Its resting on an 
 object is the continued exercise of that power, whether for good or evil. 
 This is determined by the nature of the object, as this mountain cannot well 
 mean any thing but what is meant in vs. 6, 7, to wit, Mount Zion or the 
 church of God, and the promise of the foregoing context must of course be 
 continued here. Moab and Edom were the two hereditary and inveterate 
 enemies of Israel, their hatred being rendered more annoying and conspicu- 
 ous by their affinity and neighbouring situation. Hence they are repeatedly 
 mentioned, separately or together, as the representatives of obstinate and 
 malignant enemies in general. Henderson insists upon the word's being 
 
436 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 
 
 taken in its literal import ; but this is not excluded in the usual interpreta- 
 tion. As the name British, in our own revolutionary war, became equiva- 
 lent to hostile, without losing its specific sense, so might the Prophets 
 threaten Moab with God's vengeance, without meaning to exclude from the 
 denunciation other likeminded enemies. This wide interpretation, both of 
 Moab and Edom, is confirmed by the fact that one of them is often mentioned 
 where both would seem to be equally included. The figure in the last 
 clause is strongly expressive both of degradation and destruction. Moab is 
 likened not only to straw, but to straw left to rot for the dunghill. The 
 idea of subjection and ruin is expressed by the figure of treading down or 
 trampling under foot. tt¥8 is commonly translated thresh ; but as the oriental 
 threshing was performed for the most part by the feet of cattle, this sense 
 and that of treading down are really coincident. In reference to the same 
 usage, the Septuagint, Peshito, and Vulgate introduce the word wagons, 
 meaning the heavy carts or threshing machines of the east. Lowth conjec- 
 tures that they read rasna for Fffitfna ; but the former word denotes a chariot, 
 especially a chariot of war, and the versions in question do not necessarily 
 imply a difference of text. According to some writers, naana is the name of 
 a city Madmenah, which may at one time have belonged to Moab, and be 
 mentioned here on account of some local peculiarity. Henderson thinks 
 there can be no allusion to this place ; but it is perfectly accordant with the 
 usage of the sacred writers to suppose, that the word was here intended to 
 convey a contemptuous allusion to the primary meaning of the name in 
 question. As an appellative, it is a noun of place derived from •pi and 
 denoting either a manured field or a dunghill. The Jceri, or masoretic read- 
 ing in the margin, has las, a poetical equivalent of 3, the preposition in. 
 The Jcethib or textual reading, which is probably more ancient, is "^n, in the 
 water. This, with the next word, may denote a pool in which the straw 
 was left to putrefy. In Job 9 : 30 we have an opposite correction, iaa in 
 the text and *»a in the margin. Under him may either mean under Jehovah 
 or under himself, that is, in his own place, in the country of Moab, or 
 wherever he is found. 
 
 V. 1 1 . And he shall spread forth his hands in the midst of it, as the 
 swimmer spreadeth forth his hands to swim ; and he shall humble his pride, 
 together with the spoils (or devices) of his hands. From this ignominious 
 doom Moab shall in vain try to save himself; his pride shall be humbled, 
 and his struggles only serve to precipitate his ruin. Having compared the 
 fall of Moab to the treading down of straw in a filthy pool, the Prophet 
 carries out his figure here, but with a change so slight and at the same time 
 jbo natural, as almost to escape observation, while it greatly adds to the lifeiof 
 the description. The downtrodden straw now becomes a living person, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. 437 
 
 and struggles in the filthy pool to save himself from drowning, but in vain. 
 The older writers for the most part make Jehovah the subject of the verb at 
 the beginning of the sentence. But the image then becomes incongruous, 
 not only as applied to God, but Etfl failing to express any appropriate action 
 upon his part. It is indeed explained to mean that God will strike him here 
 and there, or in every part, as a swimmer strikes the waves in all directions ; 
 but this idea might have been expressed more clearly by a hundred other 
 images. So too tnpaifl explained to mean that God would strike, not merely 
 on the surface or extremities of Moab, but in the very midst of him, or to his 
 very centre, which is still more forced and arbitrary. The only idea nat- 
 urally suggested by the images employed is that of a drowning man strug- 
 gling in the water. The latest writers therefore follow Grotius in referring 
 tu^b to SOTO, and the suffix in ns^pn to the pool or dunghill, rrcrw has been 
 variously explained as meaning strength, spoils, arms, armpits, joints, etc. 
 The sense by the strength of his hands (i. e. God's) is precluded by the 
 preposition M, which does not indicate the instrument or means, but signifies 
 together with. Rosenmiiller and Ewald prefer the meaning joints, founded 
 on an Arabic analogy. Gesenius adheres to Hebrew usage and explains 
 the word to mean devices, plots (insidiis, which Robinson translates am- 
 buscades, a word of less extensive import than the Latin one). The men- 
 tion of the hands is explained by Gesenius from the fact that a - * primarily 
 means to knit, spin, or weave. It is hard, however, to resist the impression, 
 that these last words have respect to the image in the first clause, and de- 
 scribe the movements of the swimmer's hands in endeavouring to save him- 
 self. Eichhorn, Umbreit and Knobel carry the figure through the verse, 
 explaining WWUI to mean his back or his rising, and the last words either 
 his arms or the motions of his hands. But most interpreters suppose the 
 figure to be dropped in this clause and the humbling of Moab to be here 
 foretold in literal terms. Lowth's proposition to read nnir for rtjto (he that 
 sinks for s he that swims) is not only needless, but injurious to the force of 
 the expression, puts an unusual sense upon the word supposed, and does 
 away with an example of a very common Hebrew idiom, that of combining 
 verbs with their participles and derivative nouns. 
 
 V. 12. And the fortress of the high fort of thy walls he hath cast 
 down, humbled, brought to the ground, to the very dust (or even to the dust). 
 Many interpreters suppose that the Prophet here reverts from Moab to the 
 city mentioned in the second verse. Others more naturally understand this 
 as the close of the prediction against Moab ; first, because abrupt transitions 
 should not be assumed without necessity : and secondly, because the verse 
 appears to be an amplification of the phrase tanaa ^BVn in that before it. 
 nszs and awn are equivalent in usage though distinct in etymology. Both 
 
438 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 are local nouns and mean a place of safety, but the prominent idea in the 
 first is that of fortification, in the second that of loftiness. Some manuscripts 
 read Tpnbn in the feminine, in which case the city or country is the object 
 of address, in the other the nation, or Moab represented as a man. The 
 specific fulfilment of this prophecy cannot be distinctly traced in history. It 
 was certainly verified, however, in the downfall of the Moabitish nation, 
 whenever it took place. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 This chapter contains a song of praise and thanksgiving to be sung by 
 Israel after his deliverance, vs. 1-19. To this is added a postscript, inti- 
 mating that the time for such rejoicing was not yet at hand, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 The song opens with an acknowledgment of God's protection and an 
 exhortation to confide therein, vs. 1-4. This is founded on the exhibition 
 of his righteousness and power in the destruction of his foes and the oppres- 
 sors of his people, vs. 5-11. The church abjures the service of all other 
 sovereigns, and vows perpetual devotion to him by whom it has been de- 
 livered and restored, vs. 12—15. Her utter incapacity to save herself is then 
 contrasted with God's power to restore his people to new life, with a joyful 
 anticipation of which the song concludes, vs. 16-19. The additional sen- 
 tences contain a beautiful and tender intimation of the trials, which must be 
 endured before these glorious events take place, with a solemn assurance 
 that Jehovah is about to visit both his people and their enemies with 
 chastisement, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 V. 1. In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah : We 
 have a strong city ; salvation will he place (as) walls and breastwork. The 
 condition and feelings of the people after their return from exile are ex- 
 pressed by putting an ideal song into their mouths. Though the first clause 
 does not necessarily mean that this should actually be sung, but merely that 
 it might be sung, that it would be appropriate to the times and to the feelings 
 of the people, it is not at all improbable that it was actually used for this 
 purpose, which could more readily be done as it is written in the form and 
 manner of the Psalms, with which it exhibits many points of resemblance. 
 The day meant is the day of deliverance which had just been promised. 
 Lowth connects in the land of Judah with what follows, in violation of the 
 accents and without the least necessity. Nor can it be supposed that the song 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. M 
 
 itself would have begun with such ;i formula, unless the singers are assumed 
 to be the Jews still in exile, which is hardly consistent with the following 
 verse. Knobel on the other hand asserts that the singers are no doubt the 
 Jews left by the l>ab\ lonians in the land of Judah. This is necessarily in-» 
 volved in his hypothesis, that eh. xxi\ -xxvn were written immediately after 
 Nebuchadnezzar's conquest. (See the introduction to chap, xxiv.) Another 
 inference from this supposition is, that the verse before us describes Jerusa- 
 lem in its dismantled state, as still protected by the divine favour, whereas 
 it is rather a description of the divine help and favour, as the city's best 
 defence, or as that without which all others would be useless. Ewald, 
 however, makes it mean that walls and bulwarks give salvation (Heil 
 geben Maucrn unci Graben), which, besides the harsh construction, yields 
 a sense directly opposite to that intended. The obvious and natural 
 construction of rw is with mm understood. The future form implies that 
 the description is prospective, bn is the outer and lower wall protecting 
 the trench or moat of a fortification. The whole phrase is rendered by the 
 Septuagint ruj[ogMtu mQtiti%og. Junius adds to his translation of this verse 
 the word dicendo, so as to make the next the words of God himself. 
 
 V. 2. Open ye the gates, and lei the righteous nation enter, Jcseping 
 truth (or faith). The supposition of responsive choruses gives a needless 
 complexity to the structure of the passage. The speakers are the same as 
 in the first verse, and the words are addressed to those who kept the doors. 
 Knobel understands this as the language of the remaining Jews, exhorting 
 themselves or one another to receive the returning exiles. These are de- 
 scribed as righteous and as keeping faith, probably in reference to the cessa- 
 tion of idolatry among the Jews during the exile. Lowth connects *afa 
 D*?«» with the first clause of the next verse. J. D. Michaelis makes it an 
 independent proposition (he preserves the faithful). Knobel says that the 
 use of Hi in application to the Jews is a later usage, which assertion is un 
 douhtedly true if every place where it occurs is assumed to be of recent date. 
 
 V. 3. The mind stayed (on thee) thou wilt preserve in peace (in) peace 
 (i. e. in perfect peace), because in thee (it is) confident (literally confided). 
 This is a general truth deduced from the experience of those who are sup- 
 posed to be the speakers. Lowth adds the last words of the foregoino- verse 
 constant in the truth, stayed in mind, by which nothing is gained and the 
 masoretic interpunction needlessly violated. Calvin makes the first two 
 words an independent clause (cogitatio fixa), and Ewald seems to adopt the 
 same construction (die Einbihlung steht fest) probably meaning that what 
 follows is a just thought or a certain truth. Luther seems to refer it to God's 
 promise (nach gewisser Zusage). But the best construction is the common 
 
440 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 one, which connects -p^D tr* with the following words, ix^ is the invention 
 (or perhaps the constitution) of the mind, put for the mind itself. The 
 elliptical construction in the English Bible (him whose mind is stayed on 
 'thee) is not very natural ; still less so that of Knobel, who refers ^oo to the 
 person understood, and makes ^x" 1 a qualifying noun (stayed as to mind) 
 citing as examples of a similar inversion ch. 22: 2. Nah. 3:1. Barnes 
 omits "1362 altogether in his version (him that is stayed on thee). Henderson 
 gives the true construction, making ^kn govern W directly, though he ren- 
 ders TfiK&jirm, which is hardly an adequate translation, as the w r ord neces- 
 sarily includes the idea of reliance i. e. upon God. Ewald derives nsss from 
 !tt^ instead of "ixs, and translates it thou wilt form (or create) peace. For 
 this no reason can be given, except that it evolves a new paronomasia, both in 
 sense and sound, between the noun and verb. The mere assonance exists of 
 course, however the words may be explained ; and though Gesenius was 
 so unhappy as to overlook it, Knobel has copied it by the combination 
 Festigen festigest. The idiomatic iteration, pence jteace, to express a super- 
 lative, is perfectly in keeping with the frequent reduplications of the twenty- 
 fourth chapter, and may serve to show, that the accumulation of such idioms 
 there arises from a difference of subject or of sentiments to be expressed, and 
 not from want of genius or corruption of taste. There is no need of ex- 
 plaining ntoa as a passive substituted for an active participle. The word 
 corresponds both in form and meaning to assured in English. 
 
 V. 4. Trust ye in Jehovah forever (literally, even to eternity), for in 
 Jah Jehovah is a rock of ages (or an everlasting rock). To the general 
 truth stated in v. 3, a general exhortation is now added, not addressed by 
 one chorus to another, but by the same ideal speakers to all who hear them 
 or are willing to receive the admonition. This is one of the few places in 
 which the name Jehovah is retained by the common English Version. On 
 the origin and usage of the name PF vide supra, ch. 12 : 2. The occurrence 
 of the combination here confirms its genuineness there. In this place it is 
 at least as old as Aquila, who has h raj xvgt'cp xvQiog. Knobel however 
 chooses to reject rtjhfy as a mere explanation or correction of rr, added by a 
 later hand. Cocceius, in accordance with bis own etymology of FrV trans- 
 lates it in decentia Jehovae, which is very much like nonsense. Vitringa 
 makes these names the subject of the proportion (Jah Jehovah est rupes 
 saeculorum), according to DeDieu's observation, that the preposition a is 
 often pleonastic. The same construction is adopted by Gesenius, on the 
 around that a is frequently a beth essentiae, corresponding to the French en 
 in the phrase en roi, i. e. in (the character or person of) a king. The ex- 
 istence of this idiom in Hebrew is denied, both by Winer in his Lexicon 
 and Ewald in his Grammar, but maintained against them by Gesenius in his 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 441 
 
 Thesaurus. It is evident however that in all the cases where it is assumed, 
 that conclusion can only be defended on the ground of exegetical necessity, 
 and that such analogies cannot require or even authorize the preference of 
 this obscure and harsh construction where the obvious and simple one is* 
 perfectly admissible. In the case before us, Gesenius is obliged to create a 
 necessity for his construction, by gratuitously making n? the subject and 
 rvjsr; the predicate of the proposition. This he chooses to translate, Jehovah 
 is God, but it ought to have been Jah is Jehovah, and as one of these names 
 is explained by himself to be a mere abbreviation of the other, the clause 
 becomes an identical proposition, meaning nothing more than that Jehovah 
 is himself. All that is gained by the supposition of a beth essentiae may be 
 secured, without departing from the ordinary meaning of the preposition, by 
 supplying an active verb, as in Augusti's version, in him (ye have) an 
 everlasting rock. But the simplest and most accurate of all constructions is 
 the common one, retained by Ewald, who omits neither Jah nor the particle 
 before it, but translates the clause, for in Jah Jahve, is an everlasting rock. 
 This figurative name, as applied to God, includes the two ideas of a hiding 
 place and a foundation, or the one complex idea of a permanent asylum. 
 Barnes translates the whole phrase, everlasting refuge. Lowth's never- 
 failing protection is correct in sense, but in form a diluted paraphrase. 
 
 V. 5. For he hath brought down the inhabitants of the high place, the 
 exalted city ; he will lay it low, he will lay it low, to the very ground ; 
 he will bring it to the very dust. He has proved himself able to protect 
 his people, and consequently worthy to be trusted by them, in his signal 
 overthrow of that great power by which they were oppressed. nna'i'S means 
 lofty in the sense of being inaccessible, and is especially applied to for- 
 tresses, as we have seen with respect to the derivative noun 33VB, ch. 25 : 12. 
 Hitzig explains *3&* to mean those enthroned ; but its connexion with D'nti 
 requires it to be taken in the sense of inhabitants. The alternation of the 
 tenses here is somewhat remarkable. Henderson translates them all as pre- 
 terites ; Barnes uses first the present, then the preterite ; both which con- 
 structions are entirely arbitrary. The English Version more correctly treats 
 them all as presents, which is often allowable where the forms are intermingled 
 and is also adopted by the latest German writers. But in this case, a reason 
 can be given for the use of the two tenses, even if strictly understood. The 
 Prophet looks at the events from two distinct points of observation, his own 
 and that of the ideal speakers. With respect to the latter, the fall of Baby- 
 lon was past ; with respect to the former it was still future. He might 
 therefore naturally say, even in the same sentence, he has brought it loivand 
 he shall bring it to the dust. Cocceius as usual reproduces the precise 
 form of the Hebrew sentence. Nothing can well be more unlike than the 
 
442 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 looseness of this writer's exegesis and the critical precision of his mere 
 translation. Henderson thinks the masoretic interpunction wrong, and 
 throws ns^su^ into the first clause, to which arrangement there are three 
 objections : first, that it is arbitrary and against the textual tradition : 
 second, that it makes the suffix in the verb superfluous, the object having 
 been expressed before ; and third, that it renders less effective, if it does 
 not quite destroy, the idiomatic iteration of the verb, which is characteristic 
 of this whole prediction. 13? strictly means as far as, and may be expressed 
 in English, either by the phrase even lo, or by the use of the intensive very. 
 as above in the translation. 
 
 V. 6. The foot shall trample on it, the feet of the afflicted, the steps of 
 the weak. The ruins of the fallen city shall be trodden under foot, not only 
 by its conquerors, but by those whom it oppressed. Neither *3$ nor hi strictly 
 signifies poor. The prominent idea in the first is that of suffering, in the 
 second that of weakness. They are here used, like bn and "jy»aa in ch. 25 : 4. 
 as epithets of Israel while subjected to the Babylonian tyranny, ^ess. 
 which Luther translates heels (Ferse) and Junius footsteps (vestigia), is here 
 a poetical equivalent to feet. Henderson here translates the verbs in the 
 present, Barnes more exactly in the future. 
 
 V. 7. The way for the righteous is straight (or level) ; thou most up- 
 right wilt level (or rectify) the path of the righteous. A man's way is a 
 common scriptural figure for his course of life. A straight or level way is a 
 prosperous life. It is here declared that the course of the righteous is a pros- 
 perous one, because God makes it so. Di-na^a strictly denotes straightness, the 
 plural being used as an abstract. The moral sense of uprightness does not 
 suit the connexion. *B? may either be construed as a vocative, or with the 
 name of God understood (as a righteous God). Knobel makes it an ad- 
 verbial accusative, thou dost rectify the path of the righteous straight, i. e. 
 so as to make it straight. The primary idea of obs is to render even ; it is 
 therefore applied both to balances and paths ; but the two applications are 
 not to be confounded ; paths may be made even, but they cannot be 
 weighed. 
 
 V. % 8. Also in the way of thy judgments, oh Jehovah, we have waited 
 for thee ; to thy name and thy remembrance (ivas our) souVs desire. For 
 this manifestation of thy righteousness and goodness we have long been 
 waiting in the way of thy judgments, i. e. to see thee come forth as a judge, 
 for the vindication of thy people and the destruction of their enemies. 
 Name and remembrance or memorial denote the manifestation of God's attri- 
 butes in his works. Ewald translates the second fame or glory (Ruhm). 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. Ml 
 
 J. D. Michaelis connects the first words with the seventh verse, < thou dost 
 regulate the path of the righteous, hut also the way of thy judgments.' 
 Lowth takes -patr - in the sense of laws and ^ip in that of trusting. It is 
 more probable however that tin* same idea is expressed here as in ch. 
 25: 9. 
 
 V. 9. ( With) my soul have I desired thee in the night ; yea (with) my 
 spirit tvithin me will I seek thee early : for when thy judgments (come) to 
 the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. The desire 
 here expressed is not a general desire for the knowledge and favour of God, 
 but a special desire that he would manifest his righteousness by appearing 
 as a judge. This explanation is required by the connexion with what goes 
 before and with what follows in this very verse. Gesenius takes my soul as 
 a periphrasis for /. Maurer supposes it to be in apposition with the pronoun. 
 Ewald and Knobel retain the old construction, which supplies a preposition 
 before TOP, or regards it as an adverbial accusative or qualifying noun, cor- 
 responding to the ablative of instrument or cause in Latin. The night is 
 mentioned, not as a figure for calamity or ignorance, nor as a time peculiarly 
 appropriate to meditation, but for the purpose of expressing the idea, that he 
 feels this wish at all times, by night and by day. This shows that the 
 recent lexicographers are wrong in excluding from the Piel of ^rra the sense 
 of seeking in the morning, seeking early, to which exclusion it may also be 
 objected, that the soundest principles of lexicography tend to the union and 
 not to the multiplication of roots. The question whether these are the words 
 of the Prophet, or of each of the people, or of a choir or chorus representing 
 them, proceeds upon the supposition of an artificial structure and a strict 
 adherence to rhetorical propriety, which have no real existence in the writ- 
 ings of the Prophet. The sentiments, which it was his purpose and his 
 duty to express, are sometimes uttered in his own person, sometimes in that 
 of another, and these different forms of speech are interchanged, without re- 
 gard to the figments of an artificial rhetoric. Some give to mttta its strict 
 sense as a particle of comparison, and understand the clause to mean that 
 men learn how to practise righteousness by imitating God's example. By 
 judgments, here as in the foregoing context, we can only understand judicial 
 providences. The doctrine of the verse is, that a view of God's severity is 
 necessary to convince men of his justice. The Septuagint has yniOtxt in 
 the imperative, which gives a good sense, but is forbidden by the obvious 
 address to God himself throughout the verse. 
 
 V. 10. Let the wicked be favoured, he does not learn righteousness ; 
 in the land of right he will do wrong, and ivill not see the exaltation of 
 Jehovah. The reasoning of the preceding verse is here continued. As it 
 
444 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 was there said that God's judgments were necessary to teach men righteous- 
 ness, so it is here said that continued prosperity is insufficient for that pur- 
 pose. The wicked man will go on to do wickedly, even in the very place 
 where right conduct is peculiarly incumbent. Though the verse is in the 
 form of a general proposition, and as such admits of various applications, 
 there is obvious reference to the Babylonians, who were not only embold- 
 ened by impunity to do wrong in the general, but to do it even in the land 
 of right or rectitude, the holy land, Jehovah's land, where such trans- 
 gressions were peculiarly offensive. There are two other explanations of 
 rrinbs yy* which deserve attention. The first understands the phrase to 
 mean, in the midst of a righteous population, surrounded by examples of 
 good conduct. The other supposes an allusion not to moral but to physical 
 rectitude or straightness, as a figure for prosperity. This last would make 
 the clause a repetition of the sentiment expressed before it, viz. that favour 
 and indulgence do not teach men righteousness. But neither of these latter 
 explanations agrees so well with the last words of the verse as the one first 
 given, according to which they represent the wrong-doer as not knowing or 
 believing or considering that the land, in which he practices his wickedness, 
 belongs to the most High God. J. D. Michaelis explains the closing words 
 to mean that God is too exalted to be seen by them (den zu erhabenen 
 Gott). 
 
 V. 11. Jehovah, thy hand is high, they will not see; (yes) they will 
 see (and be ashamed) thy zeal for thy people ; yea, the fire of thine enemies 
 shall devour them. The tenses in this verse have been very variously and 
 arbitrarily explained. Some make them all past, others all future, and a few 
 all present. Even the double future ("jV^m and ltm) is referred to different 
 tenses, past and future, past and present, present and future. They have not 
 seen, but they shall see ; they do not see, but they shall see ; they did not 
 see, but they do see. Some make itm an optative : but may they see ! 
 All these constructions are grammatical, but the very fact that so many are 
 possible, makes it advisable to adhere somewhat rigorously to the proper mean- 
 ing of the forms. As to FW, it matters little whether it be rendered as a 
 preterite or present, as the one implies the other ; but as to jiMm and 
 itm, the safest course is to translate them both alike as simple futures. The 
 seeming contradiction instantly explains itself,as being a kind of after-thought. 
 They will not see, (but yes) they will see. There are two ways of connecting 
 65 r*op with what precedes. The obvious construction found in most of the 
 old versions, makes it the object of the verb immediately before it : < they 
 shall be ashamed of their zeal against (or envy of) the people.' This of 
 course supposes cs> nsap to denote the envy of the heathen against Israel, or, 
 which is much less probable, the jealousy of Israel with respect to the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. \\-> 
 
 accession of the Gentiles. But as usage is decidedly in favour of interpret- 
 ing the phrase to mean the jealousy or zeal of God himself in behalf of his 
 own people, Gesenius and several later writers construe it with nm and 
 throw WS^y into a parenthesis, f they shall see (and be ashamed) the zeal 
 etc' which is equivalent to saying, * they shall see with shame, etc." 
 Another construction, given independently by Henderson and Knobel, 
 construes the phrase in question, not as the object of a verb preceding, but 
 as the subject of the verb that follows, ' zeal for thy people, yea fire against 
 thine enemies, shall devour them (or may it devour them).' In favour of 
 this construction is the strict agreement of the sense which it affords with 
 m anyother passages, in which the same divine acts are described as acts of 
 mercy to the righteous and of wrath to the wicked. (See for example ch. 
 1 : 27 and the commentary on it.) It is also recommended by the strong 
 emphatic meaning which it gives to C|X. Knobel moreover makes -pis the 
 object of the verb ^=J<n and regards the suffix to the latter as an idiomatic 
 pleonasm, which is not only arbitrary and extremely harsh (and therefore 
 not required by a few examples where no other solution of the syntax is ad- 
 missible), but destructive of a beautiful antithesis between God's zeal for his 
 people and fire for his enemies. Of the two constructions, therefore, Hen- 
 derson's is much to be preferred. Fire does not simply denote war (Gesenius) 
 or sudden death (J. D. Michaelis), but the wrath of God, as a sudden, rapid, 
 irresistible, and utterly destroying agent. 
 
 V. 12. Jehovah, thou wilt give ns peace, for even all our works thou 
 hast wrought for us. This is an expression of strong confidence and hope, 
 founded on what has already been experienced. God certainly would 
 favour them in future, for he had done so already. The translation of the 
 first verb as a preterite or present, though admissible if necessary, cannot be 
 justified in such a case as this, where the strict translation gives a perfectly 
 good sense, tab ra^n literally means thou wilt place to us, which some under- 
 stand to mean appoint or ordain for us ; but Gesenius more correctly explains 
 it as the converse of the idiomatic usage of <ra to give in the sense of placing. 
 Peace is, as often elsewhere, to be taken in the wide sense of prosperity or 
 welfare. M, though omitted in translation by Gesenius and others, is emphatic, 
 and should be connected, not with the pronoun or the verb, as in the English 
 Version, but as in Hebrew with the phrase all our works, as if he had said, 
 even all our works i. e. all without exception. It is commonly agreed 
 among interpreters, that our works here means not the works done by us but 
 the works done for us, i. e. what we have experienced, or as Calvin ex- 
 presses it in French, nos affaires. The version of the last clause in the text 
 of the English Bible (thou hast wrought all our works in us) is connected with 
 an old interpretation of the verse, as directly teaching the doctrine of human 
 
446 ".ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 dependence and efficacious grace. This translation, however, is equally at 
 variance with the usage of the Hebrew preposition (*•&) and with the con- 
 nexion here. The context, both before and after, has respect, not to spiritual 
 exercises, but to providential dispensations. It is not a little curious that 
 while Cocceius, in his Calvinistic zeal, uses this verse as an argument against 
 the Arminian doctrine of free-will, Calvin himself had long before declared 
 that the words cannot be so applied. Qui hoc testimonio usi sunt ad ever- 
 tendum liberum arbitrium, Prophetse mentem assecuti non sunt. Verum 
 quidem est Deum solum bene agere in nobis, et quicquid recte instituunt 
 homines esse ex illius Spiritu ; sed hie simpliciter docet Propheta omnia 
 bona quibus fruimur ex Dei manu adeptos esse : unde colligit nullum fore 
 beneficentiae finem donee plena felicit asaccedat. This brief extract is at 
 once an illustration of the great reformer's sound and independent 
 judgment, and of the skill with which he can present the exact and full 
 sense of a passage in a few words. 
 
 V. 13. Jehovah, our God, (other) lords beside thee have ruled us ; (but 
 henceforth) thee, thy name, only will we celebrate. In this verse again there is 
 great diversity as to the explanation of the tenses. Clericus renders both the 
 verbs as preterites, and understands the verse as saying, that even when the 
 Jews were under foreign oppression, they maintained their allegiance to Je- 
 hovah. Ewald gives the same sense, but in reference to the present fidelity 
 of Israel under present oppression. Gesenius, more correctly, distinguishes 
 between the verbs as preterite and present. There is no good ground, 
 however, for departing from the strict sense of the forms as preterite and 
 future, which are faithfully expressed in all the English versions. The usual 
 construction of the last clause understands -p as meaning through thee i. e. 
 through thy favour, by thy help, we are enabled now to praise thy name. 
 But Ewald, Barnes, and Henderson regard the pronoun as in apposition 
 with thy name, and the whole clause as describing only the object of their 
 worship, not the means by which they were enabled to render it. The 
 construction of "p is in that case somewhat singular, but may have been the 
 only one by which the double object of the verb could be distinctly ex- 
 pressed without the repetition of the verb itself. As to the lords who are 
 mentioned in the first clause, there are two opinions. One is, that they are 
 the Chaldees or Babylonians, under whom the Jews had been in bondage. 
 This is now the current explanation. The other is, that they are the false 
 gods or idols, whom the Jews had served before the exile. Against the for- 
 mer and in favour of the latter supposition it may be suggested, first, that 
 the Babylonian bondage did not hinder the Jews from mentioning Jehovah's 
 name or praising him ; secondly, that the whole verse looks like a confession 
 of their own fault and a promise of amendment, rather than a reminiscence 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 447 
 
 of their Buffering! J and thirdly, that there seems to be an obvious compari- 
 son between the worship of Jehovah as our God, with some other wor- 
 ship and some other deity. At the same time let it be observed, that 
 the ideas of religious and political allegiance and apostasy or of hea- 
 then rulers and of idol gods, were not so carefully distinguished by the 
 ancient Jews as by ourselves, and it is therefore not impossible that both 
 the kinds of servitude referred to may be here included, yet in such a manner 
 that the spiritual one must be considered as the prominent idea, and the 
 only one, if either must be fixed upon to the exclusion of the other. An 
 additional argument, in favour of the reference of this verse to spiritual rulers, 
 is its exact correspondence with the singular fact in Jewish history, that 
 since the Babylonish exile they have never even been suspected of idolatry. 
 That such a circumstance should be adverted to in this commemorative 
 poem, is so natural that its omission would be almost unaccountable. 
 
 V. 14. Dead, they shall not live : ghosts, they shall not rise : therefore 
 thou hast visited and destroyed them, and made all memory to perish with 
 respect to them. Those whom we lately served are now no more ; thou 
 hast destroyed them and consigned them to oblivion, for the very purpose 
 of securing our freedom and devotion to thy service. Most of the recent 
 writers follow Clericus in referring this verse to the Babylonians exclusively. 
 Hitzig, Ewald, and Umbreit apply it to the forefathers of the supposed 
 speakers, who had perished on account of their idolatry. It seems best 
 however to refer it to the strange lords of the foregoing verse, i. e. the idols 
 themselves, but with some allusion, as in that case, to the idolatrous op- 
 pressors of the Jews. The reason for preferring this interpretation to that of 
 Hitzig is, that the latter introduces a new subject which had not been previ- 
 ously mentioned. The first clause may indeed be rendered as a general 
 proposition, the dead live not, etc. ; but this still leaves the transition an 
 abrupt one, and the allusion to the departed Israelites obscure. The dis- 
 junctive accents which accompany ote and d^xei also show that, according 
 to the masoretic tradition, these words are not the direct subject of the verb 
 but in apposition with it. The sense is correctly given in the English Ver- 
 sion : they are dead, they shall not live ; they are deceased, they shall not 
 rise. An attempt, however, has been made above to imitate more closely 
 the concise and compact form of the original. For the meaning of d^sbi 
 vide supra, ch. 14 : 9. It is here a poetical equivalent to D^na, and may be 
 variously rendered, shades, shadows, spirits, or the like. The common 
 version (deceased) leaves too entirely out of view the figurative character of 
 the expression. Giants, on the contrary, is too strong, and could onlv be 
 employed in this connexion in the sense of gigantic shades or shadows. 
 The Targum strangely makes these terms denote the worshippers of dead 
 
448 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 men and of giants, i. e. probably of heroes. The Septuagint gives a curious 
 turn to the sentence by reading f&tn physicians (IcltqoI ov fir] uvacTTJcovGi). 
 Gesenius needlessly attaches to *,^ the rare and dubious sense because, 
 which Ewald regards as a fictitious one, deduced from a superficial view of 
 certain passages, in which the meaning therefore seems at first sight inap- 
 propriate. The other sense is certainly not to be assumed without necessity. 
 In this case the apparent necessity is done away by simply observing, that 
 therefore may be used to introduce, not only the cause, but the design of an 
 action. Though the words cannot mean, thou hast destroyed them because 
 they are dead and powerless, they may naturally mean, thou hast destroyed 
 them that they might be dead and powerless. The same two meanings are 
 attached to the English phrase for this reason, which may either denote 
 cause or purpose. The meaning of the verse, as connected with the one 
 before it, is that the strange lords who had ruled them should not only cease 
 to do so, but, so far as they were concerned, should cease to exist or be 
 remembered. 
 
 V. 15. Thou hast added to the nation, oh Jehovah, thou hast added to 
 the nation ; thou hast glorified thyself; thou hast put far off all the ends 
 of the land. By this deliverance of thy people from the service both of 
 idols and idolaters, thou hast added a great number to the remnant who 
 were left in the Holy Land, so that larger territories will be needed for their 
 occupation ; and in doing all this, thou hast made an exhibition of thy power, 
 justice, truth, and goodness. Thus understood, the whole verse is a grate- 
 ful acknowledgment of what God had done for his suffering people. Some, 
 on the contrary, have understood it as relating wholly to his previous judg- 
 ments. Thus DeDieu, with his usual ingenuity and love of paradox, con- 
 founds the idea of adding to the nation with that of gathering a person to 
 his people or his fathers, a common idiomatic periphrasis for death. This is 
 founded on the etymological affinity of Ppi and &p«. To match this in the 
 other clause, he makes "ps n isp mean the extremities of the land, i. e. its 
 highest extremities or chief men, whom Nebuchadnezzar carried into exile. 
 A more common explanation of the verse is that which supposes the 
 last clause to describe the exile and the first the restoration. To re- 
 move the vgteqov tiqoteqov which thus arises, it becomes necessary to make 
 npii-i a pluperfect, as in the English version, which moreover supplies a 
 pronoun as the object of the verb, and a preposition before ends. A much 
 simpler construction of the last clause is the one now commonly adopted, 
 which supposes no ellipsis, makes pa ^%P itself the object of the verb, and 
 identical in meaning with the latin fines terrae in the sense of boundaries, 
 the removing of which further off denotes of course territorial enlargement. 
 Junius supplies life after added in the first clause ; J. D. Michaelis and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 119 
 
 others supply gifts or favours; but the obvious meaning seems to be that 
 God had added to the number of the people, not by an aggregate increase 
 of the whole nation, but by the reunion of its separated parts, in the restora- 
 tion of the exiles from Babylon. The word *tt> as Knobel well observes, 
 may here denote the remnant left in Judah, to which the analogous term ds 
 is repeatedly applied by Jeremiah. The enlargement of the boundaries may 
 either be explained as a poetical description of the actual increase and ex- 
 pected growth of the nation (ch. 49 : 19), or literally understood as referring 
 to the fact, that after the return from exile the Jews were no longer restricted 
 to their own proper territory, but extended themselves more or less over the 
 whole country. Knobel gives QT?*9? the specific meaning, thou hast made 
 thyself great, i. e. the king of a great nation ; but the wider and more usual 
 sense is much to be preferred. The translation of the verb as a reflexive, 
 rather than a simple passive, greatly adds to the strength of the expression. 
 
 V. 16. Jehovah, in distress they visited thee ; they uttered a whisper ; 
 thy chastisement was on them. It was not merely after their deliverance that 
 they turned from idols unto God. Their deliverance itself was owing to 
 their humble prayers. Visit is here used in the unusual but natural sense 
 of seeking God in supplication. Hitzig and Hendewerk prefer the second- 
 ary sense of ffinb, incantation (Beschworung) ; but the primary meaning is 
 not only admissible but beautifully expressive of submissive humble prayer, 
 like that of Hannah when she spake in her heart and only her lips moved, but 
 her voice was not heard, although, as she said herself, she poured out her 
 soul before God, which is the exact sense of ytpi in this place. A like ex- 
 pression is applied to prayer in the title of Psalm 102. Barnes explains 
 ttnb here to mean a sighing, a calling for help, as if the two things 
 were identical, whereas the idea of a call or cry is at variance with 
 the figurative import of the language. This is one of the few cases in 
 which the plural of the preterite takes a paragogic nun. Whether it was 
 meant to be intensive, as Henderson supposes, or to affect the sense in 
 any way, may be doubted. Knobel supplies a preposition before "pWO, and 
 says that the Prophet would have written mora, but for the necessity of 
 adding the suffix of the second person, which required that of the third to be 
 separately written with a preposition. It is simpler, however, to supply the 
 substantive verb and take the words as a short independent clause. It is 
 implied, though not expressed, that their prayer was humble and submissive 
 because they felt that what they suffered was a chastisement from God. 
 Ewald, who usually makes an advance upon his predecessors, in the way of 
 simple and exact translation, is here misled by his fondness for critical 
 emendation, and proposes to read tjnb as a verb, and ypx as a noun derived 
 from p** to press. (In) distress it was lisped (or whispered) by them (lab 
 
 29 
 
450 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 Thy chastisement! The construction thus obtained is as harsh and infelicit- 
 ous as the correction of the text is arbitrary. 
 
 V. 17. As when a pregnant (woman) draws near to the birth, she 
 writhes, she cries out in her pangs, so have we been, from thy presence, oh 
 Jehovah ! Before we thus cast ourselves upon thy mercy in submissive 
 prayer, we tried to deliver ourselves, but only to the aggravation of our 
 sufferings. The comparison here used is not intended simply to denote ex- 
 treme pain as in many other cases, but as the next verse clearly shows, 
 the pain arising from ineffectual efforts to relieve themselves, fos, like the 
 corresponding English as, is properly a particle of comparison, but con- 
 stantly applied to time, as a synonyme of when. The full force of the term 
 may be best expressed in this case by combining the two English words. 
 The future is here used to denote a general fact which not only does, but 
 will occur. Hendewerk translates the last verb as a present ; but it seems 
 clear that the prophet is reverting to the state of things before the deliver- 
 ance which had just been acknowledged. Knobel, in accordance with his 
 general hypothesis as to the date and subject of the prophecy, applies this 
 verse to the condition of the Jews who were left behind in Palestine, but 
 the great majority of writers, much more probably, to that of the exiles. 
 There are three explanations of the phrase ^litttt. Clericus and Hitzig 
 take it in its strictest sense as meaning from thy presence, i. e. cast out or 
 removed far from it. Knobel, on the contrary, excludes the proper local 
 sense of the expression and translates it on account of thee, i. e. because of 
 thine anger. Gesenius and Ewald give the intermediate sense before thee, 
 in thy presence. Even in the cases cited by Knobel, the evils experienced 
 are described as coming from the presence of Jehovah. Some of the older 
 writers even give D^as itself the sense of anger, which is wholly unnecessary 
 and unauthorized. The only way in which the question can be settled is 
 by the application of the general principle, that where a choice of meaning 
 is presented, that is entitled to the preference which adheres most closely to 
 the strict sense of the terms. On this ground the translation from thy pres- 
 ence is to be preferred ; but whether with the accessory idea of removal, 
 alienation, or with that of infliction, is a question not determined by the 
 phrase itself, but either left uncertain or to be decided by the context. 
 
 V. 18. We were in travail, we were in pain, as it were we brought 
 forth wind. Deliverances we could not make the land, nor would the in- 
 habitants of the world fall. The figure introduced in the preceding verse 
 is here carried out and applied. Ewald makes ia^ mean as if, but neither 
 this nor as it were is fully justified by usage. Gesenius renders it when as 
 in v. 17, but this requires a verb to be supplied, when we brought forth (it 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 451 
 
 was) wind. The general sense is evident. The next clause admits of 
 several different constructions. The simplest supplies a preposition before 
 Y~\x, in or for the land. The one now commonly adopted is, we could not 
 make the land safety, i. e. could not make it safe or save it. The same 
 writers generally make nt)93 the passive participle, in which case it must 
 agree, either with y^a which is usually feminine, or with pn*TO* which is 
 both feminine and plural. The possibility of such constructions does not 
 warrant them, much less require them, when as here the obvious one is per- 
 fectly appropriate and in strict agreement with the parallel lbiP. The 
 objection urged to making n:;r:a future is that the people could not save the 
 country, which is the very thing the future was intended to assert. The 
 future form of the verb has respect to the period described. As the people 
 then might have said, we shall not save the land, so the same expression is 
 here put into their mouths retrospectively. The best equivalent in English 
 is the potential or subjunctive form, we could not. Gesenius and the other 
 recent German writers understand this as a description of the Holy Land 
 after the return from exile. We cannot save the country, and the inhabi- 
 tants of the land will not be born (ibsr) i. e. it is still very thinly peopled. 
 This is far from being an obvious or natural interpretation. The foregoing 
 context, as we have seen, relates to the period of captivity itself. The 
 meaning given to ^B3, though sustained by analogies in other languages, 
 derives no countenance from Hebrew usage. Nor is it probable that the 
 figure of parturition would be here resumed, after it had been dropped in the 
 preceding member of the sentence. The way in which the metaphors of 
 this verse have been treated by some commentators furnishes an instance of 
 the perversion and abuse of archaeological illustration. J. D. Michaelis 
 imagined that he had discovered an allusion to a certain medical phenome- 
 non of very rare occurrence. This suggestion is eagerly adopted by Gesenius, 
 who, not content with naming it in his text, pursues the subject with greai 
 zest in a note, and appears to have called in the assistance of his colleague, 
 the celebrated medical professor Sprengel. From one or the other of these 
 sources the details are copied by several later writers, one of whom, lest the 
 reader's curiosity should not be sated, says that the whole may be seen 
 fully described in the books on obstetrics. It is a curious fact that some, 
 who are often reluctant to recognise New Testament doctrines in the 
 prophecies, can find there allusions to the most extraordinary medical 
 phenomena. The best comment upon this obstetrical elucidation is con- 
 tained in Hitzig's caustic observation, that by parity of reasoning the allu- 
 sion in ch. 33 : 1 1 is to an actual bringing forth of straw (eine wirkliche 
 Strohgeburt) . Knobel has also pointed out, what any reader might dis- 
 cover for himself, that wind is here used, as in ch. 41 : 29, Hos. 12 : 2, as 
 a common metaphor for failure, disappointment, bstn is variously explained 
 
452 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 according to the sense put upon the whole verse. Those who refer it to 
 the period after the return from exile regard koo as equivalent to y-ist. 
 Those who suppose the exile itself to be the time in question, understand by 
 "bzr\ the Babylonian empire as in ch. 13 : 11. 
 
 V. 19. Thy dead shall live, my corpses shall arise ; (awake and sing ye 
 that dwell in the dust !) for the dew of herbs is thy dew, and (on) the earth 
 (on) the dead, thou wilt cause it to fall. This verse is in the strongest con- 
 trast with the one before it. To the ineffectual efforts of the people to save 
 themselves, he now opposes their actual deliverance by God. They shall 
 rise because they are thy dead, i. e. thy dead people. The construction of 
 "rbzi with "p^aip" 1 is not a mere grammatical anomaly. The noun and suffix 
 are singular, because the words are those of Israel as a body. The verb is 
 plural, because the corpse of Israel included in reality a multitude of corpses. 
 The explanation of the suffix as a parogogic syllable is contrary to usage, 
 which restricts paragoge to the construct form. Kimchi supplies a prepo- 
 sition (with my dead body) which construction is adopted in the English 
 version and in several others, but is now commonly abandoned as incongru- 
 ous and wholly arbitrary. Neither the Prophet, nor the house of Israel, in 
 whose name he is speaking, could refer to their own body as distinct from 
 the bodies of Jehovah's dead ones. Awake etc. is a joyful apostrophe to 
 the dead, after which the address to Jehovah is resumed. There are two 
 interpretations of rVnKai, both ancient and supported by high modern author- 
 ities. The first gives the word the usual sense of lis light ; the other 
 that of plants, which it has in 2 Kings 4 : 39. The first is found in the 
 Targum, Vulgate, and Peshito, and is approved by Grotius. Ewald, Um- 
 breit, and Gesenius in his Commentary. The other is given by Kimchi, 
 Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Hitzig, and Gesenius in his 
 Lexicon. To the former it may be objected, that it leaves the plural form 
 unexplained, that it arbitrarily makes light mean life, and that it departs 
 from the acknowledged meaning of rv-iix in the only other place where 
 it occurs. The second interpretation, on the other hand, assumes but one 
 sense of the word, allows the plural form its proper force, and supposes an 
 obvious and natural allusion to the influence of dew upon the growth of 
 plants. In either case the reference to the dew is intended to illustrate the 
 vivifying power of God. Gesenius and Ewald both explain the verbs as 
 optatives and the verse as expressive of a wish that God would raise the 
 dead and thus repeople the now empty country. This construction, though 
 admissible in case of necessity, has nothing to entitle it to preference, when 
 the strict interpretation yields a perfectly good sense. The obvious 
 meaning of the words is an expression of strong confidence and hope, or 
 rather of prophetic foresight, that God will raise the dead, that his life-giving 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 453 
 
 influence will be exerted. The use of b^cn here is certainly obscure. 
 Gesenius, Ewald, and the other late interpreters, suppose it to denote the 
 act of bearing, bringing forth, as the Kal in v. 18 means, according to tin- 
 same writers, to be born. But if it there seems unnatural to suppose a 
 resumption of that figure, it is much more so here, where another figure, that 
 of vegetation, goes before. The mere rhetorical objection to mixed meta- 
 phors, as we have seen in other cases, ought to weigh but little where the 
 sense is clear ; but in determining a doubtful sense, we are rather to presume 
 that a figure once begun is continued, than that it is suddenly exchanged for 
 another. An additional objection to this exposition is the incongruity of 
 making the earth bring forth the dead, and thus putting the two extremes 
 of life into juxtaposition. To avoid this incongruity, Gesenius and Ewald 
 are obliged to give bfi3, both here and in v. 18, not only the precarious 
 sense of bearing and of being born, but the arbitrary and specific one of 
 bearing again and being born again. Some of the older writers make 
 b^Bn the second person (which agrees well with the previous address to 
 God) and understand the words to mean thou wilt cause the giants to fall 
 to the earth. But the combination of n^xs") with 0"»rni in v. 14, and the 
 repetition of the latter here, decides the meaning of the former, as denoting 
 the deceased, the dead. Retaining the construction of b^sn as a second 
 person, and supposing the allusion to the influence of dew upon the growth 
 of plants to be continued, we may render the words thus : (upon) the earth, 
 (upon) the dead thou wilt cause it to fall. As if he had said, thou hast a 
 life-giving influence and thou wilt exert it ; as thy dew makes plants to 
 grow, so shall it make these dead to live. That the ellipsis of the prepo- 
 sition before *px and d^xbi, although not without analogy, is somewhat 
 harsh, must be admitted, and the only view with which this construction is 
 proposed is, that its difficulties and advantages may be compared with those 
 of the translation given by Gesenius and Ewald, the earth brings forth the 
 dead. All these interpretations coincide in applying the verse to a resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, and the question now arises, what resurrection is referred 
 to ? All the answers to this question may be readily reduced to three. The 
 first is, that the prophet means the general resurrection of the dead, or 
 according to an old rabbinical tradition, the exclusive resurrection of the 
 righteous, at the last day. The second is, that he refers to a resurrection of 
 the Jews already dead, not as an actual or possible event, but as a passion- 
 ate expression of desire that the depopulated land might be replenished with 
 inhabitants. The third is, that he represents the restoration of the exiles 
 and of the theocracy under the figure of a resurrection, as Paul says the 
 restoration of Israel to God's favour will be life from the dead. The 
 obvious objection to the first of these opinions is, that a prediction of the 
 final resurrection is as much out of place in this connexion as the same 
 
454 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 
 
 expectation seemed to Martha as a source of comfort for the loss of Lazarus. 
 But as our Saviour, when he said to her, thy brother shall rise again, 
 designed to console her by the promise of an earlier and a special resurrec- 
 tion, so in this case what was needed for the comfort of God's people was 
 something more than the prospect of rising at the day of judgment. The 
 choice therefore lies between the other two hypotheses, that of a mere wish 
 that the dead might literally rise at once, and that of a prediction that they 
 should rise soon but in a figure (iv Tzaoafiolfi) as Paul says of Isaac's resur- 
 rection from the dead (Heb. 11 : 19). The objection to the first of these 
 interpretations is, that the optative construction of the verbs, as we have 
 seen already, is not the obvious and natural construction, and ought not to 
 be assumed unless it yields a better sense and one more appropriate in this 
 connexion. But so far is this from being the case, that the mere expression 
 of a wish which could not be fulfilled would be a most unnatural conclusion 
 of this national address to God, whereas it could not be more suitably wound 
 up, or in a manner more in keeping with the usage of the prophecies, than by 
 a strong expression of belief, that God would raise his people from the dust 
 of degradation and oppression, where they had long seemed dead though 
 only sleeping. On these grounds the figurative exposition seems decidedly 
 entitled to the preference. Upon this allusion to a resurrection Gesenius 
 fastens as a proof that the prophecy could not have been written until after 
 the doctrine of the resurrection had been borrowed by the Jews from Zoroas- 
 ter. To this it may be answered, first, that the alleged derivation of the 
 doctrine is a figment, which no authoritative writer on the history of opinion 
 would now venture to maintain ; secondly, that the mention of a figurative 
 resurrection, or the expression of a wish that a literal one would take place, 
 has no more to do with the doctrinal belief of the writer, than any other 
 lively figure or expression of strong feeling; thirdly, that if a knowledge and 
 belief of the doctrine of a general resurrection is implied in these expressions, 
 the text, instead of being Jclassisch as a proof of later Jewish opinions, is 
 Jclassisch as a proof that the doctrine was known to Isaiah, if not to his 
 contemporaries. If Gesenius, believing this prediction to belong to the 
 period of the exile, is entitled to adduce it as a proof of what opinions were 
 then'current, those who believe it to be genuine are equally entitled to 
 adduce it as a proof of what was current in the days of Isaiah. It is easy 
 to affirm that the prophecy is known on other grounds to be of later date ; 
 but it is just as easy to affirm that the alleged grounds are sophistical and 
 inconclusive. Holding this to be the truth, we may safely conclude that the 
 text either proves nothing as to a general resurrection of the dead, or that it 
 proves the belief of such a resurrection to be at least as old as the prophet 
 Isaiah. 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVI. 455 
 
 V. 20. Go, my people, enter into thy chambers, and shut thy doors after 
 thee, hide thyself for a little moment, till the wrath be past. Having wound 
 up the* expectations of the people to a full belief of future restoration from 
 their state of civil and religious death, the Prophet by an exquisite transition 
 intimates, that this event is not yet immediately at hand, that this relief from 
 the effects of God's displeasure with his people must be preceded by the 
 experience of the displeasure itself, that it is still a time of indignation, and 
 that till this is elapsed the promise cannot be fulfilled. This painful post- 
 ponement of the promised resurrection could not be more tenderly or beau- 
 tifully intimated than in this fine apostrophe. The inferences drawn by 
 certain German writers, as to the date of the composition, can have no effect 
 on those who believe that Isaiah was a prophet, not in the sense of a quid- 
 nunc or a ballad-singer, but in that of an inspired revealer of futurity. 
 The similar conclusion drawn by Knobel from the form ian is equally frivo- 
 lous, it being commonly agreed at present that what are called Aramean 
 forms may just as well be archaisms as neologisms, since they may have 
 arisen, not from later intercourse with neighbouring nations, but from an 
 original identity of language. Gesenius and others understand this verse as 
 an exhortation to the Jews in Babylon to keep out of harm's way during the 
 storming of the city. A more prosaic close of a poetical context could not 
 be imagined. Those who refer v. 19 to the general resurrection understand 
 the verse before us as an intimation that they must first rest in the grave 
 until the time is come. Such an allusion is of course admissible on the 
 supposition of a figurative resurrection. It is more natural, however, to 
 suppose that the people of God are here addressed as such, and warned to 
 hide themselves until God'^ indignation against them is past. On this 
 specific usage of the word est, vide supra ch. 10:5. On the idiomatic usage 
 of the verbs 7fe and aa, vide supra, ch. 22: 15. The textual variation 
 -prrn and "pb"t is of no exegetical importance, -prn strictly means without 
 thee or outside of thee, implying that the person is shut in. It first occurs in 
 Gen. 7 : 16, where it is said that God shut Noah in the ark. Knobel explains 
 Wfi a-?*33 as meaning like the s?nallness of a moment. The a is a particle of 
 time, equivalent, or nearly so, to our about. The English Version (as it were) 
 is therefore incorrect. The period of suffering is described as very small in 
 comparison with what had gone before and what should follow it, as Paul 
 says (Rom. 8 : 18), that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to 
 be compared with the glory xchich shall be revealed in us. 
 
 V. 21 . For behold, Jehovah (is) coming out of his place, to visit the ini- 
 quity of the inhabitant of the earth upon him, and the earth shall disclose her 
 blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This is a reason both for expect- 
 ing ultimate deliverance and for patiently awaiting it. The reason is that 
 
456 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 God has a work of chastisement to finish, first upon his own people, and then 
 upon their enemies. During the former process, let the faithful hide them- 
 selves until the wrath be past. When the other begins, let them lift up their 
 heads, for their redemption draweth nigh. This large interpretation of the 
 verse is altogether natural and more satisfactory than those which restrict it 
 either to the judgments upon Israel or to those upon Babylon. On the latter 
 the eye of the Prophet of course chiefly rests, especially at last, so that the 
 closing words may be applied almost exclusively to the retribution which 
 awaited the Chaldean for the slaughter of God's people. On the idiomatic 
 usage of the plural Dia*i where the reference is to murder, vide supra, ch. 
 1 : 15. Rosenmiiller and Hitzig understand the last clause as a predic- 
 tion that the dead should actually come out of the graves, Knobel as a 
 poetical anticipation of the same event. But it seems far more natural to 
 understand the clause, with Gesenius and Umbreit, as a simple variation of 
 the one before it. The blood, which the earth had long since drunk in, 
 should as it were be vomited up, and the bodies of the murdered, which had 
 long been buried, should be now disclosed to view. It agrees best with the 
 wider meaning put upon this verse, and is at the same time more poetical, 
 to give "pa in both clauses its generic sense of earth, rather than the specific 
 one of land. Instead of the simple version slain, Gesenius employs with 
 good effect the strong expression murdered (die Gemordeten), as one of the 
 French versions had done long before (ses massacres). Without laying 
 undue stress on the mere rhetorical aspect of the sacred writings, it may 
 safely be affirmed that at the bar of the most elevated criticism, the con- 
 cluding verses of the chapter now before us would at once be adjudged to 
 possess intrinsic qualities of beauty and sublimity (apart from the accident 
 of rhythm and parallelism, in which some writers find the essence of all 
 poetry) sufficient to brand with the stigma of absurdity the judgment that can 
 set the passage down as the work of a deteriorated age or an inferior writer. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 This chapter is an amplification of the last verse of the one preceding, 
 and contains a fuller statement both of Israel's chastisements and of Jeho- 
 vah's judgments on his enemies. The destruction of the latter is foretold 
 as the slaughter of a huge sea-monster, and contrasted with God's care of 
 his own people even when afflicting them, vs. 1-5. Hereafter Israel shall 
 flourish, and even in the mean time his sufferings are far less than those of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 1,: 
 
 his oppressors, vs. 6, 7. The former is visited in moderation, for a time, 
 and with the happiest effect, vs. 8, 9. The latter is finally and totally 
 destroyed, vs. 10, 11. This shall be followed by the restoration of the 
 scattered Jews, vs. T2, 13. 
 
 V. 1. In that day shall Jehovah visit, with his sword, the hard, the 
 great, the strong (sword), upon Leviathan the swift (or flying) serpent, 
 and upon Leviathan the coiled (or crooked) serpent, and shall slay the 
 dragon which (is) in the sea. It is universally agreed that this is a predic- 
 tion of the downfall of some great oppressive power, but whether that of a 
 single nation or of several, has been much disputed. Clericus supposes 
 two, Vitringa and many others three, to be distinctly mentioned. In favour 
 of supposing a plurality of subjects may be urged the distinct enumeration 
 and description of the monsters to be slain. But the same form of expres- 
 sion occurs in many other places where there can be no doubt that a single 
 subject is intended. To the hypothesis of three distinct powers it may be 
 objected, that two of them would scarcely have been called Leviathan. To 
 the general hypothesis of more than one, it may be objected that by parity 
 of reasoning three swords are meant, viz. a hard one, a great one, and a 
 strong one. But even if three powers be intended, it is wholly impossible 
 to identify them, as may be inferred from the endless variety of combinations 
 which have been suggested ; Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia ; Egypt, Baby- 
 lonia, and Tyre ; Assyria, Babylonia, and Rome ; Babylonia, Media, Per- 
 sia, etc. etc. Gill thinks the three meant are the devil, the beast, and the 
 false prophet ; Cocceius, the emperor, the pope, and the devil. What is 
 common to all the hypotheses is, that the verse describes a power or powers 
 hostile and oppressive to the people of God. The most probable opinion, 
 therefore, is that this was what the words were intended to convey. Or if a 
 more specific reference must be assumed, it is worthy of remark that nearly 
 all the hypotheses, which apply the words to two or more of the great pow- 
 ers of the ancient world, make Babylonia one of them. From this induction 
 we may safely conclude, that the leviathan and dragon of this verse are 
 descriptive of a great oppressive power, with particular allusion to the Baby- 
 lonian empire, a conclusion perfectly consistent with the previous allusions 
 to the fall of Babylon and the restoration of the Jews from exile. Assuming 
 this to be the general meaning of the verse, that of its mere details becomes 
 either easy or comparatively unimportant. The word leviathan, which, from 
 its etymology, appears to mean contorted, coiled, is sometimes used to denote 
 particular species (e. g. the crocodile), and sometimes as a generic term for 
 huge aquatic animals, or the larger kinds of serpents, in which sense the 
 corresponding term "p|B is also used. They both appear to be employed in 
 this case to express the indefinite idea of a formidable monster, which is in 
 
458 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 fact the sense now commonly attached to the word dragon. The second 
 epithet "pnbps means tortuous, either with respect to the motion of the ser- 
 pent, or to its appearance when at rest. Bochart regarded the 'EyxtXa- 
 8og of the Greek mythology as a corruption of this Hebrew word. The 
 other epithet rna has been variously explained. Some of the ancients 
 confound it with rp'ia a bar, and suppose the serpent to be so described either 
 in reference to its length, or stiffness, or straightness, or strength, or its pene- 
 trating power, or the configuration of its head. J. D. Michaelis gives it the 
 sense of northern, and supposes the three objects here described to be the three 
 constellations which exhibit the appearance and bear the name of serpents 
 or dragons. This explanation, founded on Job 23 : 16, does not materially 
 change the meaning of the verse, since the constellations are supposed to be 
 referred to, as connected in some way with the fortunes of great states and 
 empires. The allusion however is so far-fetched and pedantic, that, al- 
 though it suits the taste of Michaelis and Hitzig, who delight in recondite 
 interpretations, it will scarcely satisfy the mind of any ordinary reader. The 
 only explanation of n-na which is fully justified by Hebrew usage is that of 
 fugitive or fleeing, which may either be a poetical equivalent to fleet, or 
 descriptive of the monster as a flying serpent. Hitzig objects to the suppo- 
 sition of a single monster, on the ground that these two epithets, flying and 
 coiled, are incompatible, as if the same serpent could not be described both 
 in motion and at rest, not to mention that the second term, as Umbreit sug- 
 gests, may itself be descriptive of motion. The omission of any descriptive 
 epithet with "pan makes it probable at least that it is not a new item in the 
 catalogue. There is no need of explaining ta^ to mean Babylonia as in ch. 
 21 : 1, since the expression relates to the type not to the antitype, and must 
 be joined with "psn to express the complex idea of a sea-serpent. For the 
 meaning of the phrase to visit upon, vide supra, ch. 13: 11. The sword 
 is a common emblem for the instruments of the divine vengeance. The 
 explanation of nttij? as meaning heavy is not justified by usage ; severe or 
 dreadful does not suit the context, as the other two epithets denote physical 
 qualities of a literal sword. The word no doubt means hard-edged, or, as 
 Lowth expresses it, well-tempered. 
 
 V. 2. On the explanation of this verse depends that of a large part of 
 the chapter. The two points upon which all turns, are the meaning of siss and 
 the reference of the suffix in rib. The modern writers solve the latter by 
 supposing d'na to be feminine in this one place, and when expressions after- 
 wards occur which are inapplicable to a vineyard, regard them as inaccura- 
 cies or perhaps as proofs of an uncultivated taste, whereas they only prove 
 that the assumed construction is a false one. The only supposition which 
 will meet the difficulties, both of the syntax and the exegesis, is the one 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 459 
 
 adopted by most of the old writers, to wit, that nb refers, not directly to 
 =-3, but to .Jerusalem or the daughter ofZion, i. e. to the church or people 
 of God considered u his spouse (ch. 1 : 21). This reference to a subject 
 not expreesfy mentioned might be looked upon as arbitrary, but for the fact 
 that the assumption of it is attended with fewer difficulties than the con- 
 struction which it supersedes, as will be seen below. As to the other word, 
 tradition and authority are almost unanimous in giving it the sense of sing. 
 Assuming that the primary meaning of the verb is to answer, and that the 
 derivative strictly denotes responsive singing, Lowth, Dathe, Schnurrer. and 
 others, have converted the whole context to the end of v. 5, into a dialogue 
 between Jehovah and his vineyard. This fantastic arrangement of the text 
 has been rejected by most later writers, as artificial, complex, and at variance 
 with the genius and usage of Hebrew composition, Lowth's eloquent 
 plea to the contrary notwithstanding. But the same interpreters, who have 
 relieved the passage from this factitious burden and embarrassment, continue 
 for the most part to regard what follows as a song, though not a dramatic 
 dialogue, because the people are commanded in v. 2 to sing, and the song of 
 course must follow. To this exposition, which is really a relic of the old 
 dramatic one, there are several objections. In the first place, no one has 
 been able to determine with precision where the song concludes, some 
 choosing one place for its termination, some another. This would of course 
 prove nothing in a clear case, but in a case like this it raises a presumption 
 at the least that a song, of which the end cannot be found, has no beginning. 
 But in the next place, it is easy to see why the end cannot be easily defined, 
 to wit, because there is nothing in the next three, four or five verses to dis- 
 tinguish them as being any more a song than what precedes and follows, 
 whether with respect to imagery, rhythm, or diction. In the third place, 
 the presumption thus created and confirmed is corroborated further by the 
 obvious incongruity of making the song, which the people are supposed to 
 sing, begin with 1 Jehovah keep it etc. It is in vain that Grotius with his 
 usual ingenuity explains «&» as meaning ' sing in the name or person of 
 Jehovah/ and that other writers actually introduce thus saith the Lord at 
 the beginning of the song. This is only admitting indirectly that the 
 supposition of a song is wholly arbitrary in a case so doubtful, whatever it 
 might be if the mention of a song were more explicit. For in the fourth 
 place, there is this striking difference between the case before us and those 
 which are supposed to be analogous (e. g. ch. 5: 1. 26: 1), that in these 
 the verb SMJ and its derivative noun of the same form are employed, whereas 
 here the verb is different and the noun song does not appear at all. Under 
 these circumstances, it would seem to be sufficient to take Vt as a general 
 exhortation to sing, without supposing that the words of the song actually 
 follow, which is surely not a necessary supposition. But in the fifth place, 
 
460 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 out of fifty-six cases in which the piel of nas occurs, there are only three in 
 which the sense of singing is conceivable, and of these three one (Ps. 
 88: 1) is the enigmatical title of a Psalm, another (Ex. 32: 18) is so 
 dubious that the one sense is almost as appropriate as the other, and the 
 third is that before us. It is true the concordances and lexicons assume 
 two different roots, but this is merely to accommodate the difficulties of these 
 three texts, and the multiplication of roots is now universally regarded as at 
 best a necessary evil. On such grounds the assumption of the meaning 
 sing could hardly be justified, even if it were far more appropriate to the 
 context than the common one. But in the last place, while the supposition 
 of a song, as we have seen, embarrasses the exposition, the usual meaning 
 of the verb nss is perfectly appropriate. This meaning is to afflict, and 
 especially to afflict in an humbling and degrading manner. This may seem 
 to be utterly at variance with the context as it is commonly explained ; but 
 the common explanation rests on the supposititious meaning of the verb, and 
 cannot therefore be alleged in favor of that meaning. On the usual hypothe- 
 sis, the verse exhorts the people to sing to the vineyard or the church ; on 
 the one now proposed it challenges her enemies to do their worst, declaring 
 that God still protects her. This explanation of the verse agrees well with 
 the distinct allusions to the punishment of Israel in vs. 4, 7, 8, 9, which would 
 be comparatively out of place in a song of triumph or gratulation. Against 
 this explanation of is?, and of the whole verse, lies the undivided weight 
 of tradition and authority, so far as I can trace the exposition of the passage, 
 the only writer who adopts the sense afflict being Gousset (or Gussetius) in 
 his Comment. Ebr. as cited by Gill. So unanimous a judgment might be 
 looked upon as perfectly decisive of the question but for two considerations ; 
 first, that the proposed interpretation removes a variety of difficulties, not by 
 forsaking usage but by returning to it ; and secondly, that none of the 
 interpreters consulted seem to have adverted to the facts already stated, with 
 respect to the usage of nss. But besides the objection from tradition and 
 authority, another may be urged of a grammatical nature, viz. the unusual 
 connexion of the verb with its object not directly but by means of the prepo- 
 sition b. To this it can only be replied, in the first place, that the choice 
 presented is a choice of difficulties, and that those attending the construction 
 now in question seem to be less than those attending any other ; in the next 
 place, that although this verb does not elsewhere take the preposition b after 
 it, there are many cases in which other active verbs are separated from their 
 objects by it, the verb then denoting the mere action, and the b pointing out 
 the object as to which, or with respect to which, it is performed ; and in the 
 last place, that the b may have been rendered necessary here because the 
 nouns before the verb are also in some sense its objects. The latest German 
 writers, it is true, construe "wbtj ens as an absolute nominative, (as to the vine- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 461 
 
 yard of wine) or as the subject of a verb understood (there shall be a vine- 
 yard of wine) but these are nx-iv expedients to explain the nb, and must of 
 course give way to any simpler method of accomplishing that purpose. As 
 the result of this investigation, we may now translate the verse as follows. 
 In that day, as a vineyard of wine, ajflict her, or, in that day afflict for her 
 the vineyard of wine. It is then a defiance or permission of the enemies of 
 the church to afflict her, with an intimation that in carrying out this idea, 
 the expressions will be bdrrowed from the figure of a vineyard, as in ch. 
 5: 1-6*. isn strictly denotes fermentation, then fermented liquor, and is 
 used as a poetical equivalent to ftj. It has been objected that this idea is 
 involved in that of a vineyard, but such apparent pleonasms are common in 
 all languages, as when we speak of a well of water or a coal of fire. 
 Besides did seems to have originally had a latitude of meaning not unlike 
 that of orchard in English, and we actually read of a tvn nna (not a vine- 
 yard but an olive-yard) Josh. 15:5. "njlj may therefore have been added 
 to complete the phrase, or to preclude all doubt as to the meaning, 
 either of which suppositions renders it superfluous to borrow the sense red 
 wine from the Arabic, as Kimchi does, and to assume that the Hebrews seta 
 special value upon this sort. Much less is it necessary to amend the text 
 by reading inn tfto, pleasant or beloved vineyard. The analogous expres- 
 sion tomans Amos 5:11, only makes a change in this place more imprb- 
 bable, not to mention the endless license of conjecture, which would be 
 introduced into the criticism of the text, by adopting the principle that 
 phrases, which partially resemble one another, must be made to do so alto- 
 gether. As a closing suggestion, not at all necessary to the exposition, but 
 tending to explain in some degree the form of the original, it may here be 
 added, that the masoretic interpunction may have been intended to suggest 
 an interval of time between the clauses, as if he had said, in that day (shall 
 this come to pass, but in the meantime) afflict her etc. 
 
 V. 3. I Jehovah (am) keeping her; every moment I will water her ; 
 lest any hurt her, night and day will 1 keep her. That is, in spite of the 
 afflictions which befall her I will still preserve her from destruction. The 
 antecedent of the pronouns is the same as in v. 2, viz. the church or nation 
 considered as a vineyard. B**y$ literally means at moments or as to 
 moments, but its sense is determined by the analogous »*5ga& every morning. 
 Kimchi takes tt*te as a noun > m which he is followed by some later writers, 
 who explain the clause to mean, lest one hurt a leaf of her, or, lest a leaf of 
 her be wanting. But the want of any usage to justify such an explanation 
 of ^pEp, and the construction of the same verb in v. 1 with the preposition 
 b?, leave no doubt that the usual explanation is the true one. To visit upon 
 has here its common meaning of inflicting evil upon, but without any special 
 
462 ISAIAH. CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 reference to crime or punishment. As the expression is a relative one, it 
 must here be understood according to the context, as denoting fatal or at 
 least excessive injury. 
 
 V. 4. Of all the senses put upon this difficult verse, there are only two 
 which can be looked upon as natural or probable. The first may be para- 
 phrased as follows : it is not because I am cruel or revengeful that I 
 thus afflict my people, but because she is a vineyard overrun with 
 thorns or briers, on account of which I must pass through her and 
 consume her (i. e. burn them out of her). The other is this : I am no 
 longer angry with my people ; oh that their enemies (as thorns and briers) 
 would array themselves against me, that I might rush upon them and con- 
 sume them. This last is preferred by most of the later writers. The 
 objection that no longer has to be supplied is of little weight. A more 
 important one is that the feminine suffix is referred to the masculine nouns 
 ■naaj and rvvti. To this it may be answered, first, that the feminine in 
 Hebrew often corresponds to the Greek and Latin neuter ; and secondly, that 
 a free use of the feminine, where the masculine might have been expected, is 
 characteristic of this passage. See particularly v. 1 1 below, to which some 
 would add the application of the feminine pronoun throughout the passage 
 to the masculine noun an 3. This grammatical peculiarity, under other cir- 
 cumstances, would no doubt have been alleged as the mark of a different 
 writer. But if the author of ch. xxiv-xxvn can use expressions in ch. 
 xxvn which he does not use in the others, why may not Isaiah as the author 
 of the whole book exhibit similar peculiarities in different parts of a col- 
 lection so extended ? It is important that the reader should take every 
 opportunity to mark the arbitrary nature of the proofs, by which the genuine- 
 ness of the prophecies has been assailed, and the strange conclusions to 
 which they would lead, if applied with even-handed justice. The objection 
 to the first interpretation of the verse is, that it puts a forced construction on 
 the words "b "pa nan, and explains i^rfl ^a in a manner not consistent with 
 the usage of the phrase. Lowth and the others who suppose a dramatic 
 structure are obliged to read nan with the Seventy, and to make this verse a 
 complaint of the vineyard that it has no wall, and an expression of its wish 
 that it had a thorn-hedge, to which God replies that he would still pass 
 through it. Schnurrer however makes even the last clause the words of the 
 vineyard, by arbitrarily supplying when they say, i. e. when my enemy 
 says, I will march against it, etc. 
 
 V. 5. Or let him lay hold of my strength and make •peace with me ; 
 peace let him make with me. The verbs are properly indefinite (let one 
 takehold etc.) but referring to the enemy described in the preceding verse 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 463 
 
 as thorns and briers, t*)?^ commonly denotes a strong place or fortress, and 
 is here understood by most interpreters to signify a refuge or asylum, with 
 allusion to the practice of laying hold upon the altar. Vitringa even goes 
 so far as to suppose that the horns of the altar are themselves so called 
 because the strength of certain animals is in their horns. Lowth gives the 
 word the sense of strength afforded or protection. The general meaning is 
 the same in either case, viz. that the alternative presented to the enemy is 
 that of destruction or submission. The abbreviated future is employed as 
 usual to express a proposition. By varying the translation of the futures, 
 the sentence may be made more pointed : let him make peace (or if he 
 will make peace) he shall make peace. But there is no sufficient reason 
 for the variation, and the imperative meaning of ruayi seems to be determined 
 by that of pirn. Of the various senses ascribed to is (such as unless, oh 
 that if etc.) the only one justi6ed by usage is the disjunctive sense of or. 
 Lowth's dramatic arrangement of the text assigns the first clause to Jehovah 
 and the second to the vineyard. J. Ah! let her rather take hold of my 
 protection. V. Let him make peace with me ! Peace let him make with 
 me. If the thorns and briers of v. 4 be referred to the internal condition of 
 the church, this may be understood as having reference to the church itself, 
 which is then called upon to make its peace with God as the only means 
 of escaping further punishment. Gesenius speaks of the repetition and in- 
 version in the last clause as a very imperfect kind of parallelism extremely 
 common in the Zabian books ! 
 
 V. 6. (In) coming (days) shall Jacob take root, Israel shall bud and 
 blossom, and they shall Jill the face of the earth with fruit. The con- 
 struction of the first clause in the English Bible (them that come of Jacob 
 shall he cause to take root) is forbidden by the collocation of the words, and 
 by the usage of the verb, which always means to take root. The same 
 remark applies to another construction (them that come to Jacob) which 
 applies the words to the conversion of the gentiles. If there were any 
 sufficient reason for departing from the masoretic interpunction, the sentence 
 might be thus arranged with good effect : they that come (i. e. the next 
 generation) shall take root ; Jacob shall bud; Israel shall blossom etc. It 
 is best however to retain the usual construction indicated by the accents. 
 «6a may possibly agree with binkr as a collective ; but as the other verbs 
 are singular, the plural form of this appears to imply a reference to both 
 names, though belonging to one person. Or as aba is both an active 
 and a neuter verb, it may be construed with the plural noun *i*, the face of 
 the world shall be filled with fruit, bsn does not mean the land of Israel, 
 but the world, the whole expression being strongly metaphorical. 
 
464 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 V. 7. Like the smiting of his smiter did he smite him, or like the slay- 
 ing of his slain was he slain? Having declared in the preceding verse that 
 Israel should hereafter flourish, he now adds that even in the meantime he 
 should suffer vastly less than his oppressors. Negation, as in many other 
 cases, is expressed by interrogation. Did the Lord smite Israel as he smote 
 his smiters, or slay him as his murderers were slain ? This is now com- 
 monly agreed to be the meaning, although some of the older writers under- 
 stand the verse as asking, whether God smote Israel as his oppressors smote 
 him, which would yield a good sense but one less suited to the context. To 
 make the parallelism perfect, wn (his slain) should be ^yi (his slayers) ; 
 but this, so far from being a defect, is a beauty, since Israel could not have 
 been said to be slain without destroying the force of the comparison. The 
 suffix in tf*£$! is to be referred to the oppressors or the enemy. 
 
 V. 8. In measure, by sending her away, thou dost contend with her. 
 He removes her by his hard wind in the day of the east wind. The nega- 
 tion implied in the preceding verse is here expressed more distinctly. The 
 Prophet now proceeds to show that Israel was not dealt with like his enemies, 
 by first describing what the former suffered, then what the latter. Israel 
 was punished moderately, and for a time, by being removed out of his place, 
 as if by a transient storm or blast of wind. Of the numberless senses put 
 upon nstoaa, none is so good in itself, or so well suited to the context, as 
 the one handed down by tradition, which explains it as a reduplicated form 
 of nxG strictly denoting a particular dry measure, but here used to express 
 the general idea of measure i. e. moderation. The meaning measure for 
 measure, i. e. in strict justice, is preferred by some, but this would either do 
 away with the comparison with Israel and his enemies, or imply that the 
 latter suffered more than they deserved. The feminine suffixes must be 
 referred to the church or nation as a wife, which agrees well with the verb 
 rtar, used in the law to denote repudiation or divorce. The same verb is 
 also used to signify the sending down of judgments upon men, which sense 
 some prefer in this case, and refer the suffix both in this word and the next to 
 the stroke or punishment. In sending it upon them thou dost strive with it, or 
 try to mitigate it. But the other explanation is more natural, and has the ad- 
 vantage of explicitly intimating the precise form of the punishment endured. 
 The change of person in the last clause is abrupt, but of too frequent occur- 
 rence to excite surprise. fi$n is interpreted by Kimchi as synonymous with 
 -i^Wn to remove or take away. Its object is to be supplied from the first 
 clause ; its subject is Jehovah. The east wind is mentioned as the most 
 tempestuous in Palestine. The day of the east wind is supposed by some 
 to denote the season of the year when it prevails ; but it is rather used to 
 intimate the temporary nature of the chastisement, as if he had said, one 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 465 
 
 day when the east wind chanced to blow. The first rjn is by some trans- 
 lated spirit, and supposed to be expressive of the divine displeasure ; but it 
 is not probable that the word would be so soon used in a different sense, 
 and the very repetition adds to the force and beauty of the sentence, a 
 strong wind in the day of the east wind. 3*1R might be taken as a future 
 proper ; but the use of the preterite in the next clause seems to show, that 
 both were meant to be descriptive presents. 
 
 V, 9. Therefore (because his chastisement was temporary and remedial 
 in design) by this (affliction) shall Jacob's iniquity be expiated (i.,e. purged 
 away), and this is all (its) fruit (or intended effect), to take away his sin. 
 (as will appear) in his placing all the stones of the (idolatrous) altar like 
 limestones dashed in pieces, (so that) groves and solar images (or images of 
 Ashtoreth and Baal) shall arise no more. The contrast between Israel 
 and Babylon is still continued. Having said that the affliction of the for- 
 mer was but moderate and temporary, he now adds that it was meant to 
 produce a most beneficent effect, to wit, the purgation of the people from 
 the foul stain of idolatry, ^r^ though it strictly means shall be atoned 
 for, is here metonymically used to denote the effect and not the cause, puri- 
 fication and not expiation. In the very same way it is applied to the cleans- 
 ing of inanimate objects. There is no need of rendering )zh either but or 
 because, as the strict and usual meaning, though less obvious, is perfectly 
 appropriate. As the punishment was moderate and temporary, it was 
 therefore not destructive but remedial. Some understand by this, the act 
 described in the last clause, viz. that of destroying the idolatrous altar. But 
 the preference is always due in such constructions to an antecedent literallv 
 going before, i. e. already mentioned. Besides, the destruction of the idols 
 could not be the cause of the purification which produced it, unless we take 
 ^Ba* 1 in the strict sense of atonement, which would be incongruous, and incon- 
 sistent with the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, not to mention that in 
 that case the moral effect of the captivity is not described at all. The sense 
 required by the connexion is, not that the breaking of the altars, as a sponta- 
 neous act, atoned for Israel's previous idolatry, but that the exile cured thQu 
 of that vice, and thereby led to the breaking of the altars. The construction. 
 this is all the fruit of the removal of his sin, affords an incongruous and 
 inappropriate sense, viz. that the only effect of this great revolution was the 
 breaking of the idol altars. The true construction is the one pointed out bv 
 the disjunctive accent under "he, which marks it as the subject of the propo- 
 sition of which Idti is the predicate. Some refer the suffix in fattoa to Jeho- 
 vah or the enemy, and the whole clause to his demolition of the altar at the 
 conquest of Jerusalem. But besides the arbitrary change of subject, this 
 would seem to refer the moral improvement of the exiles, not to their afflic- 
 
 30 
 
466 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 tion, but to the destruction of their idols at Jerusalem, which, even if con- 
 sistent with the fact, would be irrelevant in this connexion, where the Pro- 
 phet is showing the beneficent effects of the removal of the people. That 
 the altar is not the altar of Jehovah, is apparent from the mention of the 
 idols in the last clause. (For the meaning of D^aan and cn^N, vide supra, 
 ch. 17 : 8.) Cocceius seems to understand the verse as a prediction that 
 the Jews should no longer pay a superstitious regard to the temple at Jeru- 
 salem. By T^t 5 * we ma y either understand some kind of stone commonly 
 used in building, or the fragments of stone and mortar scattered by the 
 demolition of an altar, wbj xb may either mean shall not rise again or 
 shall stand no more, both implying their complete destruction. The pro- 
 phetic description which this verse involves was fully and gloriously verified 
 in history. 
 
 V. 10. For a fenced (or fortified) city shall be desolate, a dwelling 
 broken up and forsaken like the wilderness. There shall the calf feed, 
 and there shall it lie and consume her branches. Here begins the other 
 part of the comparison. While Israel is chastised in measure and with the 
 happiest effect, his oppressors are given up to final desolation. This expla- 
 nation of the verse, as referring to Babylon, is strongly recommended by the 
 fact, that the comparison otherwise remains unfinished, only one side of it 
 having been presented. Apart from this consideration, there are certainly 
 strong reasons for supposing the city meant to be Jerusalem itself. One of 
 these reasons is, that the figure of a vineyard seems to be still present to the 
 writer's mind, at the close of this verse and throughout the next, although 
 the terms used admit of a natural application to the figure of a tree. Another 
 reason is, that the desolation here described is not so total as that threatened 
 against Babylon in ch. 13 : 19-22, where instead of saying it shall be a 
 pasture, it is said expressly that it shall not even be frequented by flocks or 
 herds. But these two places may have reference to different degrees of 
 desolation. In favour of the reference to Babylon may be alleged the natu- 
 ral consecution of the twelfth verse upon that hypothesis. On the whole, 
 tl# question may be looked upon as doubtful, but as not materially affecting 
 the interpretation of the chapter, since either of the two events supposed 
 to be foretold would be appropriate in this connexion, n^aia properly 
 means sent away, but seems to be applied in ch. 16 : 1 to a bird's nest, the 
 /occupants of which are scattered. The whole phrase here may suggest the 
 idea of a family or household which is broken up and its residence forsaken. 
 rpssj& is by some understood to mean its heights or hills ; but the more 
 usual sense of branches is entirely appropriate. This may be understood of 
 the vegetation springing up among ruins ; but it seems best to refer it to the 
 image of a tree, which is distinctly presented in the following verse. Ac- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 467 
 
 cording to Vitringa, the calf im-rins pious men who grow in spiritual strength, 
 to which interpretation we may apply the words of the same excellent writer, 
 in commenting upon Jerome's notion, that the devil in v. 1 is called a bar 
 because he imprisons many souls. Saepe mihi mirari contingit, homines 
 ejusmodi cogitationes aut loquendi formas imputare Spiritui Sancto, quas sibi 
 vir sapiens imputari nollet. 
 
 V. 11. In the withering of its boughs (or when its boughs are withered) 
 they shall be broken off, women coming and burning them ; because it is 
 not a people of understanding, therefore its creator shall not pity it, and 
 its maker shall not have mercy on it. The destruction of Babylon is still 
 described, but under the figure of a tree, whose branches are withered and 
 cast into the fire. Women are mentioned, not in allusion to the weakness of 
 the instruments by which Babylon was to be destroyed, but because the gath- 
 ering of firewood in the east is the work of women and children. m-pjtE is not 
 simply setting on fire, but making afire of, or burning up. The construc- 
 tion of this clause bears a strong resemblance to the absolute genitive in 
 Greek and ablative in Latin. The last clause contains a double instance of 
 litotes or meiosis. According to the usage of the Scriptures, not wise here 
 means foolish in the strongest sense, and God's not pitying and having mercy 
 is equivalent to his being very wroth and taking vengeance. vs£, which 
 usually means a harvest, in a few places seems to have the sense of a bough 
 or of boughs collectively. The feminine pronouns in the first clause must 
 refer to w or bna understood ; the masculine pronouns of the last clause 
 refer of course to ta|. 
 
 V. 12. And it shall be in that day, that Jehovah shall beat off (or 
 gather in his fruit), from the channel of the river to the stream of Egypt, and 
 ye shall be gathered one by one (or one to another) oh ye children of Israel. 
 To the downfall of Babylon he now adds, as in ch. 11: 1, its most important 
 consequence, viz. the restoration of the Jews. ~r.n is to beat fruit (and par- 
 ticularly olives) from the tree. (Vide supra, ch. 17 : 6). Henderson here 
 translates "Jin.) shall have an olive-harvest. The idea meant to be conveyed 
 is that of a careful and complete ingathering. B^isp) bna is explained by 
 some of the older writers as denoting the great valley of the Nile ; by others, 
 the Nile itself; but it is now commonly agreed to signify the Wady Elarish, 
 anciently called Rhinocorura, which name is given to it here by the Septua- 
 gint. The river is as usual the Euphrates. The simple meaning of the whole 
 expression is, from Assyria to Egypt, both which are expressly mentioned in 
 the next verse, "Jfix is properly the construct form, but occurs in several 
 places as the absolute. One of these places is Zech. 11:7, from which it 
 cannot be inferred, however, that this use of the form betrays a later age, for 
 
463 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 
 
 it occurs not only in 2 Sam. 17 : 22, but in Gen. 48: 22. Gesenius puts 
 upon this verse the forced construction, that the whole land, as possessed of 
 old by David and Solomon, should be repeopled as abundantly and suddenly 
 as if men fell from the trees like olives. Having given this gratuitous per- 
 version of a natural and simple metaphor, he then apologizes for it as 
 offensive to our taste (fur unseyen Ceschmackanstossig), no unfair sample of 
 the way in which the sacred writers are sometimes made to suffer for the er- 
 roneous judgment and bad taste of their interpreters. The later writers are 
 almost unanimous in setting this construction of the words aside and giving 
 them their true sense, which is not only the obvious one, but absolutely re- 
 quired by the phrase "inx "inxb, which cannot mean the sudden streaming in of 
 a great multitude, but must denote the thorough and complete ingathering of 
 what might otherwise be lost or left behind. The precise sense of this Hebrew 
 phrase is not well expressed by the English one by one, which seems to rep- 
 resent the process as a gradual one. It rather denotes one to one, i. e. in 
 our idiom, one to another, all together, or without exception. From what 
 has been already said it will be seen, that the boundaries named are not in- 
 tended to define the territory which should be occupied by those returning, 
 but the regions whence they should return, which explanation is confirmed 
 moreover by the explicit terms of the next verse. 
 
 V. 13. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day, (that) a great 
 trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come that vjere lost (or wandering) in 
 the land of Assyria, and those cast out (or exiled) in the land of Egypt, 
 and shall bow down to Jehovah, in the holy mountain, in Jerusalem, The 
 same event is here described as in the verse preceding, but with a change of 
 figure. What is there represented as a gathering of olives by beating the 
 tree, is now represented as a gathering of men by the blast of a trumpet, 
 which here takes the place of the signal-pole or flag in ch. 11 : 12. This 
 variety of forms, in which the same idea is expressed, clearly shows the 
 whole description to be figurative. Assyria and Egypt may be either put 
 for foreign countries generally, or with particular allusion to the actual emi- 
 gration and dispersion of the Jews in these two regions. Assyria may here 
 be used as a comprehensive term, in order to include both the Assyrian and 
 Babylonian deportations. For although the ten tribes never were restored, 
 individual members of them found their way back with the Jews from Baby- 
 lon. On the whole, however, it is probable that Egypt and Assyria are 
 here named, just as Babylonia and the islands of the sea might have been 
 named instead of them, and just as all these names and others are connected 
 elsewhere, to denote the various lands where Jews were scattered. The 
 emigration of the people, especially after Nebuchadnezzar's conquests, was 
 of course not confined to their actual deportation by the enemy, nor was the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 469 
 
 restoration merely that of such as had been thus carried captive, but of all 
 who, in consequence of that catastrophe or any other, had been transferred to 
 foreign parts by exile, flight, or voluntary expatriation. The application of 
 this verse to a future restoration of the Jews can neither be established nor 
 disproved. If such a restoration can be otherwise shown to be a subject 
 of prophecy, this passage may be naturally understood at least as compre- 
 hending it. But in itself considered, it appears to contain nothing which 
 may not be naturally applied to events long past, or which has not found in 
 those events an adequate fulfilment, r^n is an impersonal verb, it shall 
 be blown on the trumpet. According to Gese'nius this verb denotes a single 
 blast, as opposed to a continuous winding of the trumpet. He finds no 
 difficulty in reconciling his hypothesis, as to the date of the prediction, with 
 the mention of Assyria, on the ground that Assyria still formed a part of the 
 Babylonian empire, that the name was used with latitude not only by the 
 classical but the sacred writers, that the Prophet perhaps designedly avoided 
 to name Babylon expressly, and that this verse perhaps was partly taken 
 from an older composition belonging to the times of the Assyrian ascendency. 
 How much hypotheses, as plausible as these, are allowed by Gesenius him- 
 self to weigh, in behalf of the genuineness of the prophecies, we have already 
 bad occasion to observe, and shall yet have occasion to observe hereafter. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 Samaria, the crown of Ephraim, shall be cast down by a sudden and 
 impetuous invasion, as a just judgment upon sensual and impious Israel, 
 vs. 1-4. To the remnant of Israel, Jehovah will himself be a crown and a 
 protection, a source of wisdom and of strength, vs. 5, 6. Yet even these 
 imitate the example of apostate Israel, and in their self-indulgence cast off 
 the authority of God and refuse the instructions of his prophet, to their own 
 undoing, vs. 7-13. But their impious contempt of God and self-reliance 
 shall but hasten their destruction. All who do not build upon the sure 
 foundation laid in Zion, must inevitably perish as the enemies of Israel were 
 destroyed of old, vs. 14-22. The delay of judgment no more proves that 
 it will never come, than the patience of the husbandman, and his preparatory 
 labours, prove that he expects no harvest ; and the difference of God's deal- 
 ings with different men is no more inconsistent with his general purposes of 
 wrath or mercy, than the husbandman's treatment of the different grains is 
 inconsistent with his general purpose of securing and enjoying them, vs. 
 23-29. 
 
470 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 This chapter is by most of the late writers joined with ch. 29-33, as 
 belonging to the same date and subject. Ewald without sufficient ground 
 regards it as a later composition. The elaborate attempts, made by Hitzig 
 and others, to determine the precise date of the composition, as they rest on 
 no sufficient data, are of course unsatisfactory and inconclusive. It was 
 obviously written before the downfall of Samaria, but how long before is 
 neither ascertainable nor of importance to the exposition of the prophecy. 
 
 V.l. Woe to the high crown of the drunkards ofEphraim, and the fading 
 flower, his ornament of beauty, which (is) on the head of the fat valley of 
 the wine- smitten. Here, as in ch. 9: 9, 21. 11 : 13, we are to understand 
 by Ephraim the kingdom of the ten tribes, by the drunkards of Ejphraim its 
 vicious population, and by the lofty crown the city of Samaria, so called as 
 the chief town and the royal residence, but also with allusion to its local 
 situation on an insulated hill overlooking a rich plain or valley. " It would 
 be difficult to find, in all Palestine, a situation of equal strength, fertility, 
 and beauty combined." (Robinson's Palestine, III. 1 46.) Most interpreters 
 assume a further allusion to the practice of wearing wreaths or garlands at 
 feasts. Lowth and Gesenius suppose this to be the only reason why the 
 men of Ephraim are here called drunkards, q. d. like the crown which 
 drunkards wear at feasts, so is Samaria a crown to Ephraim. Others, 
 with more probability, invert the process, and suppose the figure of a garland 
 to have been suggested by the description of the people as drunkards. 
 Ewald combines the two hypotheses by saying that as Samaria was in its 
 situation like a crown, and as the people were habitually drunk, the city is 
 poetically represented as a reveller's crown. The reference to literal in- 
 toxication appears plain from a comparison of Amos 4 : 1, 6 : 1,6. Drunk- 
 enness is mentioned, not as the only prevalent iniquity, but as a crying one, 
 and one contributing to many others. The moral and spiritual consequences 
 of this vice must be taken into view ; but the exclusive reference of the 
 words to spiritual drunkenness, whether delusion or stupidity or both, seems 
 entirely untenable. No such conclusion can be drawn, as we shall see 
 below, from ch. 29 : 9, on the authority of which the Septuagint seems to 
 have translated "p ^bn, in the verse before us, fie&vovrsg avsv otrov. The 
 same version has confounded **$& with *ysp : and rendered it fiiu&coToi. 
 This verse contains three examples of the Hebrew idiom, which, instead of 
 an adjective, uses one substantive to qualify another; crown of elevation for: 
 lofty crown, beauty of glory for glorious beauty, and valley of fatnesses for fat 
 valley. Yet no one has alleged this accumulation of peculiar idioms as a 
 proof of bad taste or a later age. Cocceius greatly adds to the beauty of 
 the first clause, by explaining waa of physical elevation rather than of pride. 
 Hitzig supposes two distinct comparisons, that of the city to a crown, and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 471 
 
 that of the population to a flower. It is far more natural, however, to apply 
 both clauses to Samaria, and to suppose that the figure of a crown is ex- 
 changed for that of a flower, or that the idea throughout the verse is that of 
 a wreath or garland, which is really included under the name crown. The 
 latter member of the first clause is by some construed thus, and the flower 
 whose glorious beauty fades ; by others, for example the English Version, 
 (Ephraim) whose glorious beauty is a fading flower. The analogy of v. 4 
 seems to show, however, that this member of the sentence is in apposition 
 with MM) h^DSjin the one before it, which construction is moreover the most 
 obvious and simple. The English .Version also mars the beauty of the first 
 clause, by making b^k *$$ not a genitive but a dative. The fading flower 
 implies that the glory of Samaria was transient, with particular allusion to its 
 approaching overthrow by Shalmaneser. Hitzig and Ewald render *ln as a 
 mere exclamation (O), and suppose the verse to speak of Samaria as already 
 fallen. Vatablus strangely understands by E^E^-aoa the head of the revel- 
 ler, drenched with unguents and perfumes. Augusti likewise renders it, dem 
 Sammelplatze der Salben. E"323), as being a mere qualifying term, retains 
 the absolute form, although the phrase, considered as a whole, is in regimen 
 with the one that follows. Examples of a similar construction may be found 
 in ch. 10: 12, and 1 Chron. 9: 13. Wine-smitten or wine-stricken is a 
 strong description of the intellectual and moral effects of drunkenness. 
 Gill's lively paraphrase is: smitten, beaten, knocked down with it as with a 
 hammer, and laid prostrate on the ground, where they lie fixed to it, not 
 able to get up. Analogous expressions are the Greek ohonlys and the Latin 
 saucius mero and percussus vino. Barnes sets this verse down as a proof, 
 that the inhabitants of wine countries are as certainly intemperate as those 
 which make use of ardent spirits. 
 
 V. 2. Behold, there is to the Lord (i. e. the Lord has) a strong and 
 mighty one, like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest, like a storm of mighty 
 rushing waters, he has brought (it) to the ground with the hand. As htti 
 very commonly denotes a proximate futurity, Clericus explains it as equiva- 
 lent to mox ; but in this case it appears to be intended merely to invite 
 attention to the following description, as of a scene or action present to the 
 senses. The oldest editions of the Hebrew text, and a large number of 
 manuscripts, read rrm instead of V«. Lowth understands to the Lord as 
 expressing a superlative, like the analogous expression before the Lord m 
 Gen. 10: 9, and translates accordingly, the mighty one, the exceedingly 
 strong one. Henderson supposes b to denote possession and translates of 
 Jehovah. Luther has from, which is retained by Gesenius, who moreover 
 introduces the verb comes. Hitzig explains the b as denoting the efficient 
 agent, as it is said to do after passive verbs, corresponding to the English by. 
 
472 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 But this use of the particle is very doubtful, and at least unnecessary in the 
 case before us. The simplest construction, and the one most agreeable to 
 usage is that given by Hendewerk, Ewald, and Knobel, there is to Jehovah, 
 i. e. Jehovah has, has ready, has in reserve. (Vide supra, ch. 2 : 12. 22 : 5,) 
 The English Version therefore (the Lord hath) is in sense entirely correct. 
 J. D. Michaelis follows the Peshito in taking pm and yq* as abstracts 
 meaning power and strength. Of those versions which translate them 
 strictly as adjectives, the Vulgate makes them epithets of God himself, 
 (validus et fortis Dominus) and so overlooks the b altogether; Jarchi con- 
 strues them with wind, Kimchi with day, and others with army understood ; 
 Cocceius and Vitringa make them neuter or indefinite, meaning something 
 strong and mighty ; the Targum and Rosenmiiller construe them with 
 strokes or visitations understood ; but most interpreters, including the most 
 recent, understand them as descriptive of a person and apply them directly 
 to Shalmaneser or to the kings of Assyria indefinitely. For tempest of des- 
 truction Cocceius has horror excidii, in reference to the meaning of the root 
 "isttj and some of its derivatives. DeDieu reads nrui and translates it, in the 
 gate there is destruction ; others, through the gate it enters. But the com- 
 mon version (a destroying storm) may now be looked upon as settled. The 
 last clause is strangely paraphrased by Jonathan so as to mean, that the 
 enemy shall take the people from their own land to another, on account of 
 the iniquity found in their hand. The meaning to the earth or to the ground 
 is clear from ch. 63 : 6, and other cases. The Vulgate confounds the phrase 
 with d*w Y*$* ( cn * 22 : 18), and translates it super terram spatiosam. *i*b 
 is commonly explained to mean with power, as in the Septuagint (§ia). 
 Gesenius gives this sense to 1J itself; Rosenmiiller supposes an ellipsis of 
 strong, Hitzig of outstretched, Hendewerk an allusion to a rod held in the 
 hand. Junius explains the phrase to mean with one hand, i. e. easily. 
 There seems however to be no need of departing from the strict sense of 
 the words as given in the English Version (with the hand), and by Ewald 
 with a needless change of hand to fist. It then completes the picture by 
 describing the crown of Ephraim as torn from his head and thrown upon the 
 ground by the hand of a victorious enemy. To this explanation no objec- 
 tion can be drawn from the previous mention of the hail and rain ; for these 
 are mere comparisons, descriptive of the violence with which the enemy 
 should make his attack. It is as if he had said, a strong and mighty enemy, 
 rushing upon you like a hail-storm or a driving rain, shall cast your crown 
 upon the earth with his hand. That the crown is the object of the verb 
 msrij ma y De safely inferred from the foregoing and the following verse, 
 though some interpreters have made it govern the strong and mighty one 
 himself, or the rain and storm with which he is compared, as being sent upon 
 the earth by Jehovah. Though tvyn should be rendered as a preterite, it 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 473 
 
 does not follow of necessity, that the event described had already taken place, 
 but merely that in this case it is so presented to the Prophet's view. 
 
 V. 3. With the feet shall be trodden the lofty crown of the drunkards 
 of Ephraim. It is cast down by the hand and trampled under foot. This 
 antithesis makes it almost certain that 1J in the preceding verse is to be taken 
 in its proper sense. The plural form of the verb has been variously explain- 
 ed. The ancient versions all translate it as a singular. The Rabbins make 
 intiS a collective. Lowth reads mios in the plural. Cocceius refers the 
 verb to the crown and flower separately. Junius puts drunkards, not in 
 construction but in apposition with crown, which is also the case of the 
 English Version (the crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim). Vit- 
 ringa explains the plural form upon the ground that while the verse literally 
 relates to the downfall of Samaria, it mystically relates to the downfall of 
 Jerusalem. Clericus simply says that the crown meant was that of many 
 persons ; Rosenmuller that the feminine verb is used as a neuter ; Hende- 
 werk that it is a pluralis majestaticus, or refers to Samaria as the represen- 
 tative of the other towns of Israel. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Knobel, seem to 
 be agreed that it is an anomalous or rather idiomatic use of the plural for the 
 singular, as in Exod. 1 : 10. Jud. 5 : 26. Job 17 : 16. There is great 
 probability in Henderson's suggestion, that the ris in all such cases is not a 
 feminine but a paragogic or intensive termination, analogous to that of the 
 antithetic future in Arabic. 
 
 V. 4. And the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the 
 head of the fat valley, shall be like a first-ripe fig, which he that sees it 
 sees, and while it is yet in his hand swallows it. This comparison ex- 
 presses the avidity with which the enemy would seize upon Samaria, and 
 perhaps the completeness of its desolation. The fruit referred to is the early 
 fig of Palestine which ripens in June, while the regular season of ingather- 
 ing is from August to November, so that the former is regarded as a rarity 
 and eaten with the greater relish. The figure is not here intended to ex- 
 press either ease or rapidity of conquest, for the siege of Samaria lasted three 
 years (2 Kings 17 : 5)* To suppose, with J. D. Michaelisand Henderson, 
 that a siege of this length was considered short compared with those of 
 Tyre and Askelon, seems very forced. The immediate eating of the fruit 
 is only mentioned as a sign of eagerness or greediness. Vitringa under- 
 stands the simile as meaning that Samaria when taken would be instantly 
 destroyed, as the first ripe fruit is eaten and not stored away. This would 
 also remove the apparent discrepancy, and is in itself not improbable, 
 although less obvious and natural than the explanation first proposed. The 
 last clause, though singularly worded, evidently means that as soon as one 
 
474 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 sees it and lays hold of it he swallows it without delay, or as Gill expresses 
 it in homespun English, ' as soon as he has got it into his hand, he can't 
 keep it there to look at, or forbear eating it, but greedily devours it and 
 swallows it down at once.' "i&a however does not literally mean as soon 
 as, but while yet, which renders the expression stronger still, as strictly de- 
 noting that he eats it while it is yet in his hand. The Septuagint expresses 
 the same meaning with a change of form, by saying that before one has it in 
 his hand he ivishes to devour it. The same version renders ttjWJa iTQodQOfiog 
 avxov, and Pliny says, ficus et praecoces habet quas Athenis prodromos vo- 
 cant. Joseph Kimchi explained S)3 here to mean a branch, and this sense 
 is expressed by Luther, who understands the clause to mean, that the fig 
 spoils or perishes (verdirbt) while one still sees it hanging on the branch. 
 As *iisa means literally in yet, so ta'naa strictly means in not yet, two ex- 
 amples of a peculiar Hebrew idiom in a single sentence. Hitzig, in order 
 to refer this verse to the conquest of Samaria as already past, denies that the 
 1 at the beginning is conversive, and refers to other cases where it is simply 
 conjunctive ; but in this case its conversive power is determined by the 
 foregoing future ttW^R, whereas in the others there is either no preceding 
 future, or it is contained in a quotation and not in the regular order of dis- 
 course. It may also be objected to Hitzig's hypothesis, that the Tin in v. 1 
 and the BVWi di^a in v. 5, both imply that the event described is future. 
 mx^x seems to be a mere euphonic variation of "px in v. 4. In solving its 
 construction with what follows, Gesenius and most of the late writers take 
 fcab to be an adjective used as a substantive and governed regularly by nx"*x, 
 flower of fading for fading flower, of which construction there are some 
 examples elsewhere. (See ch. 22 : 24. Prov. 6 : 24. 24 : 25.) The next 
 clause may then be relatively understood (which was his glorious beauty), 
 or in apposition (the fading flower, his glorious beauty) ; but Ewald, and 
 many of the older writers, regard this phrase as in regimen with what fol- 
 lows (the fading flower of, etc.). The English Version, as in v. 1, makes 
 Ws EigftK the predicate (shall be a fading flower and as, etc.). Hendewerk 
 supposes bab the fading one to be an epithet of Ephraim himself, "pg is 
 the fruit-harvest, and especially the ingathering of figs. The modern critics 
 are agreed that the final syllable of miaa, although written in most manu- 
 scripts with mappik, is not a suffix but a feminine termination. This name 
 of the early fig is still retained, not only in Arabic but in Spanish, into which 
 it was transplanted by the Moors. Lowth's decision, that nsnn hsw? is a 
 miserable tautology, is worth about as much as his decision, that Houbigant's 
 emendation (irw for fi&n* 1 ) is a happy conjecture. The tautology at all 
 events is no more miserable here than in ch. 16 : 10 or 28 : 24, not to 
 mention 2 Sam. 17 : 9 or Ez. 33 : 4, The liberties which critics of this 
 school took with the text, and the language which they used in self-justifica- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 475 
 
 tion, must bo considered as having contributed in some degree to the sub- 
 sequent revolution of opinion with respect to points of more intrinsic moment. 
 
 V. 5. In that day shall Jehovah of Hosts be for (or become) a crown of 
 beauty and a diadem of glory to the remnant of his people. By the rem- 
 nant of the people Jarchi understands those of the ten tribes who should 
 survive the destruction of Samaria ; Knobel the remnant of Judah itself, 
 which should escape Shalmaneser's invasion expected by the Prophet ; 
 Hendewerk the remnant of Israel again considered as one body after the fall 
 of the apostate kingdom ; Kimchi the kingdom of the two tribes as the rem- 
 nant of the whole race. This last approaches nearest to the true sense 
 which appears to be that after Samaria, the pride of the apostate tribes, had 
 fallen, they who still remained as members of the church or chosen people 
 should glory and delight in the presence of Jehovah as their choicest 
 privilege and highest honour. The expressions are borrowed from the first 
 verse but presented in a new combination. As our idiom admits in this case 
 of a close imitation of the Hebrew, the common version which is strictly 
 literal is much to be preferred to Lowth's (a beauteous crown and a glorious 
 diadem). Of the versions which exchange the nouns for adjectives the 
 most felicitous is Luther's (eme liebliche Krone und herrlicher Kranz). 
 Instead of Jehovah of Hosts the Targum has the Messiah of Jehovah. 
 
 V. 6. And for a spirit of judgment to him ihatsitteth in judgment, and 
 for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate. This, which is the 
 common English Version, coincides with that of the latest and best writers. 
 OBiaart bs may either be explained as meaning on the judgment-seat, with 
 Calvin (super tribunal), or in judgment, i. e. for the purpose of judging, 
 with Clericus (juris dicundi causa) and most other writers. In illus- 
 tration of the first sense may be cited Ps. 9 : 5, thou sittest on the 
 throne judging right ; in illustration of the other, 1 Sam. 20: 24. 30: 24, 
 where b5 ntt3^ indicates the purpose for which, or the object with respect to 
 which, one sits. The last words of the verse are applied to those who return 
 home safe from war, by Symmachus, the Targum, and the Vulgate (rever- 
 tentibus de bello ad portam) ; to those who repel the battle from the gate, 
 by the Peshito, Clericus, and Augusti ; but by all the later writers to those 
 who drive the war back to the enemy's own gates, or as it were carry it into 
 his own country. J. D. Michaelis gives to gate the specific sense of boun- 
 dary or frontier, which is wholly unnecessary, as it is usual to mention towns, 
 if not their gates, in such connexions. (See for example 2 Sam. 11: 23. 
 2 Kings 18 : 8.) The war meant is therefore wholly defensive. The two 
 great requisites of civil government are here described as coming from 
 Jehovah. Even Gesenius adverts to the fact, that the Spirit of this verse is 
 not a mere influence, but God himself. 
 
476 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 V. 7. And (yet) these also (or even these) through wine have erred, and 
 through strong drink have gone astray. Priest and Prophet have erred 
 through strong drink, have been swallowed up of wine, have been led astray 
 by strong drink, have erred in vision, have wavered in judgment. Having 
 predicted in the foregoing verse, that when Ephraim fell Judah should con- 
 tinue to enjoy the protection of Jehovah, the Prophet now describes even this 
 favoured remnant as addicted to the same sins which had hastened the 
 destruction of the ten tribes, viz. sensual indulgence and the spiritual evils 
 which it generates. The drunkenness here mentioned is taken in a moral 
 and spiritual sense, even by Calvin and others who understand v. 1 as re- 
 lating to literal intoxication ; but this mode of exposition seems entirely 
 arbitrary. All that is necessary is to suppose the moral or spiritual effects 
 of drunkenness to be included. Many interpreters suppose the Prophet to 
 revert at this point to. the state of Judah in his own day. Of such transi- 
 tions there are numerous examples ; but the supposition is unnecessary 
 here, where the obvious construction of the passage, as continuous in point of 
 time, yields a good and appropriate sense. The meaning then is that the 
 Jews, although distinguished from the ten tribes by God's sparing mercy, 
 should nevertheless imitate them in their sins. There is great probability 
 in Henderson's suggestion, that the prophecy* refers to the national deteriora- 
 tion in the reign of Manasseh. The da at the beginning is emphatic, not 
 only Ephraim but also these or even these. Ewald arbitrarily translates 
 T\\& here, and makes the verbs indefinite (taumelt man). The Priest and 
 Prophet are named as the leaders of the people, and as those who were 
 peculiarly bound to set a better example. The reference to judgment in the 
 last clause may be explained, either on the ground that the Priest and 
 Prophet represent the rulers of the people in general, or because the Priests 
 themselves exercised judicial functions in certain prescribed cases (Deut. 
 17 : 9. 19: 17). Junius and others needlessly take "i^bin the general sense 
 of ruler. Another not improbable solution is that tVWto does not mean 
 judgment in the technical sense, but more generally the declaration of the 
 will of God. There seems to be no sufficient ground for Gesenius's ex- 
 planation of the word as meaning judgment-seat. Maurer gives the same 
 sense, and explains the whole phrase, they stagger (or reel) into the judgment- 
 seat. Most of the late interpreters, instead of the more general sense of 
 erring, wandering, explain niiti and nsfi as specifically meaning to reel or 
 stagger, which adds to the vividness of the description, but does not seem to 
 be entirely justified by usage. Hendewerk takes *DQS as an abstract mean- 
 ing intoxication. J. D. Michaelis translates it beer. Hitzig explains ^i 
 as meaning in the act of drinking wine ; but most other writers with more 
 probability regard both yo and a as here denoting the means or cause of the 
 intoxication. Henderson's version of isbsa (overpowered) leaves out of view 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 477 
 
 the obvious allusion to literal deglutition ; for, as Gill suggests, they swallow- 
 ed the wine down, and it swallowed them up. Here again Barnes sees his 
 favourite image of a maelstrom, Maurer suggests as a possible construction 
 that the last words may cohere with the first of the next verse and ipe have 
 the meaning of the Chaldee and Syriac pfia: they go out of the judgment- 
 seat because all the tables, etc. But " ( nbn> is a dining-table, not a writing- 
 desk. Nor is there any such improvement in the sense as would seem to 
 justify such a departure from the traditional arrangement of the text. The 
 use of strong drinks was expressly forbidden to the priests in the discharge 
 of their official functions (Lev. 10: 9. Ezek. 44 : 21). KfcH is commonly 
 explained as a participle used for an abstract noun, seeing or seer (or sight, an 
 explanation which is certainly favoured by the analogous use of rn'n in v. 18. 
 It is possible however that rn£\^ may mean in the office, character, or func- 
 tions of a seer, as Junius explains it (in functione videntis). 
 
 V. 8. For all tables are full of vomit, of filth, without a place (i. e. a 
 clean place). Grotius understands by tables the tribunals, and by filth and 
 vomit the injustice practised there, which he says was likewise called sordes 
 by the Latins. How arbitrary such expositions must be, will appear from 
 the fact, that Vitringa makes the tables mean the schools or places of public 
 instruction, and the vomit the false doctrine there taught and again reproduced 
 to the injury of others. The only natural interpretation is that which sup- 
 poses tables to denote the places where men eat and drink, and the other terms 
 the natural though revolting consequences of excess. Cocceius, who takes 
 tables in its proper sense, explains the filth to mean corrupt or unprofitable 
 conversation ; but this is a most unreasonable mixture of literal and figurative 
 exposition. Whether the intoxication thus described is wholly spiritual, 
 depends of course upon the meaning given to the preceding verse. Most 
 writers suppose fix's to be governed by BOp, and resolve the phrase into an 
 adjective construction by translating it filthy vomit. Augusti makes the 
 first word the qualifying term, and renders it vomited filth. As the words 
 however are distinct in origin, the best construction is that which makes them 
 both dependent on the verb : full of vomit, full of filth. There is no more 
 need of supplying a preposition before fixs than before «ip. The introduc- 
 tion of the copulative and is needless and impairs the force of the expression. 
 4a is properly a noun meaning failure or defect, but is constantly used as a 
 negative adverb or preposition. The sense of this clause is correctly though 
 diffusely given in the English Version (so that there is no place clean). 
 Luther gives the sense, but with a change of form, by rendering it in 
 all places. So too one of the French Versions (tellement que tout en est 
 plein). It is somewhat remarkable that the Septuagint translation of this 
 verse does not exhibit any trace of the original. 
 
478 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 V. 9. Whom ivill he teach knowledge ? And whom will he make to 
 understand doctrine 1 Those weaned from the milk and removed from the 
 breasts. The Targum makes this a description of Israel as the favoured 
 people to whom the law was exclusively given. In like manner some of 
 the older Christian writers understand it as descriptive of the persons whom 
 Jehovah, or the Prophet acting in his name, would choose as proper subjects 
 of instruction, viz. simple and childlike disciples, who as new-born babes 
 desire the sincere milk of the word (I Pet. 2: 2). But the children here 
 described are weanlings not sucklings, and on this hypothesis the weaning, 
 which is so particularly mentioned, would have no significancy. Besides, 
 this explanation of the words would not suit the context, either before or 
 after. It is therefore commonly agreed, that the last clause must be taken 
 in a contemptuous or unfavourable sense, as denoting children not in malice 
 merely but in understanding (1 Cor. 14: 20). On this assumption some 
 have explained the verse as meaning, that the priest and the prophet, men- 
 tioned in v. 7, were utterly unfit to teach the people, being themselves mere 
 children in knowledge and in understanding. This explanation supposes 
 the singular verbs of the first clause and the plural adjectives of the second 
 to refer to the same persons. Another interpretation makes the words de- 
 scriptive not of the teachers but the taught, as being no more fit to receive 
 instruction than a child just weaned. J. D. Michaelis applies the last clause 
 not to their incapacity but to their unwillingness to be instructed, as being 
 long since weaned and now too old to return to the breast. This ingenious 
 explanation has the advantage of taking pW in its usual sense of old, 
 whereas all others give it one derived from pris to remove. But the com- 
 parative meaning, which it puts upon the preposition following, is excluded 
 by its obvious use in the foregoing phrase in its proper local sense of from. 
 A new turn was given to the exposition of the verse by Lo'wth, who, adopt- 
 ing an obscure suggestion of Jerome, explains it as the language not of the 
 Prophet but of the wicked men before described, expressing their indignation 
 and contempt at the Prophet's undertaking to instruct them as if they were 
 mere children. Whom does he undertake to teach ? and whom would he 
 make to understand his doctrine ? Children weaned from the milk and re- 
 moved from the breast ? This interpretation has in substance been adopted 
 by all later writers, as affording a good sense and one admirably suited both 
 to the foregoing and the following context. It seems to be liable to only 
 two objections ; first, that it gratuitously gives the passage a dramatic form 
 by supposing a new speaker to be introduced without any intimation in the 
 text ; and then, that it arbitrarily continues the interrogation through the 
 sentence. The last objection may be obviated by adopting Henderson's 
 modified construction, which supposes them to ask not whom he would but 
 whom he ought to teach, and then to answer, little children just weaned 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 479 
 
 from the breast, not men of mature age and equal to himself. The other 
 objection, being wholly negative, must yield of course to the positive argu- 
 ments in favour of an exposition which is otherwise coherent, satisfactory, 
 and suited to the context. Rosenmuller seems indeed to think that the 
 space between this verse and that before it in the Hebrew manuscripts de- 
 notes a change of subject ; but these mechanical arrangements of the text 
 can have no authoritative influence upon its exposition. The verbs in the 
 first clause may either be indefinitely construed or referred to the Prophet, 
 without a material change of meaning. WlSV properly denotes something 
 heard, and here means that which the Prophet heard from God and the 
 people from the Prophet, in other words divine revelation, whether general 
 or special. There are few examples of a more exact translation than the 
 Vulgate version of this verse, in which the very form of the original is hap- 
 pily retained, not excepting the etymological import of the word Itpstt. So 
 rigid is the version that Montanus has retained it in his own unchanged. 
 Quern docebit scientiaml et quern intelligere faciei audituml ablactatos a 
 lacte, avuhos ab uberibus. 
 
 V. 10. For (it is) rule upon rule, rule upon rule, line upon line, line upon 
 line, a little here, a little there. The interpretation of this verse varies of 
 course with that of the one before it. Those who understand v. 9 as descrip- 
 tive of God's favour to the Jews, explain this in like manner as relating to the 
 abundance of the revelations made to them, including rules and counsels 
 suited to every emergency of life. Henderson's remark, that the words are 
 often preposterously quoted in application to the abundant possession of re- 
 ligious privileges, rests of course on the assumption that his own interpreta- 
 tion of v. 9 is certainly the true one. But this is far from being so clear as 
 to justify the branding of an opposite opinion with absurdity. Those who 
 apply v. 9 to the incapacity of the people for high attainments in spiritual 
 knowledge, regard v. 1 as a description of the elementary methods which 
 were necessary for them. Those who apply v. 9 to the incapacity of the 
 religious teachers of the Jews explain v. 10 as a description of their puerile 
 method of instruction. The words are thus understood by Vitringa and ap- 
 plied to the Scribes and Pharisees in the time of Christ. But as all the 
 latest writers make v. 9 the language of the Jews themselves, complaining 
 of the Prophet's perpetual reproofs and teachings, they are equally agreed in 
 making v. 10 a direct continuation of the same complaint. Aben Ezra ex- 
 plains isb is as meaning rule after rule or rule (joined) to rule. Equally 
 good is the construction in the English Version (precept upon precept) , ex- 
 cept that the word precept is too long to represent the chosen monosyllables 
 of the original. The same objection may be made to Gesenius's imitation of 
 the paronomasia (Gebot auf Gebot, Verbot auf Verbot), which is much in- 
 
480 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 ferior to that of Ewald (Satz zn Satz, Schnur zu Schnur). Paulus, Gese- 
 nius, Maurer, Hitzig, and Ewald, understand this peculiar clause as the 
 people's scoffing imitation of the Prophet's manner ; Koppe, Eichhorn, 
 Umbreit, and Knobel, as the Prophet's own derisive imitation of their 
 drunken talk. Koppe even goes so far as to imagine that IS and 1p are here 
 intentionally given as half-formed words, if not as inarticulate unmeaning 
 sounds. But ip is in common use, and is occurs in the sense of rule or 
 precept in Hos. 5 : II. The Peshito and J. D. Michaelis treat these words 
 as cognate forms and synonymes of nap's and *•$> in v. 8, and translate 
 accordingly, vomit upon vomit, filth upon filth. Michaelis moreover gives 
 wt the sense of spot or stain. Both ttf and T 1 ^ are referred by some to 
 time, and by others to quantity or space ; but the simplest and best ex- 
 planation seems to be the one given in the English Version (here a little, 
 there a little) as expressive of minuteness and perpetual repetition. Gesen- 
 ius understands this verse as having reference to the constant additions to 
 the law of Moses in Isaiah's time, the design of which interpretation is to 
 fortify the doctrine that the Pentateuch, as we now have it, is long posterior 
 to the days of Moses. Rosenmuller, Hitzig, and Knobel, all admit that the 
 allusion is not to the written law, but to the oral admonitions of the Prophets. 
 The Targum contains a diffuse paraphrase of this verse, in which the prin- 
 cipal words are retained, but so combined with others as to make the whole 
 relate to the captivity of Israel, as the consequence of his despising the ap- 
 pointed place of worship and practising idolatry. 
 
 V. 1 1 . For with stammering lips and with another tongue will he speak 
 unto this people. As nau) *x$b may denote either foreign or scoffing speech 
 (the former being usually described in the Old Testament as stammering), 
 some suppose a double allusion here, to wit, that as they had mocked at the 
 divine instructions by their stammering speech, so he would speak to them 
 in turn by the stammering lips of foreigners in another language than their 
 own. This, though by no means an obvious construction in itself, is pre- 
 ferred by the latest writers and countenanced by several analogous expres- 
 sions in the subsequent context. Ewald understands by the stammering 
 speech of this verse the inarticulate language of the thunder, which is very 
 unnatural. Of the older writers some explain this verse as descriptive of 
 God's tenderness and condescension in accommodating his instructions to the 
 people's capacity as nurses deal with children. Others understand it to 
 mean that through their own perverseness those instructions had been ren- 
 dered unintelligible and of course unprofitable, so that their divine teacher 
 had become as it were a barbarian to them. 
 
 V. 12. Who said to them, this is rest, give rest to the weary, and this is 
 quiet, but they would not hear. The judgments threatened in the foregoing 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 481 
 
 verse were the more evidently just because he who threatened them had 
 warned the people and pointed out to them the only way to happiness. 
 i«3$ should not be taken in the rare and doubtful sense because, but in its 
 proper sense as a relative pronoun. This construction, far from being in- 
 tolerably harsh (Henderson), is the only natural and simple one, as well as 
 the only one entirely justified by usage. The pronoun may either be con- 
 nected with vtrbit in the sense of to whom (for which there is no other 
 Hebrew expression), or referred to Jehovah as the subject of the following 
 verb. Who was it that should speak to them with another tongue ? He 
 who had so often said to them, etc. Although admissible, it is not necessary 
 to take nn^ia in the local sense of resting place (Ewald). The sense h 
 not, that the true way to rest is to give rest to the weary ; the latter ex- 
 pression is a kind of parenthesis, as if he had said, this is the true rest, let 
 the weary enjoy it. By this we are therefore to understand, not compassion 
 and kindness to the suffering, but obedience to the will of God in general. 
 This is the true rest which I alone can give, and the way to which I have 
 clearly marked out. Rest is not quiet submission to the yoke of the Assy- 
 rians (Hitzig), but peace, tranquillity. To give rest to the weary does not 
 mean to cease from warlike preparations, or to relieve the people from ex- 
 cessive burdens, whether of a civil or religious kind, but simply to reduce 
 to practice the lesson which God had taught them. This is the way to 
 peace, let those who wish it walk therein. In the last clause, would is not a 
 mere auxiliary, but an independent and emphatic verb, they were not willing. 
 The form was (from the root ^ax), though resembling the Arabic analogy, 
 is not a proof of recent date, but rather of the fact, that some forms, which 
 are prevalent in the cognate dialects, were known if not common in the early 
 periods of Hebrew composition. 
 
 V. 13. And the word of Jehovah was to them rule upon rule, line upon 
 line, a little here, a little there, that they might go, and fall backivards, and 
 he broken, and be snared, and be taken. The law was given that sin might 
 abound. The only effect of the minute instructions, which they found so 
 irksome, was to aggravate their guilt and condemnation. The terms of the 
 first clause are repeated from v. 1 0, and have of course the same meaning in 
 both places. The vav at the beginning of the verse is not conversive, as the 
 verbs of the preceding verse relate to past time. There is neither necessity 
 nor reason for translating the particle but, so that, or any thing but and, as it 
 introduces a direct continuation of the foregoing description, toV« does not 
 simply qualify the following verbs (go on or continue to fall backwards), but 
 expresses a distinct act. *fca3g includes the two ideas of stumbling and fall- 
 ing. Some give to ^^ the more specific sense, and break their limbs. 
 yvqb according to its etymology denotes design (in order that), but may here 
 
 31 
 
482 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 be used simply to express an actual result (so that), unless we refer it, in its 
 strict sense, to the righteous purpose or design of God's judicial providence. 
 
 V. 14. Therefore (because your advantages have only made you more 
 rebellious) hear the word of Jehovah, ye scornful men (literally men of 
 scorn, i. e. despisers of the truth), the rulers of this people which is in Jeru- 
 salem (or ye rulers of this people who are in Jerusalem). The -laia may 
 refer grammatically either to c?n or to 'Jtfo. This people, here as else- 
 where, may be an expression of displeasure and contempt. Jerusalem is 
 mentioned as the seat of government and source of influence. The whole 
 verse invites attention to the solemn warning which follows. 
 
 V. 15. Because ye have said (in thought or deed if not in word), we 
 have made a covenant with death, and with hell (the grave, or the unseen 
 world) have formed a league ; the overflowing scourge, when it passes 
 through, shall not come upon us, for we have made falsehood our refuge, and 
 in fraud we have hid ourselves. The meaning evidently is, that if their 
 actions were translated into words, this would be their import. There is no 
 need therefore of throwing the words sts and ^ptb into a parenthesis (J. D. 
 Michaelis) as the Prophet's comment on the scoffer's boast, bwo is here 
 nothing more than a poetical equivalent to rtw. The textual reading tt*qb 
 is probably an old cognate form and synonyme of &ve which is given in the 
 margin. The mixed metaphor of an overflowing scourge combines two 
 natural and common figures for severe calamity. Some interpreters apolo- 
 gize for the rhetorical defect of the expression, on the ground that Hebrew 
 ears were not as delicate as ours. Barnes throws the blame upon the 
 English Version, and explains the Hebrew word to mean calamity, but in v. 
 18 gives the meaning scourge, and says that three metaphors are there com- 
 bined, which makes it less incredible that two are blended here, Ktn is 
 properly a participle (seeing) often used as a noun to denote a seer or 
 prophet. Here the connexion seems distinctly to "require the sense of 
 league or covenant. That there is no error in the text, may be inferred 
 from the substitution of the cognate form rvnn in v. 18. Hitzig accounts for 
 the transfer of meanings by the supposition that in making treaties it was 
 usual to consult the seer or prophet. Ewald supposes an allusion to the 
 practice of necromantic art or divination as a safeguard against death, and 
 translates the word orakel. The more common explanation of the usage 
 traces it to the idea of an interview or meeting and the act of looking one 
 another in the face, from which the transition is by no means difficult to that 
 of mutual understanding or agreement. (Calvin : visionis nomine significat 
 id quod vulgo dicimus avoir intelligence.) The marginal reading -\-v was 
 probably intended to assimilate the phrase to that employed in v. 18, but 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 483 
 
 without necessity, since either tense might 1"' used in this connexion to ex- 
 press contingency. As the ether variations (i^d and oia, nm and rim) 
 show that the two v< aot meant to I>l' identical in form, the read- 
 
 ing in the text (■>--) is probahly the true one. H'z, when construed directly 
 with the noun, means to come upon, in the sense of attacking or invading. 
 The falsehood mentioned in the last clause is not a false profession of idol- 
 atry in order to conciliate the enemy (Grotius), nor idols, nor false prophets, 
 but falsehood or unfaithfulness to God, i. e. wickedness in general, perhaps 
 with an allusion to the falsity or treacherous nature of the hopes built upon 
 it. The translation under falsehood, which is given in the English Bible 
 and in some other versions, is neither justified by usage nor required by the 
 connexion. On the other hand the reflexive version, we have hid ourselves, 
 is much more expressive than the simple passive. 
 
 V. 16. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold 1 lay in Ziona 
 stone, a stone of proof, a corner stone of value of a firm foundation ; the 
 believer will not be in haste. To the words of the scoffers are now opposed 
 the words of God himself. Because you say thus and thus, therefore the 
 Lord says in reply what follows. You trust for safety in your own delusions ; 
 on the contrary I lay a sure foundation, and no other can be laid. This 
 foundation is neither the temple (Ewald), nor the law (Umbreit), nor Zion 
 itself (Hitzig), nor Hezekiah (Gesenius), but the Messiah, to whom it is re- 
 peatedly and explicitly applied in the New Testament (Rom. 9 : 33. 
 10: 11. 1 Peter 2: 6). The same application of the text is made by Jar- 
 chi, and according to Raymund Martini (in his Pugio Fidei) by the Targum 
 of Jonathan, although the word Messiah is now wanting in the Chaldee 
 text. The objection, that the stone here mentioned was already laid, has no 
 weight, as the whole theocracy existed with a view to the coming of Messiah. 
 The reference of the words to Hezekiah is an old one, as Theodoret pro- 
 nounces it an instance of extreme folly (avolag h^drr^). Hitzig and Knobel, 
 in order to make Zion itself the sure foundation, make the particle a beth 
 esscntiac, as if he had said, you have in Zion (i. e. Zion is to you) a sure 
 foundation. All other writers seem to give the a its proper local sense. 
 The phrase literally rendered stone of proof admits of two interpretations. 
 Calvin understands by it a stone which was to be the test or standard of 
 comparison for others ; but the common explanation is more natural, which 
 makes it mean a stone that has itself been proved or tried and found 
 sufficient. A kindred idea is expressed by the phrase 1**8 ncia, a connate 
 noun and participle, literally meaning a founded foundation, i. e. one en- 
 tirely firm and safe. The peculiar form of the original, arising from the 
 repetition of the construct state, has been retained in the translation above 
 given. There is no need of supposing, with Kimchi and others, that mpi is 
 
484 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 an absolute form in apposition with what follows. The writer's purpose 
 seems to have been to unite the members of the sentence in construction by 
 a very intimate and close articulation. y&Nto may either be referred spe- 
 cifically to the corner-stone, or taken in the general sense of trusting or 
 believing, sc. God. The objection to the former, that the prophets never 
 exhort men to trust in men or mere localities, is valid as an argument against 
 the reference to Hezekiah, or the temple, or Mount Zion, but not against the 
 reference to the Messiah, who is constantly presented as an object of faith 
 and a ground of trust. Will not be in haste, i. e. will not be impatient, but 
 will trust the promise, even though its execution be delayed. This suits the 
 connexion better than the sense preferred by the modern German writers, 
 ivill not flee, or have occasion to flee, in alarm or despair. The Septua- 
 gint version adopted in the New Testament (shall not be ashamed), agrees 
 essentially with that first given, though it makes more prominent the fact that 
 the believer's hopes shall not be disappointed. If it be true, as Gesenius thinks 
 probable, that the Hebrew verb, like a kindred one in Arabic, not only meant 
 to hasten but to be ashamed, the Septuagint Version is fully justified, and 
 the authority of the New Testament should be regarded as decisive in fa- 
 vour of that meaning here. But as it cannot be traced in Hebrew usage, it 
 is better to regard the Greek as paraphrasing rather than translating the 
 original expression. At all events, there is no need of reading WQ* with 
 Grotius, Houbigant, and Lowth. The force of the figures in this verse is 
 much enhanced by the statements of modern travellers in relation to the im- 
 mense stones still remaining at the foundation of ancient walls. (See par- 
 ticularly Robinson's Palestine, I. 343, 351, 422.) 
 
 V. 17. And I will place judg merit for a line and justice for a plummet, 
 and hail shall sweep away the refuge of falsehood, and the hiding-place 
 waters shall overflow. The meaning of the first clause is, that God would 
 deal with them in strict justice ; he would make justice the rule of his pro- 
 ceedings, as the builder regulates his work by the line and plummet. The 
 English Version seems to make judgment or justice not the measure but the 
 thing to be measured. The verb Wto with the preposition h means to place a 
 thing in a certain situation, or to apply it to a certain use. (See ch. 14 : 23.) 
 Hail and rain are here used, as in v. 2 above, to denote the divine visitations. 
 The refuge and the hiding-place are those of which the scornful men had 
 boasted in v. 15. To their confident assurance of safety God opposes, first, 
 the only sure foundation which himself had laid, and then the utter destruc- 
 tion which was coming on their own chosen objects of reliance. Hitzig 
 thinks that ip» must have dropped out after ino, as if there were no exam- 
 ples of even greater variation in the repetitions of the prophets. The truth 
 is that slavish iteration of precisely the same words is rather the exception 
 than the rule. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 485 
 
 V. 18. And your covenant with death shall be annulled, and your 
 league with hell shall not stand, and the overflowing scourge — for it shall 
 pass through, and ye shall be for it to trample on. ^cs seems to be here 
 used in its primary sense of covering, or perhaps more specifically smearing 
 over, so as to conceal if not to obliterate, applied in this case to a writing, 
 the image in the mind of the Prophet being probably that of a waxen tablet, 
 in which the writing is erased by spreading out and smoothing the wax with 
 the stylus. In the last clause, the construction seems to be interrupted. 
 This supposition at least enables us to take both the ^d and the 1 in their 
 natural and proper sense. Supposing the construction of the clause to be 
 complete, it may be explained as in the English Version, which makes both 
 the words in question particles of time meaning when and then, D^na is 
 properly a place or object to be trodden down or trampled on. (See ch. 
 5: 5.) The construction above given is the one proposed by Henderson, 
 except that he has him instead of it, in order to avoid the application of the 
 words to the scourge. There can be no doubt that the idea of a human 
 invader was before the Prophet's mind ; but the mere rhetorical incongruity 
 is not at all at variance with the Prophet's manner, and is the less to be 
 dissembled or denied, because the scourge will still be described as overflow- 
 ing. The attempt to reconcile the language with the artificial rules of com- 
 position is in this case rendered hopeless by the combination of expressions 
 which cannot be strictly applied to the same subject. An army might tram- 
 ple, but it could not literally overflow ; a stream might overflow, but it 
 could not literally trample down. The time perhaps is coming when, even 
 as a matter of taste, the strength and vividness of such mixed metaphors will 
 be considered as outweighing their inaccuracy in relation to an arbitrary 
 standard of correctness or propriety. 
 
 V. 19. As soon (or as often) as it passes through, it shall take you (or 
 carry you away) ; for in the morning, in the morning (i. e. every morning), 
 it shall pass through, in the day and in the night, and only vexation (or dis- 
 tress) shall be the understanding of the thing heard. The primary mean- 
 ing of the noun *1 is sufficiency ; but the phrase ^va is used in reference to 
 time, both in the sense of as soon and as often as. The meaning may be 
 that the threatened visitation shall come soon and be frequently repeated. 
 There are three interpretations of the last clause, one of which supposes it 
 to mean, that the mere report of the approaching scourge should fill them 
 with distress ; another, that the effect of the report should be unmixed dis- 
 tress ; a third, that nothing but a painful experience would enable them to 
 understand the lesson which the Prophet was commissioned to teach them. 
 nr-ar, meaning simply what is heard, may of course denote either rumour 
 or revelation. The latter seems to be the meaning in v. 9, where the noun 
 
486 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 stands connected with the same verb as here. Whether this verb ever 
 means simply to perceive or hear, may be considered doubtful ; if not, the 
 preference is due to the third interpretation above given, viz. that nothing 
 but distress or suffering could make them understand or even attend to the 
 
 o 
 
 message from Jehovah. 
 
 V. 20. For the bed is too short to stretch one's self, and the covering 
 too narrow to wrap one's self. This is probably a proverbial description of 
 a perplexed and comfortless condition. Jerome absurdly makes the verse a 
 description of idolatry considered as a spiritual adultery. The s before the 
 last infinitive may be a particle of time, meaning when one would wrap him- 
 self in it, which is the explanation given by Cocceius. The connexion with 
 the foregoing verse is this : you cannot fully understand the lessons which I 
 teach you now until your bed becomes too short etc. 
 
 V. 21. For like Mount Perazim shall Jehovah rise up, like the valley 
 in Gibeon shall he rage, to do his work, his strange work, and to perform 
 his task, his strange task. Into such a condition as that just described they 
 shall be brought, for some of the most fearful scenes of ancient history are 
 yet to be repeated. Interpreters are not agreed as to the precise events 
 referred to in the first clause. The common opinion is, that it alludes to the 
 slaughter of the Philistines described in 2 Sam. 5: 18-25 and 1 Chron. 
 14: 9-16, in the latter of which places Gibeon is substituted for Geba. 
 The valley meant will then be the valley of Rephaim. Ewald, on the 
 contrary, applies the clause to the slaughter of the Canaanites by Joshua, 
 when the sun stood still on Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon 
 (Josh 10: 7-15). Still another hypothesis is that of Hendewerk, who ap- 
 plies the first part of the clause to the breach of Uzzah (j~>w y^Q) described 
 in 2 Sam. 6 : 6-8, and the last to the slaughter of Israel in the valley of 
 Achor (Josh. 7 : 1-26). The only argument in favour of this forced inter- 
 pretation is, that these were cases in which God took vengeance, not of 
 strangers merely, but of his own people. But as there is no mention of a 
 mountain in the case of Uzzah, nor of Gibeon in that of Achan, nor of Perez 
 or Perazim in that of Joshua, neither Hendewerk's hypothesis nor Ewald's 
 is so probable as that of Gesenius and most other writers, which refers the 
 w T hole clause to the double slaughter of the Philistines by David. That 
 these were foreigners and heathen, only adds to the force of the threatening, 
 by making it to mean that as God had dealt with these in former times, he 
 was now about to deal with the unbelieving and unfaithful sons of Israel. 
 It is indeed not only implied but expressed, that he intended to depart from 
 his usual mode of treating them, in which sense the judgments here de- 
 nounced are called a strange work, i. e. foreign from the ordinary course of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 487 
 
 divine providence. The English word strange is here the only satisfactory 
 equivalent to the two Hebrew adjectives *»J and hj-j^j. The idea that pun- 
 ishment is God's strange work h at variance with his goodness, is not 
 only less appropriate in this connexion, hut inconsistent with the tenor of 
 Scripture, which descrihes his vindicatory justice as an essential attribute of 
 his nature. The unusual collocation of the words "n and fijiaj bas led some 
 to explain them as the predicates of short parenthetical propositions (strange 
 will be his work etc.). But myst interpreters, with greater probability, 
 suppose the adjectives to be prefixed for the sake of emphasis. Like Mount 
 Perazim is a common idiomatic abbreviation of the phrase as in (or at) 
 Mount Perazim. 
 
 V. 22. And now scoff not lest your bands be strong ; for a consumption 
 and decree (or even a decreed consumption) I have heard from the Lord 
 Jehovah of Hosts, against (or upon) the whole earth. Some versions re- 
 tain the reflexive form of the first verb ; others make it a frequentative ; but 
 it seems to be simply intensive or emphatic. Bands, i. e. bonds or chains, is 
 a common figure for afflictions and especially for penal sufferings. To 
 strengthen these bands is to aggravate the suffering. The last clause repre- 
 sents the threatened judgments as inevitable, because determined and reveal- 
 ed by God himself. The form of expression is partly borrowed from ch. 
 10: 23. 
 
 V. 23. Give ear and hear my voice ; hearken and hear my speech. 
 This formula invites attention to what follows as a new view of the subject. 
 The remainder of the chapter contains an extended illustration drawn from 
 the processes of agriculture. Interpreters, although agreed as to the import 
 of the figures, are divided with respect to their design and application. 
 Some regard the passage as intended to illustrate, in a general way, the wis- 
 dom of the divine dispensations. Others refer it more specifically to the 
 delay of judgment on the sinner, and conceive the doctrine of the passage to 
 be this, that although God is not always punishing, any more than the hus- 
 bandman is always ploughing or always threshing, he will punish at last. 
 A third interpretation makes the prominent idea to be this, that although God 
 chastises his own people, his ultimate design is not to destroy but to purify 
 and save them. To these must be added, as a new hypothesis, the one 
 maintained by Ilitzig and Ewald, who reject entirely the application of the 
 passage to God's providential dealings, and apply it to the conduct of men, 
 assuming that the Prophet's purpose was to hold up the proceedings of the 
 husbandman as an example to the scoffers whom he is addressing. As the 
 farmer does not always plough or always thresh, nor thresh all grains alike, 
 but has a time for either process and a method for each case, so should you 
 
438 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 cease now from scoffing and receive instruction. To this explanation it may- 
 be objected, first, that the comparison contained in the passage does not 
 really illustrate the expediency of the course proposed ; and secondly, that 
 even if it did, the illustration would be too extended and minute for a doc- 
 trine so familiar and intelligible. The objection to the third interpretation 
 is, that the obvious design for which the comparison is introduced is not to 
 comfort but alarm and warn. The first interpretation is too vague and un- 
 connected with the context. The preference is therefore on the whole due 
 to the second, which supposes the prophet to explain by this comparison the 
 long forbearance of Jehovah, and to show that this forbearance was no rea- 
 son for believing that his threatenings would never be fulfilled. As the 
 husbandman ploughs and harrows, sows and plants, before he reaps and 
 threshes, and in threshing employs different modes and different implements,, 
 according to the nature of the grain, so God allows the actual infliction of his 
 wrath to be preceded by what seems to be a period of inaction but is really 
 one of preparation, and conforms the strokes themselves to the capacity and 
 guilt of the transgressor. 
 
 V. 24. Does the ploughman plough every day to sow 1 Does he open 
 and level his ground ? The common version all day, though it seems to be 
 a literal translation, does not convey the sense of the original expression, 
 which is used both here and elsewhere to mean all the lime or always. 
 (Gill : he may plough a whole day together when he is at it, but he does 
 not plough every day in the year ; he has other work to do besides plough- 
 ing.) The interrogation may be confined to the first clause, and the second 
 construed as an exhortation : (no) let him open and level his ground. But 
 as there is a difficulty then in explaining what is meant by opening the 
 ground, as distinct from opening the furrows with the plough, most interpre- 
 ters suppose the interrogation to extend through the verse, and make the 
 second clause a repetition of the first, with an additional reference to harrow- 
 ing. As if he had said, is the ploughman always ploughing? is he always 
 ploughing and harrowing ? Kimchi explains the last clause thus, as an 
 answer to the question in the first : (no) he will loose (his oxen) and harrow 
 his ground. 
 
 V. 25. Does he not, when he has levelled the surface of it, cast abroad 
 dill, and scatter cummin, and set wheat in rows, and barley (in the place) 
 marked out, and spelt in his border 1 That is to say, he attends to all these 
 processes of husbandry successively, with due regard to time and place, and 
 to the various crops to be produced. The words TVV® and poa are by some 
 explained as epithets of the grain ; principal wheat, appointed or sealed 
 barley. Ewald makes them descriptive of the soil ; wheat in the best 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 489 
 
 ground, bailey in the rough ground. But the explanation best sustained by 
 usage and analogy is that of Gesenius, who takes ',^03 in the sense of ap- 
 pointed, designated, and ftrm in that of a row or series. This agrees well 
 with the verb cr as denoting not an indiscriminate sowing, but a careful 
 planting, which is said to be still practised in the oriental culture of wheat, 
 and is thought by Gesenius and others to have been one of the causes of the 
 wonderful fertility of Palestine in ancient times. The suffix in wto probably 
 relates to the farmer, and the noun to the edge of the field in which the other 
 grains are sown or planted. The reference of the suffix to fc ,ro3, or to the 
 several preceding nouns, is very forced. Gesenius, in order to retain the 
 supposed paronomasia of mwi mitt), gives his version of this clause the 
 form of doggerel. (Waizen in Reihen und Gerste hinein.) 
 
 V. 26. So teaches him aright his God instructs him. This is the form 
 of the Hebrew sentence, in which his God is the grammatical subject of 
 both the verbs between which it stands. The English idiom requires the 
 noun to be prefixed, as in the common version, and by Lowth, Barnes, and 
 Henderson. bWBtfc means according to what is right, i. e. correctly. The 
 verse refers even agricultural skill to divine instruction. As parallels the 
 commentators quote, from the Wisdom of Solomon (7: 16), yswQyiav inb 
 vxI'igtov fxTiGfib'vrjv, and from the Georgics (1 : 157), Prima Ceres ferro mor- 
 tales vertere terram instituit. Joseph Kimchi thus explains the verse : so he 
 (the husbandman) chastises it (the ground, as) his God teaches him. 
 
 V. 27. For not with the sledge must dill be threshed, or the cart-wheel 
 turned upon cummin ; for with the stick must dill be beaten, and cummin 
 xcith the rod. Having drawn an illustration from the husbandman's regard 
 to times and seasons, he now derives another from his different modes of 
 threshing out the different kinds of grain. The semina infirmiora, as Jerome 
 calls them, are not to be separated by the use of the ponderous sledge or 
 wagon, both of which are common in the east, but by that of the flail or 
 switch, as better suited to their nature. The minute description of the 
 oriental threshing-machines belongs more properly to books of archaeology, 
 especially as nothing more is necessary here to the correct understanding of 
 the verse than a just view of the contrast intended between heavy and light 
 threshing. The *3 at the beginning of the verse might be translated that 
 and understood as introducing an explicit statement as to what it is that God 
 thus teaches him. His God instructs him that etc. This arrangement of 
 the sentences, though certainly not necessary, makes them clearer, and is 
 favoured by the otherwise extraordinary brevity of v. 26, as well as by its 
 seeming interruption of the intimate connexion between vs. 25 and 27. An 
 objection to it, drawn from the analogy of v. 29, will be stated in the ex- 
 position of that verse. 
 
490 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII. 
 
 V. 28. Bread-corn must be crushed, for he will not be always threshing 
 it ; so he drives the wheel of his cart (upon it), but with his horsemen (or 
 horses) he does not crush it. The sense of this verse is obscured by 
 an apparent inconsistency between the opening and the closing words. 
 Ewald cuts the knot by reading iflw in the former place. Umbreit 
 takes Dn| in its proper sense of bread, and understands the clause to 
 mean that bread is broken by the teeth ! Others make the first clause 
 interrogative, and thus conform it to the express negation in the last clause. 
 The translation above given supposes a climax beginning in v. 27 and com- 
 pleted here. Dill and cummin must be threshed out with the flail ; wheat 
 and barley may be more severely dealt with : they will bear the wheel, but 
 not the hoofs of horses. The first words and the last are then in strict 
 agreement ; bread-corn must be bruised, but not with horses' hoofs. This 
 is merely suggested as an additional attempt to elucidate a passage in detail, 
 the general sense of which is clear enough. The reading "POis his hoofs 
 (i. e. the hoofs of his cattle) is unnecessary, as the use of tine in the sense 
 of horse appears to be admitted by the best philological authorities. The 
 historical objection, that the horse was not in common use for agricultural 
 purposes, seems to be likewise regarded by interpreters as inconclusive. 
 
 V. 29. Even this (or this also) from Jehovah of Hosts comes forth ; he 
 is wonderful in counsel, great in wisdom. The literal translation of the 
 last clause is, he makes counsel wonderful, he makes wisdom great. The 
 hiphils may however be supposed to signify the exhibition of the qualities 
 denoted by the nouns, or taken as intransitives. The antithesis which some 
 suppose the last clause to contain between plan and execution (wonderful 
 in counsel and excellent in working) is justified neither by the derivation nor 
 the usage of P»*##i. As to the meaning of the whole verse, some suppose 
 that the preceding illustration is here applied to the divine dispensations ; 
 others, that this is the conclusion of the illustration itself. On the latter 
 hypothesis, the meaning of the verse is, that the husbandman's treatment of 
 the crop, no less than his preparation of the soil, is a dictate of experience 
 under divine teaching. In the other case, the sense is that the same mode 
 of proceeding, which had just been described as that of a wise husbandman, 
 is also practised by the Most High in the execution of his purposes. 
 Against this, and in favour of the other explanation, it may be suggested, 
 first, that coming forth from God is a phrase not so naturally suited to ex- 
 press his own way of acting as the influence which he exerts on others ; 
 secondly, that this verse seems to correspond, in form and sense, to v. 27, 
 and to bear the same relation to the different modes of threshing that v. 27 
 does to the preparation of the ground and the sowing of the seed. Having 
 there said of the latter, that the husbandman is taught of God, he now says 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 of the former, that it also comes forth from the sane celestial source. This 
 analogy may also serve to show that v. 27 is not a part of v. 28, and thereby 
 to make it probable that "3 at the beginning of the latter is to be translated 
 for, because. According to the view which has now been taken of v. 29, 
 the genera] application of the parable to God's dispensations is not formally 
 expressed, but left to the reflection of the reader. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 This chapter consists of two parts, parallel to one another, i. e. each 
 containing the same series of promises and threatenings, but in different 
 forms. The prophetic substance or material of both is that Zion should be 
 threatened and assailed yet not destroyed, but on the contrary strengthened 
 and enlarged. These ideas are expressed in the second part much more 
 fully and explicitly than in the first, which must therefore be interpreted ac- 
 cording to what follows. In the first part, the threatening is that Zion 
 shall be assailed by enemies and brought very low, vs. 1-4. The prom- 
 ise is that the assailants shall be scattered like dust and chaff, vanish like a 
 dream, and be wholly disappointed in their hostile purpose, vs. 5—8. In 
 the second part, the Prophet brings distinctly into view, as causes of the 
 threatened judgments, the spiritual intoxication and stupor of the people, 
 their blindness to revealed truth, their hypocritical formality, and their 
 presumptuous contempt of God, vs. 9—1 6. The judgment itself is described 
 as a confounding of their fancied wisdom, v. 14. The added promise is that 
 of an entire revolution, including the destruction of the wicked, and especially 
 of wicked rulers, the restoration of spiritual sight, joy to the meek and poor 
 in spirit, and the final recovery of Israel from a state of alienation and dis- 
 grace to the service of Jehovah and to the saving knowledge of the truth, 
 vs. 17-24. The attempts to explain the first part of the chapter as relating 
 to the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, or Titus, have 
 been unsuccessful, partly because the description is not strictly appropriate 
 to either of these events, and partly because the connexion with what fol- 
 lows is, on either of these suppositions, wholly obscure. Those who deny 
 the inspiration of the writer regard the last part as a visionary anticipation 
 which was never fully verified. Those who admit it are obliged to assume 
 an abrupt transition from the siege of Jerusalem to the calling of the gen- 
 tiles. The only key to the consistent exposition of the chapter as a whole, 
 is furnished by the hypothesis already stated, that the two parts are parallel, 
 
492 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 not merely successive, and that the second must explain the first. That 
 the second part describes not physical but spiritual evils, is admitted on all 
 hands, and indeed asserted by the Prophet himself. This description is di- 
 rectly and repeatedly applied in the New Testament to the Jews contem- 
 porary with our Saviour. It does not follow from this, that it is a specific 
 and exclusive prophecy respecting them ; but it does follow that it must be 
 so interpreted as to include them, which can only be effected by regarding 
 this last part of the chapter as descriptive of the Jews, not at one time 
 merely, but throughout the period of the old dispensation, an assumption 
 fully confirmed by history. The judgment threatened will then be the loss 
 of their peculiar privileges and an exchange of state with others who had 
 been less favoured, involving an extension of the church beyond its ancient 
 bounds, the destruction of the old abuses, and the final restoration of the 
 Jews themselves. If this be the meaning of the second part, it seems to 
 determine that of the first as a figurative expression of the truth, that the 
 church should suffer but not perish, the imagery used for this purpose being 
 borrowed from the actual sieges of Jerusalem. Thus understood, the chapter 
 is prophetic of two great events, the seeming destruction of the ancient 
 church, and its reproduction in a new and far more glorious form, so as not 
 only to include the gentiles in its bounds, but also the converted remnant of 
 God's ancient people. 
 
 V. 1 . Woe to Ariel (or alas for Ariel), Ariel, the city David encamped ! 
 Add year to year ; let the feasts revolve. All interpreters agree that Ariel 
 is here a name for Zion or Jerusalem, although they greatly differ in the 
 explanation of the name itself. Besides the explanation which resolves the 
 form into bx-^n (mountain of God), there are two between which interpreters 
 are chiefly divided. One of these makes it mean lion of God, i. e. a lion- 
 like champion or hero (2 Sam. 23 : 20. Isai. 33 : 7), here applied to Jeru- 
 salem as a city of heroes which should never be subdued. This explanation 
 is retained not only by Gesenius, but by Ewald, who, to make the applica- 
 tion more appropriate, translates it lioness of God. The other hypothesis 
 explains it, from an Arabic analogy, to mean the hearth or fire-place of 
 God, in which sense it seems to be applied to the altar by Ezekiel (43 : 15, 
 16), and the extension of the name to the whole city is the more natural 
 because Isaiah himself says of Jehovah, that his fire is in Zion and his fur- 
 nace in Jerusalem (ch. 31 : 9). Hitzig supposes the name to be here used 
 in the first sense, but with an allusion to the other in the following verse. 
 This double usage is the less improbable because the name is evidently 
 meant to be enigmatical. The Rabbins combine the two explanations of 
 the Hebrew word by supposing that the altar was itself called the lion of 
 God, because it devoured the victims like a lion, or because the fire on it 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 493 
 
 had the appearance of a lion, or because the altar (or the temple) was in 
 shape like a lion, that is, narrow behind and broad in front ! The city Da- 
 vid encamped is an elliptical expression not unlike the Hebrew one, in which 
 the relative must be supplied, or p?"jp? supposed to govern the whole phrase 
 in n:n as a noun. Here again there seems to be a twofold allusion to Da- 
 vid's siege and conquest of Zion (2 Sam. 5: 7), and to his afterwards en- 
 camping i. e. dwelling there (2 Sam. 5 : 9). Add year to year is understood 
 by Grotius to mean that the prophecy should be fulfilled in two years, or in 
 other words, that it was uttered just two years before Sennacherib's invasion. 
 Upon this clause Hitzig founds an ingenious but complex and artificial 
 theory as to the chronology of this whole passage (eh. xxvm — xxxi). 
 Most interpreters explain the words as simply meaning, let the years roll on 
 with the accustomed routine of ceremonial services. Many of the older 
 writers take the last words of the verse in this sense, let them kill (or more 
 specifically, cut off the heads of) the sacrificial victims ; but it is more in 
 accordance both with the usage of the words and with the context, to give 
 c^an its usual sense of feasts or festivals, and Cjgj that of moving in a circle 
 or revolving, which it has in Hiphil. The phrase then corresponds exactly 
 to the one preceding, add year to year. 
 
 V. 2 And I will distress Ariel, and there shall be sadness and sorrow, 
 and it shall be to me as Ariel. Let the years revolve and the usual routine 
 continue, but the time is coming when it shall be interrupted. The words 
 translated sadness and sorrow are collateral derivatives from one root. The 
 best imitation of the form of the original is that given by Vitringa (moeror 
 ac moestitia). The last clause may be either a continuation of the threat- 
 ening or an added promise. If the former, the meaning probably is, it shall 
 be indeed a furnace or an altar, i. e. when the fire of affliction or divine 
 wrath shall be kindled on it. If the latter, it shall still be a city of heroes, 
 and as such withstand its enemies. Or, combining both the senses of the 
 enigmatical name, it shall burn like a furnace, but resist like a lion. 
 
 V. 3. And I will camp against thee round about (literally, as a ring or 
 circle), and push against thee (or press upon thee with) a post (or body of 
 troops), and raise against thee ramparts (or entrenchments). The siege of 
 Ariel is now represented as the work of God himself, which, although it 
 admits of explanation as referring merely to his providential oversight and 
 control, seems here to be significant, as intimating that the siege described 
 is not a literal one. The dubious phrase 5272 "f»ki 'WP is understood by 
 Ewald as meaning, J enclose thee with a wall, or literally, close a wall 
 around thee. To the supposition that these words relate to Sennacherib's 
 attack upon Jerusalem, it has been objected that the history contains no 
 
494 ISAIAH. CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 record of an actual siege. Henderson, indeed, says that there cannot be a 
 doubt that they occupied themselves with hostile demonstrations while the 
 negotiations were going forward ; but, in spite of this assurance, there is 
 still room for suspicion that this verse does not after all relate to the Assyrian 
 incursion. 
 
 V. 4. And thou shalt be brought down, out of the ground shalt thou 
 speak, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be 
 like (the voice of) a spirit, out of the ground, and out of the dust shall thy 
 speech mutter. Grotius understands this of the people's hiding themselves 
 in subterranean retreats during Sennacherib's invasion, while Vitringa shows 
 from Josephus that such measures were actually adopted during the Roman 
 siege of Jerusalem. But the simple meaning naturally suggested by the 
 words is, that the person here addressed, to wit, the city or its population, 
 should be weakened and humbled. Some suppose the voice to be compared 
 with that of a dying man or a departing spirit, others with that of a necro- 
 mancer who pretended to evoke the dead. To this last the terms of the com- 
 parison would be the more appropriate if, as the modern writers commonly 
 suppose, the ancient necromancers used ventriloquism as a means of prac- 
 tising upon the credulous. The last verb properly denotes any feeble inar- 
 ticulate sound, and is applied in ch. 10: 14 and 38: 14 to the chirping or 
 twittering of birds. 
 
 V. 5. Then shall be like fine dust the multitude of thy strangers, and 
 like passing chaff the multitude of the terrible ones, and it shall be in a 
 moment suddenly. Calvin understands by strangers foreign allies or merce- 
 nary troops, which he supposes to be here described as powerless and as 
 enduring but a moment. Others among the older writers take strangers 
 more correctly in the sense of enemies, but understand the simile as merely 
 descriptive of their numbers and velocity. It is now very commonly agreed, 
 however, that the verse describes their sudden and complete dispersion. 
 The absence of but at the beginning, or some other indication that the writer 
 is about to pass from threats to promises, although it renders the connexion 
 more obscure, increases the effect of the description. Ewald instead of 
 multitude has tumult, which is the primary meaning of the word ; but the 
 former is clearly established by usage, and is here much more appropriate, 
 since it is not the noise of a great crowd, but the crowd itself, that can be 
 likened to fine dust or flitting chaff, as Lowth poetically renders it. The 
 terms of this verse readily suggest the sudden fall of the Assyrian host, nor 
 is there any reason for denying that the Prophet had a view to it in choos- 
 ing his expressions. But that this is an explicit and specific prophecy of 
 that event is much less probable, as well because the terms are in themselves 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. VX> 
 
 appropriate to any case of sudden and complete dispersion, as because the 
 context contains language wholly inappropriate to the slaughter of Senna- 
 cherib's army. To the Babylonian and Roman sieges, which were both 
 successful, the verse before us n entirely inapplicable. These considera- 
 tions, although negative and inconclusive in themselves, tend strongly to 
 confirm the supposition founded on the last part of the chapter, that the first 
 contains a strong metaphorical description of the evils which Jerusalem 
 should suffer at the hands of enemies, but without exclusive reference to any 
 one siege, or to sieges in the literal sense at all. That the evils which the 
 last part of the chapter brings to light are of a spiritual nature, and not con- 
 fined to any single period, is a fact which seems to warrant the conclusion, 
 or at least to raise a strong presumption, that the Ariel of this passage is 
 Zion or Jerusalem considered only as the local habitation of the church. 
 
 V. 6. From with (i. e. from the presence of) Jehovah of hosts shall it 
 be visited with thunder and earthquake and great noise, tempest and storm 
 and flame of devouring fire. Vitringa refers this to the singular phenomena 
 which are said to have preceded and accompanied the taking of Jerusalem 
 by Titus. This application may be admitted, in the same sense and on the 
 same ground with the allusion to Sennacherib's host in the foregoing verse. 
 But that the prophecy is not a prophecy of either catastrophe, may be in- 
 ferred from the fact that neither is described in the context. Indeed, the 
 direct application of this verse to the fall of Jerusalem is wholly inadmissible, 
 since the preceding verse describes the assailants as dispersed, and this ap- 
 pears to continue the description. As Tgttjn can be either the third person 
 feminine or the second masculine, the verse may be considered as addressed 
 directly to the enemy ; or the verb may agree with pen as a feminine noun, 
 in which way it is construed elsewhere (Job 31 : 34), although evidently 
 masculine in v. 8 below. The city cannot be addressed, because the verb 
 must then be feminine, and the preceding verse forbids the one before us to 
 be taken as a threatening against Ariel. 
 
 V. 7. Then shall be as a dream, a vision of the night, the multitude of 
 all the nations fighting against Ariel, even all that fight against her and 
 her munition and distress her. Calvin understands this to mean that the 
 enemy shall take her unawares, as one awakes from a dream. The modern 
 writers generally understand both this verse and the next as meaning that the 
 enemy himself should be wholly disappointed and his vain hopes vanish as a 
 dream. But the true sense appears to be the one proposed by Grotius and 
 others, who regard the comparisons in these two verses as distinct though 
 similar, the enemy being first compared to a dream and then to a dreamer. 
 He who threatens your destruction shall vanish like a dream, par levibus 
 
496 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 vends volucrique simillima somno. He who threatens your destruction shall 
 awake as from a dream, and find himself cheated of his expectations, for, as 
 Grotius beautifully says, spes sunt vigilantium somnia. These seem to be 
 the two comparisons intended, both of which are perfectly appropriate, and 
 one of which might readily suggest the other. The feminine pronouns may 
 refer to Ariel as itself a feminine, or to the city which it represents. 
 
 V. 8. And it shall be as when the hungry dreams, and lo he eats, and 
 lie awakes, and his soul is empty ; and as when the thirsty dreams, and lo 
 he drinks, and he awakes, and lo he is faint and his soul craving : so shall 
 be the multitude of all the nations that fight against Mount Zion. The 
 meaning of this beautiful comparison seems so clear, and its application to 
 the disappointment of the enemies of Ariel so palpable, that it is hard to 
 understand how such an interpreter as Calvin could say, JSihil hie video 
 quod ad consolationem pertineat. His explanation of the verse as meaning 
 that the Jews should be awakened by the enemy from their dream of se- 
 curity and find themselves wholly unprovided with the necessary means of 
 defence, is forced and arbitrary in a high degree, and seems the more so 
 when propounded by a writer who is characteristically free from all propen- 
 sity to strained and far-fetched expositions. In this verse soul is twice used 
 in the not uncommon sense of appetite, first described as empty (i. e. unsat- 
 isfied) and then as craving. This is much better than to take the word, 
 with Grotius, as a mere periphrasis for the man himself. To this verse 
 Lowth quotes a beautiful but certainly inferior parallel from Lucretius : 
 
 Ac velut in somnis sitiens quum quaerit, et humor 
 Non datur, ardorem in membris qui stinguere possit, 
 Sed laticum simulacra petit, frustraque laborat, 
 In medioque sitit torrenti flumine potans. 
 
 The passage quoted from Virgil by the same accomplished critic is not so 
 apposite because more general. A less poetical but not Jess striking and 
 affecting parallel from real life is found in one of Mungo Park's journals, 
 and pertinently quoted here by Barnes. " No sooner had I shut my eyes 
 than fancy would convey me to the streams and rivers of my native land. 
 There, as I wandered along the verdant bank, I surveyed the clear stream 
 with transport, and hastened to swallow the delightful draught ; but alas ! 
 disappointment awakened me, and I found myself a lonely captive, perishing 
 of thirst amid the wilds of Africa." 
 
 V. 9. Waver and wonder ! be merry and blind ! They are drunk, but 
 not with wine ; they reel, but not with strong drink. Here begins the 
 description of the moral and spiritual evils which were the occasion of the 
 judgments previously threatened. In the first clause, the Prophet describes 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 497 
 
 the condition of the people by exhorting them ironically to continue in it ; 
 in the second, he seems to turn away from them and address the spectators. 
 The terms of the first clause are very obscure. In each of its members two 
 cognate verbs are used, but whether as synonymous, or as expressing differ- 
 ent ideas, appears doubtful. Ewald adopts the former supposition, and 
 regards the first two as denoting wonder (erstaunt und staunt), the last two 
 blindness (erblindet und blindet). Gesenius, on the contrary, supposes 
 verbs alike in form but different in sense to be designedly combined. To 
 the first he gives the sense of lingering, hesitating, doubting ; to the second, 
 that of wondering ; to the third, that of taking pleasure or indulging the 
 desires ; to the fourth, that of being blind. The second imperative in either 
 case he understands as indicating the effect or consequence of that before 
 it : refuse to believe, but you will only be the more astonished ; continue 
 to enjoy yourselves, but it will only be the means of blinding you. The 
 express description of the drunkenness as spiritual shows, that where no such 
 explanation is added (as in ch. 28: 1, 7), the terms are to be literally 
 understood. By spiritual drunkenness we are probably to understand 
 unsteadiness of conduct and a want of spiritual discernment. 
 
 V. 10. For Jehovah hath poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep 
 and hath shut your eyes ; the prophets and your heads (or even your heads) 
 the seers hath he covered. On the agency here ascribed to God, see the 
 exposition of ch. 6 : 9, 10. The two ideas expressed in the parallel clauses 
 are those of bandaging the eyes and covering the head so as to obstruct the 
 sight. In the latter cas ethe Prophet makes a special application of the 
 figure to the chiefs or religious leaders of the people, as if he had said, he 
 hath shut your eyes, and covered your heads, viz. the prophets. Some 
 have proposed to make the clauses more symmetrical by changing the 
 division of the sentence so as to read thus, he hath shut your eyes, the 
 prophets, and your heads, the seers, hath he covered. Others, because the 
 Prophet did not use a commonplace expression or conform to the petty 
 rules of rhetoric, reject prop he ts and seers as a gloss accidentally transferred 
 from the margin. One of the reasons given for this bold mutilation of the 
 text is, that the subject of the previous description is not the prophets but 
 the people ; as if the former were not evidently mentioned as the leaders of 
 the latter. The people were blinded by rendering the revelations of the 
 prophets useless. To produce the usual confusion, Ewald, though he strikes 
 out o^aoas, insists upon retaining G^tn as an adjective agreeing with oaittten 
 (jyour seeing heads). This amendment of Gesenius's amendment has the 
 good effect of making both ridiculous, and showing that the common text, 
 with all its difficulties, is best entitled to respect and confidence. 
 
 32 
 
498 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 V. 11. And the vision of all (or of the whole) is (or has become) to 
 you like the words of the sealed writing, which they give to one "knowing 
 writing, saying, Pray read this, and he says, I cannot, for it is sealed. The 
 vision of all may either mean of all the prophets, or collectively all vision, 
 or the vision of all things, i. e. prophecy on all subjects (Ewald : Weissa- 
 gung uber alles). Gesenius arbitrarily takes vision in the sense of law. If 
 we depart from that of prophecy, the most appropriate sense would be the 
 primary one of sight. The English word book does not exactly represent 
 the Hebrew ->5&, which originally signifies writing in general or any thing 
 written (Hendewerk : Schrift), and is here used as we might use document 
 or the still more general term paper. J. D. Michaelis employs the specific 
 term letter, which the Hebrew word in some cases denotes. In the phrase 
 "ibg si" 1 , the last word seems to mean writing in general, and the whole 
 phrase one who understands it or knows how to read it. The application 
 of the simile becomes clear in the next verse. 
 
 V. 12. And the writing is given to one who knows not writing, saying, 
 Pray read this, and he says, 1 know not writing. The common version, 1 
 am not learned, is too comprehensive and indefinite. A man might read a 
 letter without being learned, at least in the modern sense, although the word 
 was once the opposite of illiterate or wholly ignorant. In this case it is 
 necessary to the full effect of the comparison, that the phrase should be 
 distinctly understood to mean, I cannot read. The comparison itself repre- 
 sents the people as alike incapable of understanding the divine communica- 
 tions, or rather as professing incapacity to understand them, some upon the 
 general ground of ignorance, and others on the ground of their obscurity. 
 
 V. 13. And the Lord said, Because this people draws near with its 
 mouth, and with its lips they honour me, and its heart it puts (or keeps) far 
 from me, and their fearing me is (or has become) a precept of men, (a thing) 
 taught. The apodosis follows in the next verse. Some read to for c5m 
 and understand the clause to mean, they are compelled to honour me, they 
 serve me by compulsion ; or, when they are oppressed and afflicted, then 
 they honour me. The common reading is no doubt the true one. Ewald 
 makes prn an intransitive verb (wanders far from me), which is contrary to 
 usage. The singular and plural pronouns are promiscuously used in this 
 verse with respect to Israel considered as a nation and an individual. At 
 the end of the verse the English Version has, taught by the precept of men ; 
 but a simpler construction, and one favoured by the accents, is to take rfroita 
 as a neuter adjective without a substantive in apposition with mxe* This 
 clause might be simply understood to mean, that they served God merely in 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 499 
 
 obedience to human authority. It would then of course imply no censure 
 on the persons thus commanding, but only on the motives of those by whom 
 they were obeyed. In our Saviour's application of the passage to the hypo- 
 crites of his day (Matthew 15: 7-9), he explains their teachings as human 
 corruptions of the truth, by which the commandment of God was made of 
 none efiect. The expressions of the Prophet may have been so chosen as 
 to be applicable either to the reign of Hezekiah, when the worship of Jeho- 
 vah was enforced by human authority, or to the time of Christ, when the 
 rulers of the people had corrupted and made void the law by their additions. 
 It is unnecessary to suppose, with Henderson, that this corruption had 
 already reached a great height when Isaiah wrote. The apparent reference, 
 in this description, to the Jews not at one time only but throughout their 
 history, tends to confirm the supposition, that the subject of the prophecy is 
 not any one specific juncture, and that the first part of the chapter is not a 
 prediction of any one siege of Jerusalem exclusively. 
 
 V. 14. Therefore, behold, I will add (or continue) to treat this people 
 strangely, very strangely, and with strangeness, and the wisdom of its wise 
 ones shall be lost (or perish), and the prudence of its prudent ones shall 
 hide itself i. e. for shame, or simply disappear. This is the conclusion of 
 the sentence which begins with the preceding verse. Because they draw 
 near etc. therefore I will add etc. cpsi" 1 is explained by some as an unusual 
 form of the participle for Bjbta ; but the latest interpreters make it as usual 
 the third person of the future, and regard the construction as elliptical. 
 Behold, I (am he who) will add etc. See a similar construction of the 
 preterite inch. 28: 16. »^?rt is strictly to make wonderful, but when 
 applied to persons, to treat wonderfully, i. e. in a strange or extraordinary 
 manner. The idiomatic repetition of the verb with its cognate noun (xbsn 
 K&tf) cannot be fully reproduced in English. The literal translation (Jo 
 make wonderful and wonder) would be quite unmeaning to an English 
 reader. The nature of the judgment here denounced seems to show that 
 the corruption of the people was closely connected with undue reliance 
 upon human wisdom. (Compare ch. 5: 21.) 
 
 V. 15. Woe unto those (or alas for those) going deep from Jehovah to 
 hide counsel (i. e. laying their plans deep in the hope of hiding them from 
 God), and their works (are) in the dark, and they say, Who sees us and 
 who knows us 1 This is a further description of the people or their leaders, 
 as not only wise in their own conceit, but as impiously hoping to deceive 
 God or elude his notice. The absurdity of such an expectation is exposed 
 in the following verse. In the last clause of this, the interrogative form 
 implies negation. 
 
500 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 V. 16. Your perversion! Is (he potter to be reckoned as the clay (and 
 nothing more), that the thing made should say of its maker, he made me 
 not, and the thing formed say of its former, he does not understand! The 
 attempt to hide any thing from God implies that he has not a perfect know- 
 ledge of his creatures, which is practically to reduce the maker and the 
 thing made to a level. With this inversion or perversion of the natural 
 relation between God and man, the Prophet charges them in one word 
 (o23srj). The old construction of this word as nominative to the verb 
 (your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed etc.) appears to be 
 forbidden by the accents and by the position of the c«. That of Barnes 
 (your perverseness is as if the potter etc.) arbitrarily supplies not only an 
 additional verb but a particle of comparison. Most of the recent writers are 
 agreed in construing the first word as an exclamation, oh your perverseness ! 
 i. e. how perverse you are ! in which sense it had long before been para- 
 phrased by Luther (wie seyd ihr so verkehrtT). Both the derivation of the 
 word, however, and the context here seem to demand the sense perversion 
 rather than perverseness. The verse seems intended not so much to rebuke 
 their perverse disposition, as to show that by their conduct they subverted the 
 distinction between creature and creator, or placed them in a preposterous 
 relation to each other. Thus understood, the word may be thus para- 
 phrased : (this is) your (own) perversion (of the truth, or of the true rela- 
 tion between God and man.) The English Version puts the following 
 nouns in regimen (like the potter's clay), but the other construction (the 
 potter like the clay) is so plainly required by the context, that Gesenius and 
 others disregard the accents by which it seems to be forbidden. Hitzig, 
 however, denies that the actual accentuation is at all at variance with the 
 new construction. The preposition b is here used in its proper sense as 
 signifying general relation, with respect to, as to. By translating ^for, the 
 connexion of the clauses becomes more obscure. 
 
 V. 17. Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall turn (or be 
 turned) to the fruitful fi eld, and the fruitful f eld be reckoned to the forest 
 (i. e. reckoned as belonging to it, or as being itself a forest) ? The negative 
 interrogation is one of the strongest forms of affirmation. That ^pS*3 is not 
 the proper name of the mountain, may be inferred from the article, which is 
 not prefixed to Lebanon. The mention of the latter no doubt suggested 
 that of the ambiguous term Carmel, which is both a proper name and an 
 appellative. For its sense and derivation see the commentary on ch. 
 10 : 18. The metaphors of this verse evidently signify a great revolution. 
 Some suppose it to be meant that the lofty (Lebanon) shall be humbled 
 and the lowly (Carmel) exalted. But the comparison is evidently not be- 
 tween the high and the low, but between the cultivated and the wild, the field 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 501 
 
 and the forest. Some make both clauses of the verse a promise, by explain- 
 ing the last to mean that what is now esteemed a fruitful field shall then ap- 
 pear to be a forest in comparison. But the only natural interpretation of 
 the verse is that which regards it as prophetic of a mutual change of con- 
 dition, the first becoming last and the last first. If, as we have seen 
 sufficient reason to believe, the previous context has respect to the Jews 
 under the old dispensation, nothing can be more appropriate or natural than 
 to understand the verse before as foretelling the excision of the unbelieving 
 Jews and the admission of the Gentiles to the church. 
 
 V. 18. And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book (or 
 writing), and out of obscurity and darkness shall the eyes of the blind see. 
 This is a further description of the change just predicted under other figures. 
 As the forest was to be transformed into a fruitful field, so the blind should be 
 made to see and the deaf to hear. There is an obvious allusion to the figure of 
 the sealed book or writing in vs. 13, 14. The Jews could only plead ob- 
 scurity or ignorance as an excuse for not understanding the revealed will of 
 God. The Gentiles, in their utter destitution, might be rather likened to the 
 blind who cannot read, however clear the light or plain the writing, and the 
 deaf who cannot even hear what is read by others. But the time was com- 
 ing when they, who would not break the seal or learn the letters of the 
 written word, should be abandoned to their chosen state of ignorance, while 
 on the other hand, the blind and deaf, whose case before seemed hopeless, 
 should begin to see and hear the revelation once entirely inaccessible. The 
 perfect adaptation of this figurative language to express the new relation of 
 the Jews and Gentiles after the end of the old economy affords a new proof 
 that the prophecy relates to that event. 
 
 V. 19. And the humble shall add joy (i. e. shall rejoice more and more) 
 in Jehovah y and the poor among men in the Holy One of Israel shall rejoice. 
 As the preceding verse describes the happy effect of the promised change 
 upon the intellectual views of those who should experience it, so this de- 
 scribes its influence in the promotion of their happiness. Not only should 
 the ignorant be taught of God, but the wretched should be rendered happy 
 in the enjoyment of his favour. The poor of men, i. e. the poor amon^ 
 them. 
 
 V. 20. For the violent is at an end, and the scoffer ceaseth, and all the 
 watchers for injustice are cut off. A main cause of the happiness foretold 
 will be the weakening or destruction of all evil influences, here reduced to 
 the three great classes of violent wrong-doing, impious contempt of truth and 
 goodness, and malignant treachery or fraud, which watches for the oppor- 
 
502 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 tunity of doing evil, with as constant vigilance as ought to be employed in 
 watching for occasions of redressing wrong and doing justice. This is a 
 change which, to some extent, has always attended the diffusion of the true 
 religion. Gesenius connects this verse with the foregoing as a statement of 
 the cause for which the humble would rejoice, viz. that the oppressor is no 
 more, etc. But this construction is precluded by the fact, that wherever men 
 are said to rejoice in God, he is himself the subject of their joy. It is how- 
 ever a mere question of grammatical arrangement, not affecting the general 
 import of the passage. 
 
 V. 21. Making a man a sinner for a word, and for him disputing in 
 the gate they laid a snare, and turned aside the righteous through deceit. 
 An amplification of the last phrase in the foregoing verse. Some understand 
 the first clause to mean, seducing people into sin by their words. It is much 
 more common to explain im as meaning a judicial cause or matter, which 
 use of the word occurs in Exodus 18 : 16. < The whole phrase may then 
 mean unjustly condemning a man in his cause, which agrees well with the 
 obvious allusion to forensic process in the remainder of the verse. Ewald 
 however takes "o^s in the same sense with the English and many other 
 early versions, which explain the clause to mean accusing or condemning 
 men for a mere error of the tongue or lips. The general sense is plain, viz. 
 that they embrace all opportunities and use all arts to wrong the guiltless. 
 Another old interpretation, now revived by Ewald, is that of trvfi'Q as meaning 
 one that reproves others. Most of the modern writers take it in the sense of 
 arguing, disputing, pleading, in the gate, i. e. the court, often held in the 
 gates of oriental cities. The other explanation supposes the gate to be 
 mentioned only as a place of public concourse. Ewald translates it in the 
 market-place. By the turning aside of the righteous (i. e. of the party who 
 is in the right) we are here to understand the depriving him of that which is 
 his due. For the meaning and usage of the figure, see the commentary on 
 ch. 10: 2. istns has been variously understood to mean through falsehood 
 (with particular reference to false testimony), or by means of a judgment 
 which is null and void, or for nothing i. e. without just cause. In either 
 case the phrase describes the perversion or abuse of justice by dishonest 
 means, and thus agrees with the expressions used in the foregoing clauses. 
 
 V. 22. Therefore thus saith Jehovah to the house of Jacob, he who re- 
 deemed Abraham, Not now shall Jacob be ashamed, and not now shall his 
 face turn pale. The Hebrew phrase not now does not imply that it shall 
 be so hereafter, but on the contrary that it shall be so no more. Gesenius 
 and others render bx of or concerning because Jacob is immediately after- 
 wards mentioned in the third person ; but this might be the case consistently 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 503 
 
 with usage, even in a promise made directly to himself. That ■7011 refers to 
 the remoter antecedent, must be obvious to every reader ; if it did not, Jacob 
 would be described as tho redeemer of Abraham. There is conse- 
 quently not the slightest ground for Lowth's correction of the text by read- 
 ing bx instead of bi< (the God of the house of Jacob). There is no need of 
 referring the redemption of Abraham to his removal from a land of idolatry. 
 The phrase may be naturally understood, either as signifying deliverance 
 from danger and the divine protection generally, or in a higher sense as 
 signifying Abraham's conversion and salvation. Seeker and Lowth read 
 "nam for wim, because paleness is not a natural indication of confusion. 
 Other interpreters affirm that it is ; but the true explanation seems to be that 
 shame and fear are here combined as strong and painful emotions from which 
 Jacob should be henceforth free. Calvin and others understand by Jacob 
 here the patriarch himself, poetically represented as beholding and sympa- 
 thizing with the fortunes of his own descendants. Most interpreters suppose 
 the name to be employed like Israel in direct application to the race itself. 
 The reasons for these contrary opinions will be more clear from the follow- 
 ing verse. 
 
 V. 23. For in his seeing (i. e. when he sees) his children, the work of 
 my hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify (or 
 yes they shall sanctify) the Holy One of Jacob, and the God of Israel they 
 shall fear. The verse thus translated according to its simplest and most 
 obvious sense has much perplexed interpreters. The difficulties chiefly 
 urged are, first, that Jacob should be said to see his children in the midst of 
 himself (ia^pa) ; secondly, that his thus seeing them should be the occasion 
 of their glorifying God. The last incongruity is only partially removed by 
 making the verb indefinite as Ewald does (wird man heiligen); for it may 
 still be asked why Jacob is not himself represented as the agent. To re- 
 move both difficulties, some explain the verse to mean, when he (that is) his 
 children see the work of my hands (viz. my providential judgments) they 
 shall sanctify etc. It is evident however that in this construction the men- 
 tion of the children is entirely superfluous, and throws the figures of the text 
 into confusion. Ewald accordingly omits "mb" 1 as a gloss, which is merely 
 giving up the attempt at explanation in despair. Gesenius, on the other 
 hand, in his translation, cuts the knot by omitting the singular pronoun and 
 making his children the sole subject of the verb. What follows is suggested 
 as a possible solution of this exegetical enigma. We have seen reason, 
 wholly independent of this verse, to believe that the immediately preceding 
 context has respect to the excision of the Jews and the vocation of the Gen- 
 tiles. Now the latter are described in the New Testament as Abraham's 
 (and consequently Jacob's) spiritual progeny, as such distinguished from his 
 
504 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX. 
 
 natural descendants. May not these adventitious or adopted children of 
 the patriarch, constituted such by the electing grace of God, be here in- 
 tended by the phrase, the work of my hands 1 If so, the whole may thus be 
 paraphrased : when he (the patriarch, supposed to be again alive and gaz- 
 ing at his offspring) shall behold his children (not by nature but) created 
 such by me, in the midst of him (i. e. in the midst, or in the place, of his 
 natural descendants), they (i. e. he and his descendants jointly) shall unite 
 in glorifying God as the author of this great revolution. This explanation 
 of the verse is the more natural, because such would no doubt be the actual 
 feelings of the patriarch and his descendants, if he should really be raised 
 from the dead, and permitted to behold what God has wrought, with respect 
 both to his natural and spiritual offspring. To the passage thus explained 
 a striking parallel is found in ch. 49: 18-21, where the same situation and 
 emotions here ascribed to the patriarch are predicated of the church per- 
 sonified, to whom the Prophet says, ' Lift up thine eyes round about and 
 behold, all these gather themselves together, they come to thee. The 
 children which thou shalt have after thou hast lost the others shall say etc. 
 Then shalt thou say in thine heart, who hath begotten me these, seeing I 
 have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and 
 fro ? And who hath brought up these ? Behold, I alone was left ; these, 
 where were they ?' For the use of the word sanctify in reference to God as 
 its object, see the note on ch. 8: 13. The Holy One of Jacob is of course 
 identical in meaning with the Holy One of Israel, which last phrase is ex- 
 plained in the note on ch. 1 : 4. The emphatic mention of the Holy One 
 of Jacob and the God of Israel, as the object to be sanctified, implies a rela- 
 tion still existing between all believers and their spiritual ancestry, as well 
 as a relation of identity between the Jewish and the Christian Church. 
 
 V. 24. Then shall the erring in spirit know wisdom, and the murmur ers 
 (or rebels) shall receive instruction. These words would be perfectly ap- 
 propriate as a general description of the reclaiming and converting influence 
 to be exerted upon men in general. But under this more vague and com 
 prehensive sense, the context, and especially the verse immediately preced- 
 ing, seems to show that there is one more specific and significant included. 
 If the foregoing verse predicts the reception of the Gentiles into the family 
 of Israel, and if this reception, as we learn from the New Testament, was 
 connected with the disinheriting of most of the natural descendants, who are 
 nevertheless to be restored hereafter, then the promise of this final restora- 
 tion is a stroke still wanting to complete the fine prophetic picture now before 
 us. That finishing stroke is given in this closing verse, which adds to the 
 promise that the Gentiles shall become the heirs of Israel, another that the 
 heirs of Israel according to the flesh shall themselves be restored to their 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 505 
 
 long lost heritage, not by excluding their successors in their turn, but by 
 peaceful and brotherly participation with them. This application of the 
 last part of the chapter to the calling of the Gentiles and the restoration of 
 the Jews has been founded, as the reader will observe, not on any forced 
 accommodation of particular expressions, but on various detached points, all 
 combining to confirm this exegetical hypothesis, as the only one which fur- 
 nishes a key to the consistent exposition of the chapter, as a concatenated 
 prophecy without abrupt transitions or a mixture of incongruous materials. 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 This chapter contains an exposure of the sin and folly of ancient Israel 
 in seeking foreign aid against their enemies, to the neglect of God, their 
 rightful sovereign and their only strong protector. The costume of the 
 prophecy is borrowed from the circumstances and events of Isaiah's own 
 times. Thus Egypt is mentioned in the first part of the chapter as the 
 chosen ally of the people, and Assyria in the last part as the dreaded enemy. 
 There is no need however of restricting what is said to that period exclu- 
 sively. The presumption, as in all such cases, is that the description was 
 designed to be more general, although it may contain allusions to particular 
 emergencies. Reliance upon human aid, involving a distrust of the divine 
 promises, was a crying sin of the ancient church, not at one time only, but 
 throughout her history. To denounce such sins, and threaten them with 
 condign punishment, was no small part of the prophetic office. The chrono- 
 logical hypotheses assumed by different writers with respect to this chapter 
 are erroneous only because too specific and exclusive. Thus Jerome refers 
 it to the conduct of the Jews in the days of Jeremiah ; Kimchi to their 
 conduct in the reign of Ahaz ; Jarchi to the conduct of the ten tribes in the 
 reign of Hoshea. Vitringa takes a step in the right direction by combining 
 Israel and Judah as included in the censure. Some of the later writers 
 assume the existence of an Egyptian party in the reign of Hezekiah, who 
 negotiated with that power against the will or without the knowledge of the 
 king. But even if this fact can be inferred from Rabshakeh's hypothetical 
 reproach in ch. 36 : 6, it does not follow that this was the sole subject or 
 occasion of the prophecy. It was clearly intended to reprove the sin of 
 seeking foreign aid without divine permission ; but there is nothing in the 
 terms of the reproof confining it to any single case of the offence. The 
 chapter may be divided into three parts. In the first, the Prophet shows 
 
506 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 the sin and folly of relying upon Egypt, no doubt for protection against 
 Assyria, as these were the two great powers between which Israel was con- 
 tinually oscillating, almost constantly at war with one and in alliance with 
 the other, vs. 1-7. In the last part, he describes the Assyrian power as 
 broken by an immediate divine interposition, precluding the necessity of any 
 human aid, vs. 27-33. In the larger intervening part, he shows the con- 
 nexion of this distrust of God and reliance on the creature with the general 
 character and spiritual state of the people, as unwilling to receive instruction, 
 as dishonest and oppressive, making severe judgments necessary as a prelude 
 to the glorious change which God would eventually bring to pass, vs. 8-26. 
 
 V. 1. Woe to the disobedient children, saith Jehovah, (so disobedient 
 as) to form (or execute) a plan and not from me, and to weave a web, but 
 not (of) my Spirit, for the sake of adding sin to sin. Here, as in ch. 1 : 
 2, Israel's filial relation to Jehovah is particularly mentioned as an agrava- 
 tion of his ingratitude and disobedience. The infinitives express the respect 
 in which, or the result with which, they had rebelled against Jehovah. The 
 relative construction of the English Version does not materially change the 
 sense. The phrase sis&e ■qbab has been variously explained. The Peshito 
 makes it mean to pour out libations, probably with reference to some ancient 
 mode of ratifying covenants, and the Septuagint accordingly translates it 
 iTiotqaaze vvv&rjxag. Cocceius applies it to the casting of molten images (ad 
 fundendum fusile) , DeDieu to the moulding of designs or plots. Kimchi 
 and Calvin derive the words from the root to cover, and suppose the idea 
 here expressed to be that of concealment. Ewald follows J. D. Michaelis 
 in making the phrase mean to weave a web, which agrees well with the con- 
 text, and is favoured by the similar use of the same verb and noun in ch. 
 25 : 7. Knobel's objection, that this figure is suited only to a case of 
 treachery, has no force, as the act of seeking foreign aid was treasonable 
 under the theocracy, and the design appears to have been formed and 
 executed secretly. (Compare ch. 29: 15, where the reference may be to 
 the same transaction.) Vitringa, who refers the first part of the chapter to 
 the kingdom of the ten tribes, supposes the sin of seeking foreign aid to be 
 here described as added to the previous sin of worshipping the golden calf. 
 Hitzig supposes the first sin to be that of forsaking Jehovah, the second that 
 of seeking human aid. The simple meaning seems however to be that of 
 multiplying or accumulating guilt. d^"i*no is strongly rendered by the Sep- 
 tuagint apostates, and by the Vulgate deserters, both which ideas may be 
 considered as involved in the translation rebels or rebellious, disobedient or 
 refractory. 
 
 V. 2. Those walking to go down to Egypt, and my mouth they have not 
 consulted (literally asked), to take refuge in the strength of Pharaoh, and to 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 507 
 
 trust in the shadow of Egypt. Motion towards Egypt is commonly spoken 
 of in scripture as downward, n^abn is commonly explained to mean setting 
 out or setting forward ; but DeWette and Ewald omit it altogether, or con- 
 sider it as joined with the other verb to express the simple idea of descent. 
 Hendewerk takes mouth as a specific designation of the Prophet, which is 
 wholly unnecessary. To ask the mouth, or at the mouth, of the Lord is a 
 phrase used elsewhere in the sense of seeking a divine decision or response. 
 
 V. 3. And the strength of Egypt shall be to you for shame and the 
 trust in the shadow of Egypt for confusion. \ ttf\ may here be taken in 
 its frequent sense of becoming or being converted into. The common ver- 
 sion of the first 1 by therefore changes the idiomatic form of the original 
 without necessity. 
 
 V. 4. For his chiefs are in Zoan, and his ambassadors arrive at Hanes. 
 For the site and political importance of Zoan or Tanis, see the commentary 
 on ch. 19 : 11. For wv b:n, the Seventy seem to have read W*« osn, they 
 shall labour in vain. This reading is also found in a few manuscripts and 
 approved by Lowth and J. D. Michaelis. The latter thinks it possible how- 
 ever that D3n may denote the Pyramids. The Targum changes Hanes into 
 Tahpanhes, and Grotius regards the former as a mere contraction of the 
 latter, which is also the conjecture of Champollion. Vitringa identifies the 
 Din of Isaiah with the "Avvaig of Herodotus. This combination is approved 
 by Gesenius and the later writers, who moreover identify the Greek and 
 Hebrew forms with the Egyptian Hues and the Arabic Ehnes. The city so 
 called was in Middle Egypt, south of Memphis. The older writers almost 
 unanimously understand this verse as relating to the envoys of Israel and 
 Judah. Clericus indeed refers the suffixes to Egypt or to Pharaoh, but 
 without a change of meaning, as he supposes the Egyptian envoys to be 
 such as were sent to meet the others, or to convey the answer to their 
 applications. But some of the late interpreters adopt the same construction 
 with a total change of meaning. Hitzig regards the verse as a contemptu- 
 ous description of the narrow boundaries and insignificance of Egypt. His 
 (Pharaoh's) princes are in Zoan (the capital), and his heralds (the bearers 
 ef his royal mandates) only reach to Hanes (a town of middle Egypt). 
 The unnatural and arbitrary character of this interpretation will appear from 
 the curious fact that Ewald, who adopts the same construction of the pro- 
 nouns, makes the whole verse a concession of the magnitude and strength 
 of the Egyptian monarchy. Although his princes are at Zoan (in Lower 
 Egypt) and his heralds reach to Hanes (much further south). Knobel ob- 
 jects to these constructions, that the phrase, his princes are at Zoan, is 
 unmeaning and superfluous. He therefore resuscitates the Septuagint read- 
 
508 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 ing W* Din, and makes the whole mean, that the chiefs of Pharaoh are still 
 at Zoan (i. e. remain inactive there), and that his messengers or commissaries 
 labour in vain to raise the necessary forces. From these ingenious extra- 
 vagances it is satisfactory to fall back on the old interpretation, which is also 
 that of Gesenius, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, with this modification in the 
 case of the latter, that he supposes Zoan and Hanes to be mentioned as the 
 royal seats of Sevechus and Tirhakah, to both of whom the application 
 may have been addressed. 
 
 V. 5. All are ashamed of a people who cannot profit them, (a people) 
 not for help and not for profit, but for shame, and also for disgrace, 
 Lowth inserts est after 13, on the authority of four manuscripts. But the 
 *B is itself here equivalent to an adversative particle in English, although it 
 really retains its usual meaning, for, because. The Hebrew construction is, 
 they are not a profit or a help, for (on the contrary) they are a disgrace and 
 a reproach. Gesenius regards ttaft^h as an incorrect orthography for tirsin ; 
 but Maurer and Knobel read it ^&Cii, and assume a root fcto synonymous 
 with tiia. The ^>? in the first clause has its very frequent meaning of con- 
 cerning, on account of 
 
 V. 6. The burden of the beasts of the south, in a land of suffering and 
 distress, whence (are) the adder and the fiery flying serpent ; they are car- 
 rying (or about to carry) on the shoulder of young asses their wealth, and 
 on the hump of camels their treasures, to a people (or for the sake of a 
 people) who cannot profit. The Prophet sees the ambassadors of Israel 
 carrying costly presents through the waste howling wilderness, for the 
 purpose of securing the Egyptian alliance. Gill applies the description to 
 the emigration of the Jews into Egypt in the days of Jeremiah. This may 
 be alluded to, but cannot be the exclusive subject of the passage. The 
 Sepiuagint translates styx by oQaaig, and converts the first clause into a title 
 or inscription. Schmidius and J. H. Michaelis regard this as the beginning 
 of a special prophecy, or subdivision of the greater prophecy, against the 
 southern Jews who were nearest to Egypt. Henderson also thinks it incon- 
 trovertible, that this is the title or inscription of the record which the Pro- 
 phet is afterwards commanded to make. The latest German writers, as might 
 have been expected, reject the clause as spurious, Hendewerk and Ewald 
 expunging it wholly from the text, while the others include it in brackets as 
 of doubtful authenticity. These critical conclusions all involve the supposi- 
 tion, that some ancient copyist or reader of the Prophet, imagining a new 
 subdivision to begin here, introduced this title, as the same or another hand 
 had done in ch. 13: 1. 15: 1. 17: 1. 19: 1. 21 : 1, 11, 13. 22: 1. 23: I. 
 The number of these alleged interpolations, far from adding to the proba- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 509 
 
 bility of the assumption, makes it more improbable in every instance where 
 it is resorted to. In this case, there is nothing to suggest the idea of a 
 change of subject or a new division, if the title be omitted. How then can 
 the interpolation be accounted for ? If it be said, that we are not bound to 
 account for the absurdity of ancient interpolators, the answer is that we are 
 just as little bound to believe in their existence. The truth appears to be, 
 that the interpretation of this clause as an inscription is entirely imaginary. 
 Even in the other cases cited, we have seen that the assumption of a formal 
 title may be pushed too far. But here it is wholly out of place. It is surely 
 an unreasonable supposition, that the Prophet could not put the word gigs 
 at the beginning of a sentence without converting it into a title. The most 
 natural construction of the first clause is to take it as an exclamation (oh the 
 burden of the beasts ! what a burden to the beasts !) — or as an absolute nomi- 
 native (as to the burden of the beasts). The beasts meant are not the lions 
 and the vipers of the next clause (Hitzig), but the asses and the camels of 
 the one following, called beasts of the south because travelling in that direc- 
 tion. The land meant is not Egypt (Vitringa), though described by Ara- 
 mianus Marcellinus as peculiarly abounding in venomous reptiles (serpentes 
 alit innumeras, ultra omnem perniciem saevientes, basiliscos et amphisbae- 
 nas et scytalas et acontias et dipsadas et viperas aliasque complures), nor 
 the land of Israel as the nurse of lion-like men or heroes (J. D. Michaelis), 
 but the interjacent desert described by Moses in similar terms (Deut. 1 : 19. 
 8: 15). The preposition a, meaning strictly in, might in this connexion 
 denote either through or into, but the former seems to be required by the 
 context. It follows of course that hpi*1 m* y\» cannot mean a land of 
 oppression, in allusion either to the bondage of the Hebrews or to that of 
 the natives (Vitringa), nor a land compressed and narrow in shape (Cleri- 
 cus), but must denote a land of suffering, danger, and privation, such as the 
 great Arabian desert is to travellers. Those who make JfHI to mean Egypt 
 explain fcrra as referring rather to the people than the country ; but if the 
 land referred to is the desert, it must be explained, with the latest German 
 writers, as either a poetical license or a grammatical anomaly. The general 
 meaning of the phrase, as all agree, is whence. It is also agreed that two 
 designations of the lion are here used ; but how they mutually differ is dis- 
 puted. Calvin has leo et leo major ; Cocceius, leo animosus et annosus. 
 Luther makes the distinction one of sex (lions and lionesses), which is now 
 regarded as the true distinction, though the first of the two Hebrew words, 
 since Bochart, has been commonly explained to mean the lioness. So 
 Clericus, leaena et leo violentus, and all the recent writers except Hitzig, 
 who makes both the words generic (Leu und Lowe). fiysa may be trans- 
 lated adder, viper, asp, or by any other term denoting a venomous and 
 deadly serpent. For the meaning of qfiwa pp«?, see the note on ch. 14 : 29. 
 
510 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 The lions and vipers of this verse are not symbolical descriptions of the 
 Egyptians (Junius), but a poetical description of the desert. Clericus 
 makes even rvrara (Behemoth) an emblem of Egypt, and translates the 
 clause (as an inscription), oratio pronunciata de meridiano hippopotamo ! 
 d^v? or d">*i^5, which Lowth translates too vaguely young cattle, denotes 
 more specifically young asses, or it may be used as a poetical designation of 
 asses in general. That WBQfl signifies the hump or bunch of the camel, as 
 explained in the Vulgate (super gibbum cameli), the Peshito, and the Tar- 
 gum, is clear from the context, but not from etymology, as to which inter- 
 preters are much divided. The old Jews traced the word to WSft honey 
 (becanse sometimes applied for medicinal purposes), while Henderson ex- 
 plains it by an Arabic analogy as meaning the natural furniture of the 
 animal. The b§ before as does not seem to be a mere equivalent to ^x, 
 but rather, as in v. 5, to mean on account of, for the sake of. 
 
 V. 7. And Egypt (or the Egyptians) in vain and to no purpose shall 
 they help. Therefore I cry concerning this, their strength is to sit still. 
 This, which is the common English Version of the last clause, is substantially 
 the same with Calvin's. Later writers have rejected it, however, on the 
 ground, that nrn, according to etymology and usage, does not mean strength 
 but indolence. On this supposition, the Vulgate version would be more cor- 
 rect (superbiatantum est, quiesce), raw being then explained as the impera- 
 tive of raui to cease, to rest. This construction is exactly in accordance 
 with the masoretic accents, which connect dm with 'Sen and disjoin it from 
 raw. But the last word, as now pointed, must be either a noun or an in- 
 finitive. Since am occurs elsewhere as a name of Egypt, most of the mod- 
 ern writers take ina^p in the sense of naming, which is fully justified by usage, 
 and understand the clause as contrasting the pretensions of Egypt with its 
 actual performances, the two antagonist ideas being those of arrogance or 
 insolence and quiescence or inaction. Thus Gesenius translates it, Gross- 
 maul das still sitzt, and Barnes, the blusterer that sittcth still. Besides the 
 obscurity of the descriptive epithets, the construction is perplexed by the 
 use, first of the feminine singular (nat), and then of the masculine plural 
 (on), both in reference to one subject. The common solution is that the 
 former has respect to the country, and the latter to the people. The general 
 meaning of the clause may be considered as determined by the one before 
 it. b=n and p^ are nouns used adverbially. Ewald introduces in the last 
 clause a paronomasia which is not in the original (Trotzige das isi Frostige), 
 
 V. 8. And now go, write it with them on a tablet and inscribe it in a 
 book, and let it be for a future day, for ever, to eternity. This, like the 
 similar precaution in ch. 8 : 1 , was intended to verify the fact of the predic- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 511 
 
 tion after the event. btnK seems to include the ideas of before them and 
 among them. Knobel infers rom this command, that the Prophet's house 
 must have been upon the street or square, in which the prediction was orally- 
 delivered. Most interpreters suppose two distinct inscriptions to be here 
 required, one on a solid tablet for public exhibition, and the other on parch- 
 ment or the like for preservation. But Gesenius more naturally understands 
 the words fffc and ^sc as equivalents, which is the less improbable, because 
 if a distinction were intended, ?pn would no doubt have been connected, not 
 with is& but with nib. Some of the ancient versions exchange i? for ns> (a 
 testimony for ever), which is adopted by several interpreters on the authority 
 of Deut. 31 : 19, 21, 26, where the same combination occurs. Ewald adds 
 that the idea of testimony is essential, and Knobel that the concurrence of 
 *f$-v would be cacophonous. 
 
 V. 9. For a people of rebellion (a rebellious people) is it, lying (or de- 
 nying) children, children (who) are not willing to learn the law of Jehovah, 
 By denying children Kimchi understands such as deny their father, Gill 
 such as falsely pretend to be his children. Hitzig gives the phrase a more 
 specific meaning, as denoting that they would deny the fact of the prediction 
 without some such attestation as the one required in the preceding verse. 
 The English Version makes this verse state the substance of the inscription, 
 that this is a rebellious people etc. 
 
 V. 10. Who say to the seers, Ye shall not see, and to the viewers, ye shall 
 not view for us right things ; speak unto us smooth things, view deceits. 
 There is great difficulty in translating this verse literally, as the two Hebrew 
 verbs, meaning to see, have no equivalents in English, which of themselves 
 suggest the idea of prophetic revelation. The common version (see not, 
 prophesy not), although it conveys the true sense substantially, leaves out 
 of view the near relation of the two verbs to each othe/ in the original. In 
 the translation above given, view is introduced merely as a synonyme of see, 
 both being here used to express supernatural or prophetic vision. With this 
 use of the verbal noun (seer) we are all familiar through the English Bible. 
 Clericus translates both verbs in the present (non videtis), which would 
 make the verse a simple denial of the inspiration of the prophets, or of the 
 truth of their communications. Most interpreters prefer the imperative form, 
 which is certainly implied ; but the safest because the most exact construc- 
 tion is Luther's, which adheres to the strict sense of the future (ye shall not 
 see). This is of course not given as the actual language of the people, but 
 as the tendency and spirit of their acts. It is an ingenious but extravagant 
 idea of Cocceius, that the first clause of this verse condemns the prohibition 
 of the Scriptures by antichristian teachers, who say to those seeing ye shall 
 
512 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 not see etc. Even if the first clause could be naturally thus explained, 
 the same sense could not possibly be put upon the others. Smooth things 
 or words is a common figurative term for flatteries. Luther's expressive 
 version is, preach soft to us, 
 
 V. 1 1. Depart from the way, swerve from the path, cause to cease from 
 before us the Holy One of Israel. The request is not (as Gill suggests) 
 that they would get out of the people's way, so as no longer to prevent their 
 going on in sin, but that they would get out of their own way, i. e. wander 
 from it or forsake it. This way is explained by Gesenius to be the way of 
 piety and virtue, but by Hitzig more correctly as the way which they had 
 hitherto pursued in the discharge of their prophetic functions. Cause to 
 cease from before us, i. e. remove from our sight. It was a common opinion 
 with the older writers, that this clause alludes to Isaiah's frequent repetition 
 of the name Holy One of Israel, and contains a request that they might 
 hear it no more. But the modern interpreters appear to be agreed that the 
 allusion is not to the name but the person. Cocceius understands the clause 
 as relating to the antichristian exclusion of Christ from the church as its 
 sanctifier. The form of the preposition (?|%) is peculiar to this place. 
 
 V. 12. Therefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because of your 
 rejecting (or despising) this word, and (because) ye have trusted in oppres- 
 sion and perverseness, and have relied thereon. On the hypothesis already 
 stated, that the people had expressed a particular dislike to the title Holy 
 One of Israel, Piscator supposes that the Prophet here intentionally uses it, 
 as if in defiance of their impious unbelief. Gill even thinks that this word 
 may mean this name. But all this seems to limit the meaning of the 
 terms too much. The word here mentioned is no doubt the law of v. 9, 
 both being common epithets of revelation generally, and of particular divine 
 communications. (See the note on ch. 2 : 3.) J. D. Michaelis ingeniously 
 converts the last clause into a description of Egypt, as itself oppressed and 
 therefore unfit to be the protector of Israel. But in order to extract this 
 meaning from the words, he is forced into an arbitrary change of the point- 
 ing. Houbigant and Lowth instead of pV3 read upr, thus making it synony- 
 mous with nba. The latter word seems to denote perverseness or moral 
 obliquity in general. It is rendered in a strong idiomatic form by Hitzig 
 (Verschmitztheit) and Ewald (Querwege). 
 
 V. 13. Therefore shall this iniquity be to you like a breach falling (or 
 ready to fall) swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking may come suddenly, 
 at (any) instant. J. D. Michaelis, by another arbitrary change of text, 
 reads this help instead of this iniquity. The image is that of a wall which 
 

 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 513 
 
 is rent or cracked and, as Gill says, bellies out and bulges. The verse is ex- 
 plained with great unanimity by the interpreters until we come to Hitzig, 
 who puts an entirely new face upon the simile. He objects with some truth 
 to the old interpretation that it assumes without authority a future meaning 
 of the participle bsb, and that it makes the breach or chasm swell and fall 
 instead of the wall itself. He then infers, from the use of yya in 2 Sam. 
 5: 20 and of nssn in Isaiah 64 : 1, that the former here denotes a torrent 
 (Wzldstrom), falling upon (i. e. attacking, as in Josh. 11 : 7), and swelling 
 against a high wall. The weakest point in this ingenious combination is 
 the necessity of construing bsb with a, from which it is separated by was. 
 To remove this difficulty, Hendewerk, adopting the same general construc- 
 tion, takes the whole phrase bss yt in the sense of waterfall. The later 
 German writers, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, have returned to the old in- 
 terpretation. Ewald, however, to remove the first of Hitzig's objections, 
 applies bsb not to the falling of the wall, but to the sinking or extension 
 downwards of the breach itself (ein sinkender Miss) ; while Knobel gains 
 the same end by explaining ynz to be not the aperture or chasm but the 
 portion of the wall affected by it. This last explanation had been previously 
 and independently proposed by Henderson, who says that the word here 
 means properly the piece forming one side of the breach or rent. But this 
 is really a mere concession that the strict and usual sense is inappropriate. 
 With respect to the main point, that the figures were intended to express the 
 idea of sudden destruction, there is and can be no diversity of judgment. 
 In favour of the old interpretation, as compared with Hitzig's, it may be 
 suggested, that the former conveys the idea of a gradual yet sudden catas- 
 trophe, which is admirably suited to the context. It is also true, as Umbreit 
 well observes, that the idea of a downfall springing from internal causes is 
 more appropriate in this connexion than that of mere external violence how- 
 ever overwhelming. 
 
 V. 14. And it (the wall) is broken like the breaking of a potter's ves- 
 sel (any utensil of earthen ware), broken unsparingly (or without mercy), so 
 that there is not found in its fracture (or among its fragments) a sherd to 
 take up fire from a hearth, and to skim (or dip up) water from a pool. 
 The first words strictly mean, he breaks it, not the enemy, as Knobel sup- 
 poses, which would imply an allusion to the breach made in a siege, but he 
 indefinitely, i. e. some one (Cocceius : aliquis franget), which may be 
 resolved into a passive form as in the Vulgate (comminuetur). It is wholly 
 gratuitous to read n^n^n. The phrase ^Krt &> niris exhibits a construction 
 wholly foreign from our idiom and therefore not susceptible of literal transla- 
 tion. The nearest approach to it is, breaking he spareth not (or will not 
 spare). Sherd is an old English word, now seldom used, meaning a broken 
 
 33 
 
514 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 piece of pottery or earthenware, and found more frequently in the compound 
 form of potsherd. A potter's vessel, literally, vessel of the potters, nnn, 
 except in a single instance, is always applied to the taking up of fire, tjten 
 is strictly to remove the surface of a liquid, but may here have greater latitude 
 of meaning. For sqa the English Version has pit, Lowth cistern, and most 
 other writers well ; but in Ezek. 47 : 1 1 it denotes a marsh or pool. Ewald 
 supposes a particular allusion to the breaking of a poor man's earthen 
 pitcher, an idea which had been suggested long before by Gill : as poor 
 people are wont to do, to take fire from the hearth and water out of a well in 
 a piece of broken pitcher. 
 
 V. 15. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in 
 returning (or conversion) and rest shall ye be saved, in remaining quiet and 
 in confidence shall be your strength ; and ye would not (or were not willing). 
 This overwhelming judgment would be strictly just because they had been 
 fully admonished of the way of safety. Here again Gill supposes a peculiar 
 significance in the repetition of the Holy One of Israel. The rabbinical 
 explanation of hSWi as a derivative from -tt)^ is gratuitous and certainly not 
 justified by Num. 10:36. Grotius understands by returning retrocession 
 from their unlawful measures and negotiations. The Targum gives it the 
 more general sense of returning to the law, which agrees in substance with 
 the common explanation of the term as meaning a return to God by repent- 
 ance and conversion. (For the spiritual usage of the verb, see the note on 
 ch. 1 : 27.) This sense Gesenius mentions as admissible although he pre- 
 fers to assume a hendiadys, by returning to repose, which is needless and 
 unnatural. Hitzig's idea that the word denotes returning to one's self may 
 be considered as included in the other. 
 
 V. 16. And ye said, No, for we will flee upon horses ; therefore shall 
 ye flee ; and upon the swift will we ride : therefore shall your pursuers be 
 swift. Calvin points out a double sense of 0*13 in this verse, and the modern 
 interpreters express it in their versions, the most successful being that of 
 Ewald, who employs the kindred forms fliegen and fliehen. This can be 
 perfectly copied in English by the use of fly and flee ; but it maybe doubt- 
 ed whether this is not a mere refinement, as the Hebrew verb in every other 
 case means to flee, and the hope here ascribed to the people is not simply 
 that of going swiftly, but of escaping from the dangers threatened. In bg 
 and \fofy the primary sense of lightness is very often merged in that of rapid 
 motion. Knobel discovers an additional paronomasia in d^cid, which he 
 makes perceptible in German by employing the three words, fliegen, fliehen, 
 fluchtigen. Many of the older writers use a comparative expression in the 
 last clause after the example of the Vulgate (velociores). Grotius gives 
 •pDWFi the specific sense of exsulabitis. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 515 
 
 V. 17. One thousand from before the rebuke (or menace) of one, from 
 before the rebuke of five shall ye flee, until ye are left like a mast (or pole) 
 on the top of the mountain, and like the signal on the hill. From the use of 
 the definite article in the last clause, Junius and Tremellius needlessly in- 
 fer that the meaning is this mountain, this hill, meaning Zion. The 
 pleonastic form one thousand is not urged by any of the German writers as 
 a proof of later date. To supply a particle of comparison (as one) is of 
 course entirely unnecessary. To complete the parallelism, and to conform 
 the expression to Lev. 26: 8, Deut. 32 : 31, Lowth supposes na^l (a 
 myriad) to have dropped out of the text, and finds a trace of this original 
 reading in the Septuagint version /. Instead of a definite expres- 
 
 sion, Clericus and others supply omnes. The former emendation, al- 
 though not adopted, is favoured by Gesenius ; but the later writers reject 
 both, not only as unnecessary, but because, as Hitzig well observes, such a 
 change would disturb the connexion with what follows, the sense being 
 plainly this, that they should flee until they tf ere left etc. V^n is taken as 
 the name of a tree by Augusti (Tannenbaum) and Rosenmuller (pinus),by 
 Gesenius and Ewald as a signal or a signal-pole. In the only two cases 
 where it occurs elsewhere, it has the specific meaning of a mast. The 
 allusion may be simply to the similar appearance of a lofty and solitary tree, 
 or the common idea may be that of a flagstaff, which might be found in either 
 situation. The word beacon, here employed by Gataker and Barnes, is 
 consistent neither with the Hebrew nor the English usage. The idea of the 
 last clause, as expressed by Hitzig, is that no two of them should remain 
 together. (Compare 1 Sam. 11: 11.) 
 
 V. 18. And therefore will Jehovah ivait to have mercy upon you, and 
 therefore will he rise up (or be exalted) to pity you, for a God of judgmem 
 is Jehovah ; blessed are all that wait for him. The apparent incongruity 
 of this promise with the threatening which immediately precedes, has led to 
 various constructions of the first clause. The most violent and least satis- 
 factory is that which takes 1$* in the rare and doubtful sense of but or 
 nevertheless. This is adopted among recent writers by Gesenius, Barnes, 
 Henderson. Another solution, given by Vitringa, leaves )sh to be under- 
 stood as usual, but converts the seeming promise into a threatening, by 
 explaining nsn-i will delay (to be gracious), and dH? will remain afar off 
 (Jarchi: pnp'). But this is certainly not the obvious and natural meaning 
 of the Prophet's words. nan elsewhere means to wait with earnest expecta- 
 tion and desire, and the Kal is so used in the last clause of this very verse. 
 This objection also lies against Maurer's explanation of the clause as refer- 
 ing to delay of punishment. Hitzig supposes the connexion to be this : 
 therefore (because the issue of your present course must be so fatal) he will 
 
516 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 wait or allow you time for repentance. Knobel applies the whole to God's 
 intended dealings with them after the threatened judgments should have 
 been endured. On the whole, the simplest and most probable conclusion 
 seems to be that }sb has its usual meaning, but refers, as in many other 
 cases, to a remoter antecedent than the words immediately before it. As if 
 the Prophet paused at this point and reviewing his denunciations said, 
 Since this is so, since you must perish if now dealt with strictly, God will 
 allow you space for repentance, he will wait to be gracious, he will exalt 
 himself by showing mercy. J. H. Michaelis, with much the same effect, 
 refers "jai to the condition mentioned in v. 15. Therefore (if you will be 
 quiet and believe) Jehovah will wait etc. Another difficulty of the same 
 kind has arisen from the next clause, where the justice of God seems to be 
 given as a reason for showing mercy. Gill removes the difficulty by trans- 
 lating *? although ; Henderson by taking ofittja in the sense of rectitude, 
 including as a prominent idea faithfulness or truth in the fulfilment of his 
 promises. Another expedient suggested by Gill is to give asiBa the sense 
 of discretion. That the clause does not relate to righteousness or justice in 
 the strict sense, appears plain from the added benediction upon those who 
 trust Jehovah. One point is universally admitted, namely, that somewhere 
 in this verse is the transition from the tone of threatening to that of promise. 
 The question where it shall be fixed, though interesting, does not affect the 
 general connexion or the import of the passage as a whole. Ewald 
 strangely adopts, as absolutely necessary, Houbigant's emendation of the 
 text, by reading oi-n for oi*r, and explains the former to mean, does not 
 suffer himself to be moved (riihrt sich nicht), an explanation scarcely less 
 arbitrary than the criticism on which it is founded. 
 
 V. 19. For the people in Zion shall dwell in Jerusalem; thou shalt 
 weep no more ; he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry ; 
 as he hears it he will answer thee. The position of the first verb in this 
 English sentence leaves it doubtful wbether it is to be construed with what 
 follows or what goes before. Precisely the same ambiguity exists in the 
 original, which may either mean tnat the people who are now in Zion shall 
 dwell in Jerusalem, or that the people shall dwell in Zion, in Jerusalem. 
 This last is the most natural construction, and the one indicated by the 
 accents. It is adopted in the English version, but with a needless variation 
 of the particle, in Zion at Jerusalem. According to Henderson, the a ex- 
 presses more strongly the relation of the Jews to Zion as their native home. 
 But this assertion is hardly borne out by the places which he cites (ch. 21 : 
 13. 1 Kings 16: 24. 2 Kings 5: 23). In the translation above given the 
 Hebrew order is restored. According to these constructions, dwell must 
 be taken in the strong sense of remaining or continuing to dwell (Hende- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 517 
 
 werk), in allusion to the deportation of the rest of Judah (Grotius), or of 
 the ten tribes (Clericus). But a very different construction of the first 
 clause is proposed by Doderlein, and approved by Gesenius and Ewald. 
 These interpreters regard the whole clause as a vocative, or in other words 
 as a description of the object of address. For oh people in Zion, dwelling 
 in Jerusalem, thou shalt weep no more. To obtain this sense, we must 
 either read rj^ as a participle, or supply the relative before it, and suppose 
 a sudden change of person, as in ch. 28: 16, and 29 : 14. This necessity, 
 together with the collocation of the *a, renders the vocative construction less 
 natural and probable than that which makes the first clause a distinct pro- 
 position or promise. Besides, it is not easy to account for so extended a 
 description of the people, as a mere introduction to the w r ords that follow. 
 These words are made emphatic by the combination of the infinitive and 
 finite verb. DeWette, according to his wont, regards it as an idiomatic 
 pleonasm. Grotius translates the first phrase, non diu flebis ;• the English 
 Version, thou shalt weep no more. (For the usage of this combination to 
 express continued action, see theyiiote on ch. 6: 9.) Ewald adheres 
 more closely to the form of the original by simple repetition of the verb 
 (weinen weinen sollst du nicht, begnadigen begnadigen wird er dich). Coc- 
 ceius retains the strict sense of the preterite Tjas as an appeal to their expe- 
 rience (cum audivit respondit tibi). This yields a good sense, but the other 
 agrees better with the context. The particle of comparison has its usual 
 sense before the infinitive, and is best represented by the English as. 
 Lowth, on the authority of the Septuagint, inserts m^p and changes tib to 
 ib, reading the whole clause thus : when a holy people shall dwell in Zion, 
 when in Jerusalem thou shalt implore him with weeping. For the form 
 tair* see Gen. 43 : 29. 
 
 V. 20. And the Lord will give you bread of affliction and water of op- 
 pression, and no more shall thy teachers hide themselves, and thine eyes shall 
 see thy teachers. The first clause is conditionally construed by Calvin (ubi 
 dederit), Vitringa (siquidem), and Ewald (gibt euch). Clericus refers it to 
 the past (dedit). But both usage and the context require that 1 should be 
 regarded as conversive, and the condition, though implied, is not expressed. 
 The Vulgate renders "<x and yrb as adjectives (panem arctum, aquam bre- 
 vem). DeDieu supposes them to be in apposition with the noun preceding, 
 affliction (as) bread, and oppression (as) water. This is favoured by the abso- 
 lute form of Qia ; but the same words are construed in the same way 1 Kings 
 22 : 27, where the reference can only be to literal meat and drink. For 
 other examples of the absolute instead of the construct, see the Hebrew 
 grammars. Gesenius supplies in before affliction and oppression, implying 
 that even in the midst of their distress God would feed them. Jarchi re- 
 
518 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 gards this as a description of the temperate diet of the righteous, and Junius 
 likewise renders it, modice cibaberis. The true connexion seems to be, that 
 God would afflict them outwardly, but would not deprive them of their 
 spiritual privileges ; or, as Cocceius says, there should be a famine of bread, 
 but not of the word of the Lord (Amos 8: 11). From the use of v]33 in 
 the sense of wing and come?', the reflexive verb has been variously explained 
 as meaning to fly away (Montanus), and to be removed into a corner (Eng- 
 lish Version) or shut up in one (Junius). It is now commonly agreed, 
 however, that the primary sense is that of covering, and that the Niphal 
 means to hide one's self. The Vulgate renders 9fHm as a singular (docto- 
 rem tuum), in which it is followed by Ewald, who explains the Hebrew 
 word as a singular form peculiar to the roots with final h. (See the note on 
 ch. 5: 12.) Thus understood, the word must of course be applied to God 
 himself, as the great teacher of his people. Kimchi's explanation of the 
 word as meaning the early rain (which sense it has in Joel 2 : 23 and per- 
 haps in Ps. 84 : 7) has been retained only by Calvin and Lowth. The 
 great majority of writers adhere, not ooly to the sense of teacher, but to the 
 plural import of the form, and understand the word as a designation or de- 
 scription of the prophets, with particular reference, as some suppose, to 
 their reappearance after a period of severe persecution or oppression. (See 
 Ezek. 33 : 22.) 
 
 V. 21. And thine ears shall hear a word from behind thee, saying, 
 This is the ivay, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right and tvhen ye turn 
 to the left. The Septuagint makes this the voice of seducers (rwy nlavri- 
 aavrw) ; but it is evidently that of a faithful guide and monitor ; according 
 to the Rabbins, the Bath Kol or mysterious echo which conducts and warns 
 the righteous. Word is an idiomatic expression used where we should say 
 one speaking. The direction of the voice from behind is commonly ex- 
 plained by saying, that the image is borrowed from the practice of shepherds 
 ffoing behind their flocks, or nurses behind children, to observe their motions. 
 A much more natural solution is the one proposed by Henderson, to wit r 
 that their guides were to be before them, but that when they declined from 
 the right way their backs would be turned to them, consequently the warn- 
 ing voice would be heard behind them. The meaning of the call is, this is 
 the way which you have left, come back to it. Lowth follows the Septua- 
 gint, Targum, and Peshito, in making "^ a negative (turn not aside), wholly 
 without necessity or warrant. Interpreters are commonly agreed that the 
 particle is either conditional (if ye turn) or temporal (when ye turn); but 
 the simplest construction seems to be that proposed by Hendewerk (for ye 
 turn or will turn to the right and to the left). As if he had said, this warn- 
 ing will be necessary, for you will certainly depart at times from the path of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 519 
 
 safety. This idea may, however, be considered as included or implied in 
 the usual translation when. Calvin is singular in applying this clause, not 
 to deviations from the right path, but to the emergencies of life in general : 
 wherever you go, whichever way you turn, you shall hear this warning and 
 directing voice. The verbs in the last clause are derived from nouns mean- 
 ing the right and left hand. The peculiar form of the original is closely 
 and even barbarously copied by Montanus (cum dextraveritis et cum sinis- 
 traveritis). UFWtn may be either an inaccurate orthography for ^"^n, or 
 derived from a synonymous root }'2H. 
 
 V. 22. And ye shall defile (i. e. treat as unclean) the covering of thy 
 idols of silver and the case of thy image of gold, thou shalt scatter them (or 
 abhor them) as an abominable thing. Away ! shalt thou say to it. The 
 remarkable alternation of the singular and plural, both in the nouns and 
 verbs of this sentence, is retained in the translation. The sense of fcrssss 
 is determined by the analogy of 2 Kings 23: 8, 10, 13. The gold and 
 silver, both in Hebrew and English, may qualify either the image or the 
 covering. The latter is more probable, because the covering would scarcejy 
 have been mentioned, if it had not been commonly of greater value than the 
 body of the idol, b^&a and rtstra strictly denote graven and molten images 
 respectively, but are constantly employed as poetical equivalents. The 
 specific meaning given to fw* by the older writers, and by some of them 
 dwelt upon with needless and disgusting particularity, is rejected by Ewald, 
 who makes it synonymous with yn in Job 6 : 7, meaning loathsomeness or 
 any thing loathsome. He also connects d^tpi with the noun s^t in Numbers 
 11 : 20, and renders it abhor. The common meaning scatter is appropriate, 
 however, and is here recommended by its application to the dust or frag- 
 ments of the golden calf in Exodus 32 : 20. 
 
 V. 23. And he shall give the rain of thy seed (i. e. the rain necessary 
 to its growth), with ivhich thou shalt sow the ground, and bread, the produce 
 of the ground, and it shall be fat and rich ; thy cattle shall feed that day 
 in an enlarged pasture. Rosenmuller calls this a description of the golden 
 age, and cites a parallel from Virgil. He even mentions, as a trait in the 
 description, fruges nullo cultu enatae, whereas the very next words imply 
 laborious cultivation. J. D. Michaelis supposes the resumption of tillage 
 in the last years of Hezekiah to be here predicted. Henderson explains it 
 as a promise of increased fertility after the return from exile. All these 
 applications appear too exclusive. The text contains a promise of increased 
 prosperity after a season of privation, and was often verified. That is, 
 which usually has the sense of lamb, is ever used in that of pasture, is de- 
 nied by Hengstenberg (on Psalm 37: 20 and 65: 14). But the latter 
 
520 ISAIAH. CHAP. XXX. 
 
 meaning seems to be absolutely necessary here, and is accordingly assumed 
 by all interpreters. The passive participle nn-i: seems to imply, not only 
 that the pastures should be wide, but that they had once been narrow. 
 
 V. 24. And the oxen and the asses working the ground shall eat salted 
 provender which has been winnowed (literally, which one winnows) with 
 the sieve and fan. The meaning evidently is that the domesticated animals 
 shall fare as well as men in other times. The word ear, used in the English 
 Version, is an obsolete derivative of the Latin aro to plough. 7*R?»i £^?i 
 properly means fermented mixture. The first word is commonly supposed 
 to denote here a mixture of different kinds of grain, and the other a seasoning 
 of salt or acid herbs, peculiarly grateful to the stomachs of cattle. Lowth 
 translates the whole phrase well-fermented maslin, which is retained by 
 Barnes, while Henderson has salted provender. J. D. Michaelis supposes 
 the grain to be here described as twice winnowed ; but the implements 
 mentioned were probably employed in one and the same process. Augusti : 
 thrown to them (vorgeworfen) with the shovel and the fan. 
 
 V. 25. And there shall be, on every high mountain, and on every ele- 
 vated hill, channels, streams of water, in the day of great slaughter, in the 
 falling of towers (or when towers fall). J. D. Michaelis connects this with 
 what goes before, and understands it as a description of the height to which 
 agriculture would be carried, by means of artificial irrigation, after the over- 
 throw of the Assyrians. Grotius regards it as a promise of abundant rains. 
 Clericus calls this a gratuitous conjecture, but immediately proceeds to con- 
 nect the verse with the figures of v. 33, and to explain it as referring to the 
 water-courses which it would be necessary to open, in order to purify the 
 ground from the effects of such a slaughter. To this, much more justly 
 than to Grotius's interpretation, we may apply the words of Clericus himself 
 in another place, praestat tacere quam hariolari. He also arbitrarily gives 
 b? the sense of from. The simple meaning seems to be that water shall 
 flow where it never flowed before, a common figure in the Prophets for a 
 great change, and especially a change for the better. The same sense is 
 no doubt to be attached to the previous descriptions of abundance and fer- 
 tility. In allusion to the etymology of c^bs, Lowth poetically renders it 
 disparting rills. For e^}? Clericus reads c^sb, and understands it as 
 descriptive of the Assyrians, qui magnifice se efferebant. J. D. Michaelis 
 makes the same application, and translates the word Grosssprccher. A simi- 
 lar reading is implied in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus QieyaXvvo/ti- 
 rovc). Lowth has the mighty in imitation of the Targum (-, ">a~). Calvin 
 applies o^w, in its usual sense, to Babylon. Hitzig infers from the use 
 of the word afjn, that the towers meant are living towers, i.e. the Assyrian 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 521 
 
 chiefs. Knobel applies ihn to the slaughter of the Jews themselves, and 
 understands by towers their fortifications, of which there would be no further 
 need in the happy period here foretold. The words are referred by some of 
 the Jewish writers to the days of the Messiah ; by Vitringa, with a threefold 
 application, to the times of the Maccabees, of Constantine, and of the sev- 
 enth Apocalyptic period ; by Gill, to the slaughter of the antichristian kings 
 described in Rev. 19: 17-21. The diversity and arbitrary nature of these 
 explanations show that there are no sufficient data in the text itself for any 
 such specific and exclusive application. AH that can certainly be gathered 
 from the words is, that a period of war and carnage should be followed by 
 one of abundance and prosperity. 
 
 V. 26. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and 
 the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day 
 of Jehovah's binding up the breach of his people, and the stroke of his 
 icound he ivill heal. Instead of the usual words for sun and moon, we have 
 here two poetical expressions, one denoting heat and the other white. 
 Lowth renders one simply moon, but the other meridian sun. Augusti has 
 pale moon and burning sun. (Ewald : das bleiche Mondlicht und das 
 Glutlicht.) Lowth pronounces the words as the light of seven days to be 
 ' a manifest gloss, taken in from the margin ; it is not in most of the copies 
 of the LXX ; it interrupts the rhythmical construction, and obscures the 
 sense by a false or at least an unnecessary interpretation.' This sentence 
 is remarkable as furnishing the model, upon which the textual criticism of 
 the modern Germans, with respect to glosses, seems to have been moulded. 
 We have here the usual supposition of a transfer from the margin, the usual 
 appeal to some defective ancient version, the usual complaint of interrupted 
 rhythm, and the usual alternative of needless or erroneous explanation. 
 The liberties which Lowth took with the text, in pursuance of a false but 
 favourite hypothesis, have led, by a legitimate but unforeseen application of 
 his principles, to results from which he would himself have undoubtedly 
 recoiled. As to the history of this particular criticism, it is approved by 
 Gesenius and Hitzig, but rejected by Ewald and Umbreit, who observes 
 that the addition of these words was necessary to explain the previous words 
 as not describing seven suns, but the light of one sun upon seven days. 
 Maimonides supposes an allusion to the seven days of the dedication of 
 Solomon's temple. The Targum, still more strangely, multiplies the seven 
 twice into itself and reads, three hundred and forty-three days, a conceit no 
 doubt founded upon some cabalistic superstition. Grotius explains the 
 fio-ures of this verse as denoting joy, and quotes as a classical parallel, ipse 
 mihi visus pulchrior ire dies, to which Vitringa adds, gratior it dies et 
 soles melius nitent. It is plain however that the Prophet's language is 
 
522 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 designed, not merely to express great joy, but to describe a change in the 
 face of nature, as an emblem of some great revolution in the state of society. 
 (Compare ch. 13 : 10, 13.) It is therefore another item added to the cata- 
 logue of previous similes or comparisons, all denoting the same thing, yet 
 showing by their very diversity that they denote it only in a tropical or 
 figurative manner. Hendewerk ironically censures Hengstenberg for not 
 including the improved feed of oxen and asses among the attributes of the 
 Messiah's reign. But the real inconsistency is on the part of those who 
 understand v. 24 in its strictest sense, and yet explain the verse before us 
 as a mere poetical description or imaginative anticipation. The remark of 
 J. D. Michaelis upon this point may be quoted as characteristic of his mind 
 and manner. ' This is not to be literally taken, for it would be very incon- 
 venient to us, if it were as bright by night as it is now by day when the sun 
 shines ; and if the sun should shine seven times brighter than now, we must 
 be blinded.' According to Gesenius, the wounds referred to in the last 
 clause are the wounds inflicted by false teachers ; but there seems to be no 
 reason for restricting the import of the terms as descriptive of suffering in 
 general. 
 
 V. 27. Behold, the name of Jehovah cometh from afar, burning his an- 
 ger and heavy the ascent (of smoke): his lips are full of wrath and his 
 tongue as a devouring fire. Koppe begins a new division here without 
 necessity. By the name of Jehovah we are not simply to understand 
 Jehovah himself, but Jehovah as revealed in word or act, and therefore 
 glorious. (Grotius : Deus omni laude dignissimus.) According to Ray- 
 mund Martini, the expression was applied by the old Jews to the Messiah. 
 Gill thinks it may denote the angel who destroyed Sennacherib's army. 
 J. D. Michaelis takes the name in its strict sense and translates the verb 
 erschallet (the name of Jehovah sounds or echoes from afar), pinna is by 
 some referred to time, but the proper local sense is more appropriate. 
 Clericus alone translates isat his face (ardens facies ejus). The English 
 Version makes isa agree with rati and supplies a preposition before isx 
 (burning with his anger). Others supply the preposition before ^s'a (with 
 his burning anger). Others make the clause an independent proposition 
 (burning is his anger). Ewald adopts a construction similar to that of the 
 ablative absolute in Latin (his anger burning). Augusti supposes the next 
 words to mean, he makes the burden heavy, which implies a change of text, 
 at least as to the pointing. Most of the late interpreters explain nx^s as 
 synonymous with natoa, meaning strictly the ascent of smoke or flame, and 
 by metonymy the smoke or flame itself. (Compare the notes on.ch. 9: 18, 
 19.) Barnes: the flame is heavy. Henderson: dense is the smoke. Hen- 
 dewerk has Rauchsaule (column of smoke), Umbreit aufstiegcnder Brand 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 523 
 
 ascending fire or conflagration) . Ewald and Knobel have reverted to the 
 primary meaning, ascent or elevation. The former has gewaltiger Erhe- 
 bung ; the latter, heavy (i. e. slow) is the rising of Jehovah in the distance. 
 Oecolampadius understands by lips and tongue the sentence pronounced 
 by the Messiah on his enemies : but the words are to be strictly under- 
 stood, as traits in the prophetic picture of this terrible epiphany. 
 
 V. 28. And his breath (or spirit), like an overflowing stream, shall divide 
 as far as the neck, to sift the nations in the sieve of falsehood, and a mis- 
 leading bridle on the jaws of the people. There are here three metaphors 
 employed to express the same general idea, those of a flood, a sieve, and a 
 bridle. Umbreit is singular in putting a favourable meaning on the last 
 two, as implying that the nations should be purged, not destroyed, by sifting, 
 and that when they thought themselves misled they should be brought into 
 the right path by a way they knew not. This is far less natural than the 
 common explanation of the whole verse as a threatening against Jehovah's 
 enemies. Grotius renders tj^n anger, Luther and the English Version 
 breath ; but there is no sufficient reason for excluding an allusion to the 
 Holy Spirit as a personal agent. Junius makes nttn^ a preterite in accord- 
 ance with his notion that the whole verse has respect to the Assyrian 
 oppression of the tributary nations. The verb means strictly to divide into 
 halves, and is here explained by the English Version in the sense of reach- 
 ing to the midst ; but most interpreters adopt the explanation of Vatablus, 
 that the water rising to the neck divides the body into two unequal parts. 
 The metaphor itself, as in ch. 8 : 8, denotes extreme danger. The phrase 
 soaj PS3 is ambiguous. It may either mean the sieve of falsehood (Clericus, 
 cribro mendacii) or of wickedness in general, i. e. the instrument by which 
 the wicked and especially the false are to be punished ; or the sieve of ruin, 
 pointing out the issue of the process, as the other version does the object 
 upon which it acts. This last sense is attained, in a different way, by Cal- 
 vin, who explains the words to mean in a useless (or worthless) sieve, i. e. 
 according to Gill's paraphrase, ' they were to be sifted, not with a good and 
 profitable sieve, which retains the corn and shakes out the chaff, or so as to 
 have some taken out and spared, but with a sieve that lets all through, and 
 so be brought to nothing, as the Vulgate Latin Version (in nihilum). 1 
 Barnes's translation of this clause is, to toss the nations with the winnowing 
 shovel of perdition, ttsrrt is noted by Gesenius and Knobel as a Chaldee 
 form, but neither of them seems to regard it as a proof that the passage is 
 later than the time of Isaiah. The construction of this verb with * ( c"i is 
 regarded by some writers as an instance of zeugma. Others supply the 
 verb to put, others the substantive verb to be, or there shall be, as in the 
 English Version. The connexion is in any case too plain to be mistaken. 
 
524 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 The last clause is paraphrased by Luther as denoting that Jehovah would 
 drive the nations hither and thither (hin und her treibe). Most interpreters 
 prefer the more specific sense of leading astray or in the wrong direction, 
 with particular allusion, as J. D. Michaelis supposes, to the fact that Sen- 
 nacherib was misled by a false report respecting Tirhakah the king of Ethio- 
 pia. The equestrian allusion in the text has nowhere perhaps been so fully 
 carried out as in the old French Version, qui les fera trotter a travers 
 champs. 
 
 V. 29. The song (or singing) shall be to you (i. e. your song shall be) 
 like the night of the consecration of a feast, and joy of heart (i. e. your 
 joy shall be) like (that of) one marching with the pipe (or flute) to go into 
 the mountain of Jehovah, to the Mock of Israel. The night may be par- 
 ticularly mentioned in the first clause, either because all the Mosaic festivals 
 began in the evening, or with special allusion to the Passover, which is 
 described in the law (Ex. 12: 42) as a night to be much observed unto the 
 Lord, as that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel 
 in their generations. By ciprn we are probably to understand the whole 
 celebration of the feast, and not the mere proclaiming of it, as expressed by 
 Lowth and Barnes. This verse gives an interesting glimpse of ancient 
 usage as to the visitation of the temple at the greater yearly festivals. The 
 Rock of Israel is not Mount Zion or Moriah, but Jehovah himself, to whose 
 presence they resorted, as appears from 2 Samuel 23 : 3. 
 
 V. 30. And Jehovah shall cause to be heard the majesty of his voice, 
 and the descent of his arm shall he cause to be seen, with indignation of 
 anger and a flame of devouring fire, scattering and rain and hailstones 
 (literally stone of hail). There is no more need of explaining Jehovah's 
 voice to be thunder than there is of explaining the stroke of his arm to be 
 lightning, both which explanations are in fact given by Knobel. The im- 
 age presented is that of a theophany, in which storm and tempest are only 
 accompanying circumstances, rre may be either a derivative of nw to rest 
 or of rns to descend, although the latter is more probably itself derived from 
 the noun. Lowth's translation of 5)« t|?ta (with wrath indignant) is neither 
 so exact nor so impressive as the literal version. ",'B3 is rendered by the older 
 writers as an abstract noun from ytUo scatter ; \>y Rosenmuller and Knobel 
 as a poetical description of the winds as scattered ; but by Gesenius, from 
 the Chaldee and Arabic analogy, as meaning a violent or driving rain. 
 
 V. 3 1 . For at the voice of Jehovah shall Assyria (or the Assyrian) be 
 broken, with the rod shall he smite. The "jo before ^ip may denote either 
 the time or the cause of the effect described, and may accordingly be ren- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 525 
 
 dered either at or by. The first may be preferred as more comprehensive 
 and as really including the other. WQH originally means to be broken, and 
 is so used in ch. 7 : 8 above ; but it is commonly applied, in a figurative 
 sense, to the breaking of the spirit or the courage by alarm. Here some 
 translate it beaten down, as in the English Version, others frightened or 
 confounded, as in Luther's (erschrecken). There are two constructions of 
 the last clause, one continuing Assyria as the subject of the verb, the other 
 referring it to Jehovah. Forerius amends the text by reading ns? in the 
 passive (he shall be smitten), which gratuitous suggestion is adopted by Dathe 
 and Koppe. Lowth, not content with supplying the relative before tftrj, 
 inserts it in the text, on the authority of Seeker's conjecture that it may 
 have dropped out (forte excidit). The past form given to the verb, not 
 only in the English Version (smote) but by Hitzig (schlug), seems entirely 
 unauthorized by usage or the context. Ewald, less violently, reads it as a 
 present (schlagt) , but even if Assyria be the subject of the clause, it is 
 clear that the Prophet speaks of her oppressions as being, in whole or in 
 part, still future to his own perceptions. A much less simple and success- 
 ful method of accounting for the future is by making the verb mean that 
 Assyria was ready or about to smite, with Lowth and Vitringa (vriga per- 
 cussurus). But by far the most natural construction of the clause is that 
 which supplies nothing and adheres to the strict sense of the future, by con- 
 necting ns? not with "WSfil but fWj, both which are mentioned in the other 
 clause. Gesenius, although right in this respect, mars the beautiful sim- 
 plicity of the construction, by gratuitously introducing when at the beginning 
 of the first clause, and then at the beginning of the second. No less ob- 
 jectionable, on the score of taste, is the use of yea or yes, as an equivalent 
 to **, by DeWette and Ewald. Knobel's translation of the same word by 
 then is as arbitrary here as in ch. 7 : 9, the only authority to which he ap- 
 peals. The express mention of Assyria in this verse, though it does not 
 prove it to have been from the beginning the specific subject of the prophecy, 
 does show that it was a conspicuous object in Isaiah's view, as an example 
 both of danger and deliverance, and that. at this point he concentrates his 
 prophetic vision on this object as a signal illustration of the general truths 
 which he has been announcing. 
 
 V. 32. And every passage of the rod of doom, which Jehovah will lay 
 (or cause to rest) upon him, shall be with tabrets and harps, and with fights 
 of shaking it is fought therein. There is the same diversity of judgment 
 here as in the foregoing verse, with respect to the question whether the rod 
 mentioned in the first clause is the rod which the Assyrian wielded, or the 
 rod which smote himself. On the former supposition, the sense would seem 
 to be, that in every place through which the rod of the oppressor had before 
 
526 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 
 
 passed there should now be heard the sound of joyful music. This con- 
 struction not only involves the necessity of supplying in before the first 
 noun, but leaves the words which Jehovah will lay upon him either unmean- 
 ing or irrelevant, or at least far less appropriate than if the reference be to 
 Jehovah's judgments on Assyria, which is further recommended by the 
 reasons above given for applying the last words of v. 31 to the same catas- 
 trophe. Assuming therefore that the clause before us was likewise intended 
 to be so applied, the sense would seem to be that every passage of Jehovah's 
 rod (i. e. every stroke which passes from it to the object) will be hailed, by 
 those whom the Assyrian had oppressed, with joy and exultation. It is an 
 ingenious suggestion of Henderson, though scarcely justified by Hebrew 
 usage, that "oss is here employed in the peculiar acceptation of the English 
 pass, as used to denote a push or thrust in fencing. This combination, 
 however, is not needed to justify his version (stroke). For rvibis Clericus 
 reads rnons or ~D^ (supplicii), on the ground of which conjecture, and the 
 authority of one or two manuscripts, Lowth amends the text and translates 
 accordingly (the rod of correction). In like manner J. D. Michaelis in his 
 German version (strafenden Stab). None of the later writers seem to 
 have retained this needless emendation. The common version, grounded 
 staff, is almost unintelligible. It may have some connexion with Calvin's 
 explanation of the Hebrew phrase as meaning, a staff grounded, that is firmly 
 planted, in the object smitten, or as J. D. Michaelis (in his Notes) has it, well 
 laid on (recht vest und stark auf den Riicken geleget). This, to use a 
 favourite expression of the grdat Reformer, seems both forced and frigid. It 
 is now very generally agreed that rns^ denotes the divine determination or 
 decree, and that the whole phrase means the rod appointed by him, or to put 
 it in a form at once exact and poetical, the rod of destiny or doom. 
 Umbreit attaches to the words the specific sense of long since determined 
 (lang verhangte), which is not in the original. The tabrets and harps are 
 not here named as the ordinary military music (Gill), nor as the sacred 
 music which on particular occasions was connected with the march of ar- 
 mies (2 Chron. 20: 21, 22). , Nor is the meaning that Jehovah would 
 overcome the enemy as if in sport or like a merry-making (Grotius), which 
 is inconsistent with the words that follow, battles of shaking, i. e. agitating 
 or tumultuous battles, or as some explain the words, convulsive, struggling 
 conflicts. The true sense seems to be, that every stroke would be attended 
 with rejoicing on the part of the spectators, and especially of those who had 
 been subject to oppression. tan^3 may agree with nirn as an active or depo- 
 nent verb, or be construed impersonally as by Ewald (wird gekampft). The 
 keri (oa) must of course mean with them i. e. the Assyrians. The kethib 
 (na) is commonly explained to mean with her i. e. Assyria considered as a 
 country. But Ewald takes it to mean there, or literally in it, i. e. in the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXX. 527 
 
 Holy Land. This, if we make the verb impersonal, is natural enough, ex- 
 cept that it assumes an antecedent not expressly mentioned in the context. 
 Be this as it may, the general sense is plain, to wit, that God would vio- 
 lently overthrow Assyria. 
 
 V. 33. For arranged since yesterday is Tophet ; even it for the king is 
 prepared ; he has deepened, he has widened (it) ; its pile fire and wood in 
 plenty ; the breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it. It is 
 universally agreed that the destruction of the Assyrian king is here described 
 as a burning of his body at a stake or on a funeral-pile. But whether the 
 king mentioned be an individual king or an ideal representative of all, and 
 whether this is a mere figurative representation of his temporal destruction 
 or a premonition of his doom hereafter, are disputed questions. Tophet is 
 well known to have been the name of a place in the valley of Hinnom 
 where children were sacrificed to Moloch, and on that account afterwards 
 defiled by the deposit of the filth of the city, to consume which constant 
 fires were maintained. Hence, by a natural association, Tophet, as well as 
 the more general name, Valley of Hinnom, was applied by the later Jews 
 to the place of future torment. The Chaldee paraphrase of this verse ren- 
 ders nnsn by'DDna. The name Tophet has been commonly derived from 
 Opm, to spit upon, as an expression of abhorrence ; but Gesenius derives it 
 from the Persian j^vJCilj* to burn, with which he also connects Sultituv, as 
 originally meaning to burn and secondarily to bury. If this be the correct 
 etymology of ntoft, it denotes a place of burning in the general, and was only 
 applied to the spot before mentioned by way of eminence, in allusion either 
 to the sacrificial or the purgatorial fires there maintained, or both. On this 
 hypothesis, it would be altogether natural to understand the word here in an 
 indefinite or generic sense, as meaning a place of burning, such as a stake 
 or a funeral pile, and it is so explained accordingly by Gesenius (Brand- 
 statte), Ewald (Scheiterhaufen), and other late interpreters. The question 
 whether it is here used to describe the place of future torments or as a mere 
 poetical description of the temporal destruction of the king of Assyria, is the 
 less important, as the language must in either case be figurative, and can 
 teach us nothing therefore as to the real circumstances either of the first or 
 second death. Considering however the appalling grandeur of the images 
 presented, and our Saviour's use of similar expressions to describe the place 
 of everlasting punishment, and also the certainty deducible from other scrip- 
 tures, that a wicked king destroyed in the act of fighting against God must be 
 punished in the other world as well as this, we need not hesitate to understand 
 the passage as at least including a denunciation of eternal misery, although 
 the general idea which the figures were intended to express is that of sudden 
 terrible destruction. As the phrase ^»rjKn has been variously explained to 
 
528 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXI. 
 
 mean long ago, and just now or a little while ago, it is best to retain the 
 original expression with Calvin (ab hesterno) and Umbreit (von gestern 
 her). The old Jews have a curious tradition that hell was made on the 
 second day of the creation, or the first that had a yesterday, for which rea- 
 son God pronounced no blessing on it. The verbs p^nsn and nrrn must 
 be either construed with Jehovah or indefinitely. rrriB means the whole 
 circumference and area of the place of burning. Gesenius connects it with 
 the foregoing verbs to make the structure of the sentence more symmetrical 
 (deep and wide is its pile — fire and wood in plenty) ; but Hitzig vindicates 
 the masoretic interpunction on the ground that the foregoing verbs cannot 
 be applied to the pile, and that the following proposition would in that 
 case have no predicate. For a similar expression he refers to Jer. 24 : 2. 
 Lowth connects R$*ia with ^x and renders it a fiery pyre, which Barnes 
 has altered to a pyre for the flame, both overlooking the pronominal suffix. 
 Augusti takes the final n as a suffix (his Tophet) ; but it is commonly re- 
 garded as a paragogic letter or a mere euphonic variation of the usual /orm 
 r-BR. J. D. Michaelis, however, thinks that if the present reading is the 
 true one, it must be a verb meaning thou shalt be deceived, another allusion 
 to the false report about the Ethiopians. DeWette renders ^3 at the begin- 
 ning yea ; but it has really its proper sense of for, because, connecting this 
 verse, either with the one immediately before it, or with the remoter context. 
 Knobel supposes that the images of this verse were selected because the 
 burning of the dead was foreign from the Jewish customs and abhorrent to 
 their feelings. According to Clericus, the Tophet of this verse was a place 
 of burning really prepared by Hezekiah for the bodies of the slain Assyrians, 
 but entirely distinct from the Tophet near Jerusalem. Luther by rendering 
 it pit (die Grube), and J. D. Michaelis churchyard (Kirchhof), destroy its 
 connexion with the real Tophet and with the ideas of fire and burning. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 Reliance upon Egypt is distrust of God, who will avenge himself by 
 destroying both the helper and the helped, vs. 1-3. His determination and 
 ability to save those who confide in his protection are expressed by two 
 comparisons, vs. 4-5. The people are therefore invited to return to him, 
 from every false dependence, human or idolatrous, as they will be constrained 
 to do with shame, when they shall witness the destruction of their enemies 
 by the resistless fire of his wrath, vs. 6-9. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXI. 529 
 
 Hitzig assumes an interval, though not a very long one, between this 
 and the preceding chapter. To most interpreters and readers, it seems to 
 be a direct continuation, or at most a repetition, of the threatenings and 
 reproofs which had just been uttered. 
 
 V. 1. Woe to those going down to Egypt for help, and on horses they 
 lean (or rely), and trust in cavalry, because it is numerous, and in horse- 
 men, because they are very strong, and they look not to the Holy One of 
 Israel, and Jehovah they seek not. The abundance of horses in Egypt is 
 attested, not only in other parts of Scripture, but by profane writers. 
 Homer describes Thebes as having a hundred gates, out of each of which 
 two hundred warriors went forth with chariots and horses. Diodorus speaks 
 of the whole country between Thebes and Memphis as filled with royal 
 stables. The horses of Solomon are expressly said to have been brought 
 out of Egypt. This kind of military force was more highly valued, in com- 
 parison with infantry, by the ancients than the moderns, and especially by 
 those who, like the Hebrews, were almost entirely deprived of it themselves. 
 Hence their reliance upon foreign aid is frequently identified with confidence 
 in horses, and contrasted with simple trust in God (Psalm 20 : 8). IVIost 
 interpreters give a^ here its usual sense of chariot, put collectively for 
 chariots ; but as such a use of the singular between two plurals would be 
 somewhat unnatural, it may be taken in the sense which we have seen it to 
 have in ch. 21:7. To seek Jehovah is not merely to consult him, but to 
 seek his aid, resort to him, implying the strongest confidence. For the 
 meaning of the phrase look to, see the note on ch. 17:8. 
 
 V. 2. And (yet) he too is wise, and brings evil, and his words he re- 
 moves not, and he rises up against the house of evil-doers , and against the 
 help of the workers of iniquity. The adversative yet is required by our 
 idiom in this connexion, but is not expressed by D£, which has its usual 
 sense of too or also, implying a comparison with the Egyptians, upon whose 
 wisdom, as well as strength, the Jews may have relied, or with the Jews 
 themselves, who no doubt reckoned it a masterpiece of wisdom to secure 
 such powerful assistance. The comparison may be explained as compre- 
 hending both. God was as wise as the Egyptians, and ought therefore to 
 have been consulted ; he was as wise as the Jews, and could therefore 
 thwart their boasted policy. There is not only a meiosis in this sentence, 
 but an obvious irony. There is no need of supposing, with Vitringa, that 
 the wisdom, either of Egypt or of Israel, is here denied, excepting in com- 
 parison with that of God. The translation of the verbs as futures is arbi- 
 trary. Ewald refers ^ to previous threatenings, which is hardly justified 
 by usage, "^rj, in this connexion, seems to have the sense of withdrawing 
 
 34 
 
530 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXI. 
 
 or revoking, as in Josh. 11: 15 it denotes a practical revocation by neglect- 
 ing to fulfil. The house of evil-doers is their family or race (ch. 1 : 4), 
 here applied to the unbelieving Jews. The Egyptians are called their help, 
 and both are threatened with destruction. To rise up is to show one's self, 
 address one's self to action, and implies a state of previous forbearance or 
 neglect. 
 
 V. 3. And Egypt (is) man and not God, and their horses flesh and not 
 spirit, and Jehovah shall stretch out his hand, and the helper shall stumble 
 and the helped fall, and together all of them shall cease (or be destroyed). 
 This verse repeats the contrast between human and divine aid, and the 
 threatening that the unbelievers and their foreign helpers should be involved 
 in the same destruction. The antithesis of flesh and spirit, like that of God 
 and man, is not metaphysical but rhetorical, and is intended simply to ex- 
 press extreme dissimilitude or inequality. Reliance upon Egypt is again 
 sarcastically represented as reliance upon horses, and as such opposed to 
 confidence in God. As Egypt here means the Egyptians, it is afterwards 
 referred to as a plural. Stumble and fall are here poetical equivalents. 
 
 V. 4. For thus said Jehovah unto me, As a lion groivls, and a young 
 lion, over his prey, against whom a multitude of shepherds is called forth, 
 at their voice he is not frightened, and at their noise he is not humbled, so 
 will Jehovah of Hosts come down, to fight upon Mount Zion and upon her 
 hill. This is still another form of the same contrast. The comparison is a 
 favourite one with Homer, and occurs in the eighteenth book of the Iliad, in 
 terms almost identical. Growl is to be preferred to roar, not only for the 
 reason given by Bochart, that the lion roars before not after it has seized its 
 prey, but because njn more properly denotes a suppressed or feeble sound. 
 K^a is literally fulness, and is rendered by Montanus plenitudine. Other less 
 natural constructions of the second clause are : when a multitude is called ; 
 who (when) a multitude is called, etc. Some read sO£?, and translate it 
 either cries or meets. Most interpreters have, for Mount Zion, in which sense 
 Vr is used with cnbs elsewhere. But as xss itself, with this same preposition, 
 means to fight against in ch. 29: 7, Hitzig and Hendewerk regard this as a 
 threatening that God will take part with the Assyrians against Jerusalem, the 
 promise of deliverance beginning with the next verse. Ewald supposes Ki£ 
 to be used in allusion to the name m'xas (the Lord of Hosts will be present 
 in the host) and gives Vp the sense of over or upon (fiber), which may either 
 indicate the place or the subject of the contest. By supposing the particle 
 to mean concerning, we can explain its use both in a hostile and a favoura- 
 ble sense. The *» at the beginning of this verse introduces the ground or 
 reason of the declaration that the seeking of foreign aid was both unlawful 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXI. 531 
 
 and unnecessary. The hill is by some supposed to be Moriah, as an ap- 
 pendage of Mount Zion ; but it may just as well be simply parallel to 
 mountain, the mountain of Zion and the hill thereof. The feminine suffix 
 refers not to ifi but to 'ft*$. 
 
 V. 5. As birds flying (over or around their nests), so will Jehovah cover 
 over (or protect) Jerusalem, cover and rescue, pass over and save. Ac- 
 cording to Hitzig, it is not Jehovah but Jerusalem that is here compared to 
 fluttering birds. But, as Ilendewerk properly objects, nias means flying, 
 and is inapplicable to young birds in the nest. The feminine mas also 
 indicates a reference to the care of mothers for their young. Gesenius fol- 
 lows Kimchi in explaining bTO] and a^b-cri as unusual forms of the infinitive ; 
 but Ewald and Hitzig regard this as an instance of the idiomatic combination 
 of infinitive and finite forms, noa is the verb used to denote the passing 
 over of the houses in Egypt by the destroying angel (hence noa passover), 
 to which there may be an allusion hero. There is at least no ground for 
 making the verb, in either case, mean to cover (Vitringa) or to leap forward 
 (Lowth). To pass over, in the sense of sparing, is appropriate in both. 
 
 V. 6. Since you need no protection but Jehovah's, therefore, return 
 unto him from whom (or with respect to whom) the children of Israel have 
 deeply revolted (literally, have deepened revolt). The last words may also 
 be read, /row whom they (i. e. men indefinitely) have deeply revolted, oh ye 
 children of Israel. The substitution of the second person for the third, in 
 the ancient versions and by Barnes (ye have revolted), is wholly arbitrary. 
 Some explain -itaab to mean according as or in proportion as, which seems 
 to be a forced construction. The syntax may be solved, either by supposing 
 to him to be understood and giving nqjfi£ the sense of with respect to whom, or 
 by assuming that, as both these ideas could be expressed by this one phrase, 
 it was put but once in order to avoid the tautology. Deep may be here 
 used to convey the specific idea of debasement, or the more general one of 
 distance, or still more generally, as a mere intensive, like our common 
 phrases deeply grieved or deeply injured. The analogy of ch. 29: 15, 
 however, would suggest the idea of deep contrivance or design, which is 
 equally appropriate. 
 
 V. 7. This acknowledgment you will be constrained to make sooner or 
 later. For in that day (of miraculous deliverance) they shall reject (cast 
 away with contempt), a man (i. e. each) his idols of silver and his idols oj 
 gold, which your sinful hands have made for you, or, which your own hands 
 have made for you as sin, i. e. as an occasion and a means of sin. In like 
 manner the golden calves are called the sin of Israel (Deut. 9: 21. Am. 
 
532 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXI. 
 
 8: 14). The construction which makes sin a qualifying epithet of hands, 
 is preferred by Hendewerk and some older writers, but is not so natural as 
 that which makes the former denote the object or effect of the action. For 
 the true construction of his silver and his gold, see the note on ch. 2 : 20. 
 For the same enallage of person, in a similar connexion, see ch. 1 : 29. 
 Trust in idols and reliance upon human helpers are here, and often else- 
 where, put together, as identical in principle, and closely connected in the 
 experience of ancient Israel. (See the notes on ch. 2 : 8, 22.) 
 
 V. 8. This future abandonment of all false confidences is described as 
 springing from the demonstration of Jehovah's willingness and power to 
 save. And Assyria shall fall by no man's sword, and no mortal's sivord 
 shall devour him, and he shall flee from before the sivord, and his young 
 men (or chosen warriors) shall become tributary (literally, tribute), ti^K-rib 
 and onx-fc^ are commonly explained as emphatic compounds, like ys~xb 
 in ch. 10: 15, implying not mere negation but contrariety, something in- 
 finitely more than man. In such a comparison, the antithesis of mighty 
 man and mean man seems so entirely out of place, that it is best to 
 explain tft'W and Cix, according to the ordinary principle of parallelism, as 
 equivalents. In either case, the terms are universal and exclusive. For 
 ■ft, a few manuscripts and one of the earliest editions read vb } not from the 
 sword, i. e. he shall flee when no man pursueth (Prov. 28: 1). But the 
 pleonastic dative after verbs of motion is a common Hebrew idiom. Vitringa 
 and others derive ots from Cjctd to melt, and explain the whole phrase to 
 mean, shall be melted, i. e. either dispersed or overcome with fear. But in 
 every other case the expression means to become tributary, with a special 
 reference to the rendering of service to a superior. The objection that the 
 prophecy, as thus explained, was not fulfilled, proceeds upon the false 
 assumption that it refers exclusively to the overthrow of Sennacherib's host, 
 whereas it describes the decline and fall of the Assyrian power after that 
 catastrophe. 
 
 V. 9. And his rock (i. e. his strength) from fear shall pass away, and 
 his chiefs shall be afraid of a standard (or signal, as denoting the presence 
 of the enemy), saith Jehovah, to whom there is afire in Zion and a furnace 
 in Jerusalem. Besides the version above given of the first clause, which is 
 that of Jerome (fortitudo transibit), there are two constructions, also ancient, 
 between which modern writers are divided. Kimchi explains the words to 
 mean, that in his flight he should pass by the strongholds on his own frontier 
 where he might have taken refuge. Grotius quotes in illustration the Latin 
 proverb, fugit praetcr casam. Hendewerk modifies this explanation by 
 supposing caverns in the hills to be referred to, as customary places of 
 
ISAIAH. CHAP. XXXII. 533 
 
 concealment. The other construction is proposed by Aben Ezra : he shall 
 pass (not by but) to his stronghold, i.e. as Calvin understands it, Nineveh. 
 Neither of these explanations seems so obvious and simple as the one just 
 given. Lowth arbitrarily translates ioaa at his flight. Zwingle applied 
 this clause to the cowardly desertion of the standards. The last clause, 
 according to Piscator, means, whose hearth is in Jerusalem, or as Gill ex- 
 presses it, who keeps house there and therefore will defend it. But this use 
 of fire and furnace is not only foreign from the usage of the Scriptures, but 
 from the habits of the orientals, who have no such association of ideas be- 
 tween hearth and home. The true explanation of the clause seems to be 
 that which supposes an allusion both to the sacred fire on the altar and to 
 the consuming fire of God's presence, whose altar flames in Zion and whose 
 wrath shall thence flame to destroy his enemies. Compare the explanation 
 of the mystical name Ariel in the note on ch. 29: 1. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 This chapter consists of two distinguishable parts. The first continues 
 the promises of the foregoing context, vs. 1-8. The second predicts inter- 
 vening judgments both to Israel and his enemies, vs. 9-20. 
 
 The first blessing promised in the former part is that of merciful and 
 righteous government, vs. 1, 2. The next is that of spiritual illumination, 
 vs. 3, 4. As the consequence of this, moral distinctions shall no longer be 
 confounded, men shall be estimated at their real value ; a general prediction, 
 which is here applied to two specific cases, vs. 5-8. 
 
 The threatenings of the second part are specially addressed to the 
 women of Judah, v. 9. They include the desolation of the country and 
 the downfall of Jerusalem, vs. 10-14. The evils are to last until a total 
 change is wrought by an effusion of the Holy Spirit, vs. 15-18. But fear- 
 ful changes are to intervene, for which believers must prepare themselves 
 by diligence in present duty, vs. 19, 20. 
 
 V. 1. Behold, for righteousness shall reign a king, and rulers for 
 justice shall rule. The usual translation is in justice and in righteousness, 
 as descriptive epithets of the reign foretold. But as this idea is commonly 
 expressed by the preposition 2, the use of b here may have been intended 
 to suggest, that he would reign not only justly, but for the very purpose of 
 doing justice. The Hebrew particle denotes relation in its widest sense, 
 
534 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXII. 
 
 but is most frequently equivalent to our to and for. The cognate noun and 
 verb (rule and rulers) are combined as in the original. The b before c^-ui) is 
 commonly agreed to mean as to, os for. It is a question among interpreters 
 whether the king here predicted is Hezekiah or the Messiah. The truth 
 appears to be that the promise is a general one, as if he had said, the day 
 is coming when power shall be exercised and government administered, not 
 as at present (in the reign of Ahaz), but with a view to the faithful execu- 
 tion of the laws. Of such an improvement Hezekiah's reign was at least a 
 beginning and a foretaste. The reference of o'nto to the apostles appears 
 very forced, and is certainly not justified, much less required, by the promise 
 in Matt. 19: 28. 
 
 V. 2. And a man shall be as an hiding-place from the wind and a 
 covert from the rain (or storm), as channels of water in a dry place (or in 
 drought), as the shadow of a heavy rock in a weary land. Most of the 
 late interpreters give urx the sense of a distributive pronoun, each (i. e. each 
 of the chiefs or princes mentioned in v. 1) shall be etc. But the word is 
 seldom if ever so used except when connected with a plural verb, as in ch. 
 9: 19, 20. 13: 8, 14. 14: 18. 19: 2. 31: 7. The meaning rather is, 
 that there shall be a man upon the throne, or at the head of the government, 
 who, instead of oppressing, will protect the helpless. This may either be 
 indefinitely understood, or applied, in an individual and emphatic sense, to 
 the Messiah. The figures for protection and relief are the same used above 
 in ch. 4:6 and 25 : 4. The phrases heavy rock and weary land are 
 idiomatic, but require no explanation. 
 
 V. 3. And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of 
 them that hear shall hearken. According to analogy, rirraJn is the future 
 of nsttj, a verb used repeatedly by Isaiah in the sense of looking either at 
 or away from any object. (See, for example, ch. 17 : 7, 8. 22 : 4. 31 : 1.) 
 In this case, however, a contrary meaning seems to be so clearly required, 
 both by the context and the parallelism, that most interpreters, ancient and 
 modern, concur in deriving it from rrti, or in supposing nrrfi to have been 
 sometimes used in the sense of blinding, which the former verb has in ch. 
 6:10 and 29 : 9. Some understand d^k'i as meaning seers or prophets, and 
 D'ttBtt their hearers ; but most interpreters apply both words to the people 
 generally, as those who had eyes but saw not, and had ears but heard not. 
 Compare the threatening in ch.6: 9, and the promise in ch. 29: 18. 
 
 V. 4. And the heart (or mind) of the rash (heedless or reckless) shall 
 understand to know (or understand knowledge), and the tongue of stammer- 
 en shall hasten to speak clear things (i. e. shall speak readily and plainly). 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXII. 535 
 
 Some interpreters suppose that this last metaphor relates to scoffers at reli- 
 gion, who are elsewhere represented as stammering in derision of the Pro- 
 phet's admonitions (ch. 28: 11). But it seems more natural to understand 
 the bodily defects here mentioned as denoting others of an intellectual and 
 spiritual nature, neglect and ignorance of spiritual matters. The minds of 
 men shall begin to be directed to religious truth, and delivered from igno- 
 rance and error in relation to il. 
 
 V. 5. When men's eyes are thus opened, they will no longer confound 
 the essential distinctions of moral character, because they will no longer be 
 deceived by mere appearances. Things will then be called by their right 
 names. The fool (in the emphatic Scriptural sense, the wicked man) will 
 no longer be called noble, (men will no longer attach ideas of dignity and 
 greatness to the name or person of presumptuous sinners,) and the churl (or 
 niggard) will no more be spoken of (or to) as liberal. The sense here 
 given to ^a rests wholly on the Jewish tradition, as the word occurs no- 
 where else in Scripture. Gesenius derives it by aphaeresis from baa, and 
 explains it to mean cunning. The sense will then be, that a crafty policy 
 shall no longer gain for him who practises it the reputation of magnanimous 
 liberality. Hitzig derives the word from h|a to consume, and explains the 
 clause as meaning that the waster (prodigal or spendthrift) shall no longer 
 be called generous. This last agrees best with the parallel clause, in which 
 the outward show of a good quality is distinguished from its actual posses- 
 sion. But both these versions rest upon dubious etymologies. On either 
 supposition, it is clear that this clause, like the other, contains a specific 
 illustration of the general truth that men shall be estimated at their real 
 value. Ewald translates baa and ^a Taugenichts (good-for-nothing) and 
 Windbeutel (bag-of-wind). 
 
 V. 6. The Prophet now defines his own expressions, or describes the 
 characters which they denote. The fool (is one who) will speak folly (in 
 the strongest and worst sense), and his heart anil do iniquity, to do wicked- 
 ness and to speak error unto (or against) Jehovah, (while at the same time 
 he is merciless and cruel towards his fellow-men,) to starve (or leave empty) 
 the soul of tfte hungry, and the drink of the thirsty he will suffer to fail. 
 The futures in this verse express the idea of habitual action, he does and 
 will do so. The infinitives convey the same idea in a different form, by 
 making prominent the design and effect of their unlawful course. The 
 common version, work and practise, needlessly departs from the form of the 
 original, in which the same verb is repeated. To give it first the sense of 
 devising, and then that of executing, is still more arbitrary. 5)|h, according 
 to the older writers, means hypocrisy ; according to the moderns, wickedness 
 in general, but in a high degree. 
 
536 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXII. 
 
 V. 7. Such is the fool : as for the churl, although his making money be 
 not sinful in itself, his arms or instruments, the means which he employs, 
 are evil. He that hastens to be rich can scarcely avoid the practice of 
 dishonest arts and of unkindness to the poor. He deviseth phis to destroy 
 the oppressed (or afflicted) with words of falsehood, and (i. e. even) in the 
 poor (man's) speaking right (i. e. even when the poor man's claim is just, 
 or in a more general sense, when the poor man pleads his' cause). The 
 variation in the form of the word ^3 ("'Vs) is, with great probability, sup- 
 posed by Gesenius to have been intended to assimilate the form to i*»b3. 
 
 V. 8. As the wicked man's true character is betrayed by his habitual 
 acts, so the noble or generous man (and according to the Scriptures none 
 is such but the truly good man) reveals his dispositions by his conduct. He 
 devises noble (or generous) things, and in noble (or generous things) he 
 perseveres (literally, on them he stands). 
 
 V. 9. Here, as in many other cases, the Prophet reverts to the prospect 
 of approaching danger, which was to arouse the careless Jews from their 
 security. As in ch. 3 : 16, he addresses himself to the women of Jerusalem, 
 because to them an invasion would be peculiarly disastrous, and also perhaps 
 because their luxurious habits contributed, more or less directly, to existing 
 evils. Careless women, arise, hear my voice ; confiding daughters, give 
 ear unto my speech. Women and daughters are equivalent expressions. 
 Careless and confiding (or secure) i. e. indifferent because not apprehensive 
 of the coming danger. 
 
 V. 10. Having called their attention in v. 9, he now proceeds with the 
 prediction which concerned them. In a year and more (literally, days 
 above a year), ye shall tremble, ye confiding ones, for the vintage fails, the 
 gathering shall not come. The English Version makes the time denoted to 
 be that of the duration of the threatened evil, fistf b$ fiW| is by some ex- 
 plained to mean, during the remainder of the year ; but the version above 
 given agrees best with the form of the original. 
 
 V. 11. He now speaks as if the event had already taken place, and 
 calls upon them to express their sorrow and alarm by the usual signs of 
 mourning. Tremble ye careless (women), quake ye confiding (ones), strip 
 you and make you bare, and gird (sackcloth) on your loins. A remarkable 
 anomaly in this verse is the masculine form of the first imperative and the 
 singular form of the others. Ewald explains the latter as contractions for 
 M3ia*i, Win, but admits that there are no analogous forms elsewhere. Kno- 
 bel thinks it possible that the forms are infinitives with local or directive n 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXII. 537 
 
 (to trembling, stripping, girding!) but this is equally without example. 
 Gesenius, Hitzig, and others, make them paragogic forms, in which case 
 both the gender and number are anomalous. 
 
 V. 12. Mourning for the breasts (or beating on the breasts as a sign of 
 mourning), for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine. The older writers 
 explained breasts as a figure for productive grounds or sources of supply. 
 Lowth connects it with v. 11 (on your loins, on your breasts). Gesenius in 
 his Commentary reads cnfc ] fields ; but in his Lexicon, he follows Paulus and 
 the ancient versions in giving D^*isb its primary sense of striking, especially 
 upon the breast, in sign of mourning. The same act is described in Nah. 
 2 : S, but by a different verb. This explanation is also given by Maurer, 
 Henderson, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel. It is favoured by the striking 
 analogy of xottto) and plango (the words used by the Septuagint and 
 Vulgate here), both which have precisely the same primary and secondary 
 meaning. The other explanation, which is still retained by Hitzig, Hen- 
 dewerk, and Barnes, is recommended by the usage of ^Sb, and by the fact 
 that ^>? is twice used afterwards in this same sentence, to denote the subject 
 or occasion of the sorrow. The argument founded on the masculine form 
 B*1fca has less weight, on account of the anomalies in v. 1 1 , and the remote- 
 ness of the feminine antecedent. 
 
 V. 13. Upon the land of my people thorn (and) thistle shall come vp, 
 for (they shall even come up) upon all (thy) houses of pleasure, oh joyous 
 city ! or, upon all houses of pleasure (in) the joyous city. The true sense 
 of the ^s seems to be that expressed above in the translation. Most inter- 
 preters however employ yea as an equivalent. According to Hendewerk, 
 this predicts only a partial and temporary desolation, and Knobel applies it 
 to the pleasure-grounds ana 1 houses without the walls, which is a mere gra- 
 tuitous assumption. 
 
 V. 14. For the palace is forsaken, the crowd of the city (or the crowded 
 city) left, hill and watch-tower (are) for caves (or dens) forever, a joy (or 
 favourite resort) of wild asses, a pasture of flocks. The use of the word 
 palace, and that in the singular number, clearly shows that the destruction of 
 Jerusalem itself is here predicted, although Knobel still maintains that palace 
 means country-houses. The next clause likewise contains a refutation of 
 his hypothesis. Vss originally means a hill, but is applied as a proper name 
 (Ophel) to the southern extremity of Mount Moriah, overhanging the spot 
 where the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Hinnom meet. " The top of the ridge 
 is flat, descending rapidly towards the south, sometimes by offsets of rock ; the 
 ground is tilled and planted with olive and other fruit-trees." (Robinson's 
 
538 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXII. 
 
 Palestine, I. p. 394.) Most writers seem to make 1?2 here mean instead 
 of, which is at best a rare and doubtful sense. In the last edition of Rob- 
 inson's Gesenius, this explanation is relinquished and a local meaning given 
 to the word, amid caverns, i. e. surrounded by them. But this reverses the 
 true meaning of the preposition, about, round about. If strictly understood, 
 it would rather seem to mean that the hill and tower should enclose caves 
 or dens within their limits. Hendewerk, in order to avoid the conclusion 
 that an actual destruction of the city is foretold, explains the verse as mean- 
 ing that the people should shut themselves and their cattle up within the 
 walls, so that the interior of the city, for a time, would be changed into a 
 pasture-ground. 
 
 V. 15. The desolation having been described in v. 14 as of indefinite 
 duration, this verse states more explicitly how long it is to last. Until the 
 Spirit is poured out upon %is from on high, and the wilderness becomes 
 a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is reckoned to the forest. The 
 general meaning evidently is, until by a special divine influence a total 
 revolution shall take place in the character, and as a necessary consequence 
 in the condition, of the people. The attempt to restrict it to the return from 
 exile, or the day of Pentecost, or some great effusion of the Spirit on the 
 Jews still future, perverts the passage by making that its whole meaning 
 which at most is but a part. For the meaning of the figures, see the ex- 
 position of ch. 29: 17. In this connexion, they would seem to denote 
 nothing more than total change, whereas in the other case the idea of an 
 interchange appears to be made prominent. 
 
 V. 16. And justice shall abide in the wilderness, and righteousness in 
 the fruitful field shall dwell. This may either mean, that what is now a 
 wilderness, and what is now a fruitful field, shall alike be the abode of 
 righteousness i. e. of righteous men ; or that both in the cultivation of the 
 desert, and in the desolation of the field, the righteousness of God shall be dis- 
 played. In favour of the former is the use of the word dwell , which implies 
 a permanent condition, rather than a transient or occasional manifestation. 
 It also agrees better with the relation of this verse to that before it, as a part 
 of the same sentence. If this be the meaning of the sixteenth verse, it seems 
 to follow clearly, that the whole of the last clause of the fifteenth is a prom- 
 ise, since the same inhabitation of righteousness is here foretold in reference 
 to the forest and the fruitful field. It is possible indeed that these may be 
 put for the whole land, as being the two parts into which he had just before 
 divided it. 
 
 V. 17. As the foregoing verse describes the effect of the effusion of the 
 Spirit to be universal righteousness, so this describes the natural and neces- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXII. 539 
 
 sary consequence of righteousness itself. And the work of righteousness 
 shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness rest and assurance (or security) 
 forever. Both I itt)J?U and ma$ strictly denote work, or rather that which is 
 wrought, the product of labour. The translation of the former by fruit 
 introduces a figure not in the original, as TOW is never so employed, al- 
 though the verbal root is used to denote the generation of plants. The 
 phrase t&VFIS, not being limited in this case as it is in vs. 14, 15, must be 
 taken in its widest sense. 
 
 V. 18. And my people shall abide in a home of peace, in sure dwellings, 
 and in quiet resting-places. There is something tranquillizing in the very 
 sound of this delightful promise, which, as usual, is limited to God's own 
 people, implying, either that all should have become such, or that those who 
 had not should be still perturbed and restless. 
 
 V. 19. And it shall hail in the downfall of the forest (i. e. so as to over 
 throw it), and the city shall be low in a low place (or humbled with humilia 
 tion) i. e. utterly brought down. If this be read as a direct continuation of 
 the promise in v. 18, it must be explained as a description of the downfall 
 of some hostile jpower, and accordingly it has been referred by most inter- 
 preters to Nineveh, by Knobel to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, and 
 by Henderson to the destruction of the Jewish polity at the beginning of 
 the Christian dispensation. Others, thinking it more natural to assume one 
 subject here and in v. 13, regard this as another instance of prophetic re- 
 currence from remoter promises to nearer threats ; as if he had said, before 
 these thing? can come to pass, the city must be brought low. This con- 
 struction is entirely in keeping with the Prophet's manner, as exemplified 
 already in this very chapter. (See the note on v. 9 above.) Most interpret- 
 ers, however, seem to fall into the usual error of regarding as specific and 
 exclusive what the Prophet himself has left unlimited and undefined. Howt 
 ever natural and probable certain applications of the passage may appear, 
 the only sense which can with certainty be put upon it, is that some existing 
 power must be humbled, either as a means or as a consequence of the moral 
 revolution which had been predicted. Knobel applies the first clause to the 
 slaughter of Sennacherib's army, and the second to the spiritual humiliation 
 of the Jews, which is very unnatural. The recent writers find a paronoma- 
 sia in' the phrase rmn to, which Ewald imitates by combining the words 
 hageln and verhagelt. 
 
 V. 20. Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, that send forth the 
 foot of the ox and the ass. The allusion in this verse is supposed by some 
 to be to pasturage, by others to tillage. Lowth follows Chardin in applying 
 the words to the practice of treading the ground by the feet of cattle before 
 
540 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 planting rice, Henderson to the act of setting them at liberty from the rope 
 with which they were tied by the foot. There is still more diversity of 
 judgment with respect to the application of the metaphor. Of the latest 
 writers who have been consulted, Knobel understands the verse as contrasting 
 the condition of those who lived at liberty, on the sea-side or by rivers, with 
 theirs who were pent up and besieged in cities. Hitzig supposes a particu- 
 lar allusion to the case of those who had escaped with their possessions from 
 Jerusalem. Hendewerk applies the verse to the happy external condition 
 of the people in the days of the Messiah. Henderson says it beautifully 
 exhibits the free and unrestrained exertions of the apostles and other mis- 
 sionaries in sowing the seed of the kingdom in every part of the world. 
 Ewald explains it exclusively of moral cultivation, as implying that none 
 can expect to reap good without diligently sowing it. Of all these explana- 
 tions the last may be considered as approaching nearest to the truth, because 
 it requires least to be supplied by the imagination. Taking the whole con- 
 nexion into view, the meaning of this last verse seems to be, that as great 
 revolutions are to be expected, arising wholly or in part from moral causes, 
 they alone are safe, for the present and the future, who with patient assiduity 
 perform what is required, and provide, by the discharge of actual duty, for 
 contingencies which can neither be escaped nor provided for in any other 
 manner. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIII. 
 
 This chapter contains a general threatening of retribution to the enemies 
 of God's people, with particular reference to Sennacherib or the Assyrian 
 power. The spoiler shall himself be spoiled in due time, through the divine 
 interposition, and for the exaltation of Jehovah, vs. 1-6. The state of deso- 
 lation and alarm is followed by sudden deliverance, vs. 7-13. The same 
 vicissitudes are again described, but in another form, vs. 14-19. The 
 peace and security of Zion are set forth under the figures of a stationary 
 tent, and of a spot surrounded by broad rivers, yet impassable to hostile ves- 
 sels, vs. 20-22. By a beautiful transition, the enemy is described as such a 
 vessel, but dismantled and abandoned to its enemies, v. 23. The chapter 
 closes with a general promise of deliverance from suffering, as a consequence 
 of pardoned sin, v. 24. 
 
 V. 1. Woe to thee spoiling and thou wast not spoiled, deceiving and 
 they did not deceive thee ! When thou shah cease to spoil thou shalt be 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 541 
 
 spoiled, and when thou art done deceiving they shall deceive thee. The 
 plural verbs, in both clauses, are indefinitely construed as equivalents to the 
 passive participles. The two ideas meant to be expressed are those of vio- 
 lence and treachery, as the crying sins of arbitrary powers. The latest 
 German writers suppose both the verbs to be expressive of robbery or spo- 
 liation, but without authority from usage. (See the note on ch. 21 : 2.) 
 The person addressed has been supposed by different writers to be Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes (Vitringa), Ferdinand II. (Cocceius), 
 Antichrist (Gill), and Satan (Jerome). Most interpreters suppose it to be 
 Sennacherib, either as an individual or as a representative of the Assyrian 
 power. In themselves the words are applicable to any oppressive and 
 deceitful enemy, and may be naturally so explained at the beginning of the 
 prophecy. This verse describes the enemy as acting without provocation, 
 and also as having never yet experienced reverses. 
 
 V. 2. Jehovah, favour us ; for thee we wait ; be their arm in the morn- 
 ings, also our salvation in time of trouble. Instead of their arm, Lowth 
 follows several of the ancient versions in reading our arm. The common 
 text has been variously explained as a prayer of the present for the absent 
 (Vitringa), of the Jewish for the Christian Church (DeDieu), of the Re- 
 formed Church for its defenders (Cocceius), etc. etc. The truth seems to be, 
 as Barnes well says, that Isaiah here interposes his own feelings, and offers 
 his own prayer that God would be the strength of the nation, and then, with 
 an immediate change of form, presents the prayer of the people. Arm is a 
 common Hebrew metaphor for strength or support. (See ch. 9: 19.) As 
 to the mornings is an indefinite expression, understood by some to mean 
 early or quickly, by others every morning (Kimchi : Spai ^pn ^^), with 
 allusion to the daily attacks of the enemy (Henderson) or to the daily morn- 
 ing sacrifice (Piscator). Calvin explains the whole clause thus: be thou, 
 who wast their arm (i. e. that of our fathers) in the morning (i. e. of old), 
 also our salvation in time of trouble. But this is rather a Latin than a 
 Hebrew construction. 
 
 V. 3. At a noise of tumult (or tumultuous noise) the peoples flee; at 
 thy rising the nations are scattered. The modern notion, that the voice of 
 Jehovah always means thunder, seems entirely arbitrary. The voice and 
 the rising up are parts of the same figure, and the one has no more reference 
 to actual phenomena in nature than the other. Aben Ezra and Lowth 
 suppose these words to be addressed to Sennacherib, all other writers to 
 Jehovah himself. Jerome refers the first clause to the voice of the destroy- 
 ing angel, Piscator to the tumult in the camp of the Assyrians. Lowth 
 reads thy terrible voice, in which, as he says, he follows the Septuagint and 
 
542 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 Peshito. The same combination occurs in Dan. 10: 6. (Compare Rev. 
 1 : 10, 15.) The rising meant is not the ascent of the judge to the judg- 
 ment-seat (Piscator), nor the exaltation of the Assyrian power (A ben Ezra), 
 but the act of rising from a state of seeming inaction, or as when one rouses 
 himself to strike (Barnes). These words are commonly applied to the 
 divine interposition in the case of Sennacherib's attack upon Jerusalem; 
 but Ewald understands them more generally as denoting that such had 
 ever been the effect of Jehovah's presence, and must be so still. Some 
 arbitrarily translate the verse as a direct prediction (fugicnt) or a prayer 
 (fugiant). 
 
 V. 4. And your spoil shall be gathered (like) the gathering of the de- 
 vourer ; like the running of locusts running on it. By another apostrophe, 
 the Prophet here addresses the enemy collectively, b^on is a name of the 
 locust, so called from its devouring. (See the verb in Deut. 28 : 38.) Hen- 
 derson translates the parallel terms, devouring locust and caterpillar-locusts. 
 The older writers understand this clause to mean as locusts are gathered, for 
 the purpose of destroying them, even by children (Calvin) or by labourers in 
 pits (Jerome), a custom still existing in Africa and Spain (Forerius). Junius 
 explains it to mean that which locusts have gathered. But all the modern 
 writers understand the words to mean as locusts gather, i. e. greedily and 
 thoroughly, not leaving a tree or a field till they have stripped it (Bochart). 
 As cpx is the verb used to denote the gathering of fruits in harvest (ch. 
 17 : 5), Gesenius supposes a specific allusion to that usage here, like the 
 harvesting of locusts etc. The construction of the last clause is : like the 
 running of locusts (shall one be) running on it (i. e. on the spoil). The verb 
 ppv denotes specifically the act of running eagerly or with a view to satisfy 
 the appetite. It is sometimes used to denote desire itself, which Umbreit 
 assumes to be the meaning here (nach Heuschrecken-Gier giert man dar- 
 nach). Vitringa finds the fulfilment of this threatening in 1 Mace. 4: 23. 
 6: 6. There is an old rabbinical tradition, which so explains this verse as 
 to justify the seizure of the spoils of the ten tribes by the Jews, when found 
 in the possession of the Assyrians. 
 
 V. 5. Exalted is Jehovah because dwelling on high (or inhabiting a 
 high place) ; he Jills (or has filled) Zion with judgment and righteousness. 
 The first word, being a passive participle, seems to denote not merely a con- 
 dition but a change. He has been exalted, by the subjection of his enemies 
 (Knobel), or by his mighty deeds in general. The future form adopted in 
 the French Version (ya etre magnifie) is needless and arbitrary. There is 
 no need of making "'S a relative (Vitringa) or rendering it yea (Barnes), as 
 it introduces an explanation of the statement in the first clause. High place 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 543 
 
 is not put specifically for heaven (Gesenius) but for a lofty and commanding 
 position. The last clause probably denotes, not the moral effects produced 
 upon the people (Ewald), but the manifestation of Jehovah's attributes. Ac- 
 cording to Hendewerk, this second clause is the beginning of the Messianic 
 part of the first of the three prophecies contained in the chapter. Lowth 
 introduces here his favourite idea of a chorus or choir of Jews representing 
 the whole people. 
 
 V. 6. And he shall be the security of thy times, strength of salva- 
 tions, wisdom and knowledge, the fear of Jehovah, that is his treasure. 
 Most interpreters connect mri either with msx or ",on as its subject: there 
 shall be security in thy times, or, the security of thy times shall be, or strength 
 of salvations etc. shall be the security of thy times. But the simplest con- 
 struction is the one proposed by Henderson, which supplies the subject from 
 the foregoing verse, he (i. e. Jehovah, or it i. e. his righteousness) shall be etc. 
 The object of address is supposed by some to be Hezekiah, by others the 
 Messiah, but is most probably the people or the believer as an individual. 
 His treasure may refer by an enallage personae to the same, or mean the 
 treasure of Jehovah, that which he bestows. Hitzig supposes an allusion 
 in the last clause to Hezekiah's treasury emptied by the tribute to Senna- 
 cherib, as if he had said, henceforth the fear of the Lord shall be his trea- 
 sure. Umbreit makes the first clause by a forced construction mean that the 
 evil times should produce or foster faith, and that this should be a treasure 
 to the people. -(OH, according to its etymology, means strength, but in 
 usage is applied exclusively to that arising from wealth. The original con- 
 struction is perfectly intelligible and much more expressive than such para- 
 phrastic versions as possessio salutaris (Clericus). According to Hendewerk, 
 this verse proves that the only Messiah, of whom Isaiah ever prophesies, is 
 Hezekiah ! Knobel thinks that it must be addressed to the people, because 
 Hezekiah was a pious man before. 
 
 V. 7. Behold, their valiant ones cry without ; the ambassadors of peace 
 weep bitterly. The Targum and some other ancient versions seem to treat 
 tfcsox as a contraction of z\ n*"7* or c!b nanx. Thus Aquila has oQa^^ao- 
 fiai avTolg, Symmachus oy&Sjaopui, the Vulgate videntes. But there is no 
 example of the form t=b for t^b. (See the note on ch. 9 : 6.) Ewald reads 
 n^sna and explains it as an adjective derived from bio synonymous with 
 the Arabic Jlc> to fear. They fearful cry aloud. This coincides in mean- 
 ing with the Septuagint version (Jv -7$ cpofico avrmv). Most of the other 
 modern writers identify the word substantially with Ariel in ch. 29: 1, by 
 reading Ebanx in the plural or tabanx with a suffix. The latest investiga- 
 tions, although still unsatisfactory, tend strongly to confirm the version given 
 
544 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 in the English Bible. (See Gesenius's Thesaurus s. v.) Some, however, 
 here as in ch. 29 : 1 , give Ariel the sense of altar. Thus Grotius translates 
 the words behold their altar, and regards it as a derisive exclamation of the 
 enemy, while Jarchi makes it a sorrowful ejaculation of the Jews themselves. 
 Aben Ezra and Kimchi give it the sense of messengers, which is plainly a 
 conjectural inference from the parallel expression. J. D. Michaelis charac- 
 teristically makes it the name of a species of bird and renders it Rohrdom- 
 mel. The messengers mentioned in the other clause are not those sent by 
 Hezekiah to Isaiah (2 Kings 19: 2), nor the Maccabees, as being both 
 priests and heroes (Vitringa), nor the ministers of the gospel, nor the two 
 apocalyptic witnesses (Gill), but probably the three men sent by Hezekiah 
 to Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18: 18) or perhaps the bearers of the tribute, 
 weeping on account of Sennacherib's refusal to fulfil his promise. Hende- 
 werk supposes them to be called valiant, because they ventured into the 
 enemy's camp ; others because they were probably military chiefs. Their 
 weeping is agreed by all interpreters to be in strict accordance with the 
 ancient usage, as described, for example, by Homer. According to Coc- 
 ceius, the first clause is an exclamation at the death of Gustavus Adolphus. 
 
 V. 8. The highways are wasted, the wayfarer ceaseth ; he brealcs the 
 covenant, despises cities, values no man. These are not the words of the 
 ambassadors reporting the condition of the country (Grotius), but of the 
 Prophet himself describing it. The scene presented is not that of Protestant 
 cities seized by Antichrist and a stop put to a religious course and conversa- 
 tion (Gill), but the actual condition of Judea during the Assyrian invasion. 
 (Compare Judges 5 : 6.) The verbs of the last clause are not to be indefi- 
 nitely construed (Cocceius), nor do they agree with wayfarer, but with Sen- 
 nacherib or the Assyrian. They are not to be rendered as pluperfects (Ju- 
 nius), but as preterites or descriptive presents. The meaning is not that he 
 rejected the cities offered him by Hezekiah (Lowth), nor that he barbarously 
 disregarded the condition of the conquered country (J. D. Michaelis), but 
 that he despised its defences as unable to resist him. The last words may 
 either mean that he has no regard to any man's interest or wishes, or that 
 he does not value human life. Some have strangely understood this as an 
 impious reproach on God himself as having broken his engagements. 
 
 V. 9. The land mourneth, languisheth ; Lebanon is ashamed, it pines 
 away ; Sharon is like a wilderness, and Bashan and Carmel cast (their 
 leaves). The most fertile and flourishing parts of the country are described 
 as desolate. That the language is figurative, may be inferred from the fact 
 that none of the places mentioned were in Judah. Hitzig and Hendewerk 
 suppose the date of the prediction to be fixed by the allusion to the falling 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 545 
 
 of the leaf. But would this periodical change be represented as a sign of 
 desolation ? According to Umbreit, Lebanon (the white mountain) is here 
 described as blushing, but according to Ewald, as turning pale. Barnes 
 thinks the reference is to the places through which the Assyrians had 
 passed. J. D. Michaelis follows up his favourite mode of exposition by 
 asserting that -»a denotes the buzzing of the gadfly, but is here used in 
 the sense of swarming and applied to the hostile armies. Cocceius takes 
 the same word in the sense of roaring. According to Grotius, the Sharon 
 here meant is the one in Bashan (I Chron. 5: 16). According to Cleri- 
 cus, Lebanon is put for Mount Niphates, and the other places for places in 
 Assyria. 
 
 V. 10. Now will I arise, saith Jehovah, now will 1 be lifted up, now will 
 1 exalt myself . The emphasis is not upon the pronoun (Barnes), which in 
 that case would have been expressed in Hebrew, but upon the adverb now, 
 which is twice repeated to imply that the time for the divine interposition is 
 arrived, and that there shall be no more delay. According to Gesenius, 
 DirhM is for o^Tins, but others read c^ai-ix. 
 
 V. 11. Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble; your 
 breath (as) fire shall devour you. The first clause contains a common 
 Scriptural figure for failure and frustration. (See ch. 26: 18.) Chaff and 
 stubble are not named as being dry and innutritious food (Vitringa), which 
 would be wholly out of place in this connexion, but as worthless and per- 
 ishable substances. Lowth follows Seeker and the Targum in reading inn 
 ■ma for osm-i (my spirit like fire shall consume you). Grotius takes rm in 
 the sense of anger, Clericus in that of pride. Calvin understands the clause 
 to mean that their own breath should kindle the fire that destroyed them. 
 As specimens of opposite extremes in exposition, it may be mentioned, that 
 J. D. Michaelis applies this last clause to the infection of the plague com- 
 municated by the breath, Cocceius to the evils arising from the abuse of 
 religious liberty in Germany and Holland, and especially from efforts to re- 
 unite the Protestant and Romish churches. 
 
 V. 12. And nations shall be lime-kilns (or burnings of lime) ; thorns 
 cut up, in the fire they shall burn. By nations we are not to understand 
 the different races mingled in Sennacherib's army, but all nations that incur 
 the wrath of God. The same word burnings is applied to the aromatic 
 fumigations used at ancient burials (Jer. 34 : 5), to which there may be 
 some allusion here. The Hebrew word according to analogy may be a 
 noun of place (Hendewerk), but is commonly supposed to denote burnings. 
 Clericus connects the clauses by supposing that the thorns are described as 
 being burnt in lime-kilns. The ideas expressed are those of quickness and 
 
 35 
 
546 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 intensity. The thorns are perhaps described as cut up, to suggest that they 
 are dry and therefore more combustible. On this same verse J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis observes, that the Jews at that time burnt the bodies of the dead ; 
 Knobel, that they regarded the custom with abhorrence. The former adds 
 that when they burnt the Assyrians they might be said to burn a nation. 
 Gill of course refers the verse to the future destruction of antichristian Rome. 
 (Rev. 17: 16. 18: 8.) 
 
 i. 
 V. 13. Hear, ye far, what I have done, and knoiv, ye near, my might. 
 By far and near the Targum understands confirmed saints and repentant 
 sinners ; Junius the Jews and Gentiles ; Hendewerk the ten tribes and the 
 Jews ; but Barnes, more naturally, all without exception. According to Hit- 
 zig, the near are commanded to know, because they can see for themselves. 
 Henderson retains the common version, acknowledge. According to Hen- 
 dewerk, this is the beginning of a third distinct prediction. It is really an 
 apostrophe, expressing the magnitude of the event predicted in the foregoing 
 context. 
 
 V. 14. Afraid in Zion are the sinners. Not at or near Zion, meaning 
 the Assyrians (Sanctius), but in Zion i.e. in Jerusalem, referring to the 
 impious Jews themselves. Trembling has seized the impious, a parallel 
 expression to sinners. The meaning hypocrites is rejected by the modern 
 lexicographers for that of impure or gross sinners. So Calvin, in the margin 
 of his version, has scelratos. The persons so described are the wicked and 
 unbelieving portion of the Jews. Gill applies the terms directly to formal 
 professors in the reformed churches ; Grotius, to such of the Jews as had 
 apostatized to heathenism in order to conciliate Sennacherib. On this far- 
 fetched hypothesis Vitringa well remarks, that such expedients were unknown 
 in ancient warfare, and that Sennacherib probably cared nothing as to the 
 religion of those whom he attacked. What follows might be understood as 
 the language of the Prophet himself, giving a reason for the terror of the 
 wicked. Interpreters appear to be unanimous, however, in making it the 
 language of the wicked Jews themselves. At the same time, they differ 
 greatly as to the time at which these words must be supposed to have been 
 spoken. Some refer them to the past, and understand the verse to mean 
 that they are now in terror who once said thus and thus. On this hypothe- 
 sis, the words themselves might be explained as the language of defiance. 
 Who of us is afraid ('W) of the devouring fir el Who of us is afraid of 
 exerlasting burnings? Or with Vitringa, as the language of complaint. 
 Who of us can dwell with (this) devouring fire ? Who of us can dwell with 
 (these) perpetual burnings? i.e. with a God of such severity? But the 
 great mass of interpreters, both old and new, suppose this to be given not 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 547 
 
 as the former but the present language of the wicked Jews, when actually 
 seized with terror. Not those who once said, but who now say etc. On 
 this supposition, it can be expressive neither of defiance nor complaint, but 
 only of alarm and desperation. Ewald, adopting this interpretation in the 
 general, gives yor the sense of protecting, derived from its primary import 
 of sojourning as a guest and a friend ; but this is a gratuitous departure from 
 the usage of the language. Those who adhere to it are still divided as to 
 the application of the figures. Grotius understands by the fire the Assyrian 
 host that menaced them. Who can abide this devouring fire 1 Piscator, 
 the fire of God's wrath, as executed by the Assyrians. Aben Ezra, the 
 wrath of God as exercised against the Assyrians themselves. This is the 
 interpretation commonly adopted. It supposes the words to be expressive 
 of the feelings excited by the slaughter of Sennacherib's host. If this be 
 a specimen of God's vindicatory justice, what may we expect? Who of us 
 can dwell with {this) devouring fire] Who of us can dwell with (these) 
 perpetual burnings 1 Many make the language still more emphatic, by 
 supposing that the Prophet argues from the less to the greater. If these 
 are God's temporal judgments, what must his eternal wrath be ? If the mo- 
 mentary strokes of his hand are thus resistless, who of us can dwell with the 
 devouring fire, who of us can dwell ivith everlasting burnings 1 The last 
 words may then be taken in their strongest and most unrestricted sense. 
 Henderson thinks they have no meaning if they do not refer to eternal pun- 
 ishment, lib does not here mean for us or with us, but is used in its widest 
 sense, as expressive of relation in general, to qualify the pronoun. Who with 
 respect to us, i. e. who of us, as opposed to men in general. Gesenius 
 describes it as an emphatic formula, and yet omits it in the translation. 
 Hitzig and Hendewerk take fire and burning as a poetical description of the 
 plague, by which they suppose the Assyrians to have perished. Clericus 
 more suo understands it of the burning of the villages of Judah by the in- 
 vaders. Knobel says the burning was called everlasting, because it was 
 everlasting in its consequences, i. e. it destroyed what it consumed forever. 
 But who could or would speak, in any language, of a man's being hung 
 with an everlasting rope, or^ killed by an everlasting stroke of lightning ? 
 DeDieu's construction of the last clause as containing several distinct pro- 
 positions (quis commorabitur nostrum 1 ignis devorat etc.) is ingenious, but 
 unnatural and wholly unnecessary. 
 
 V. 15. This verse contains a description of the righteous man, not un- 
 like that in the fifteenth and twenty-fourth Psalms. Walking righteousnesses 
 i. e. leading a righteous life. Walk is a common Scriptural expression for 
 the course of conduct. The plural form of the other word may either be 
 used to mark it as an abstract term, or as an emphatic expression for fulness 
 
548 ISAIAH. CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 or completeness of rectitude. In order to retain the figure of walking, the 
 preposition in may be supplied before the noun ; but in Hebrew it seems to 
 be governed directly by the verb, or to qualify it as an adverb. And 
 speaking right things, or (taking the plural merely as an abstract) rectitude 
 or righteousness. The idea is not merely that of speaking truth as opposed 
 to falsehood, but that of rectitude in speech as distinguished from rectitude 
 of action. Rejecting or despising (or combining both ideas, rejecting with 
 contempt) the gain of oppressions or extortions. Shaking his hands from 
 taking hold of the bribe, an expressive gesture of indignant refusal, which 
 Forerius compares to Pilate's washing his hands, and Gataker to Paul's 
 shaking off the viper. Malvenda imagines that the terms are so selected 
 as to suggest the idea of a weighty gift. Gesenius and others greatly 
 weaken the expression, and indeed destroy its graphic form, by rendering 
 the phrase, whose hand refuses to receive a bribe. The true sense is forci- 
 bly conveyed in J. D. Michaelis's version, shakes his hands that no bribe 
 may stick to them, and in Gill's homely paraphrase, that won't receive any, 
 but when they are put into his hands shakes them out. The Chaldee Para- 
 phrase of this first clause contains the expression mammon of falsehood, 
 which may be compared with the mammon of unrighteousness in Luke 
 16 : 9. Stopping his cars from hearing bloods, i. e. plans of murder, or as 
 Lowth expresses it, the proposal of bloodshed. For the usage of the plural 
 form o^bi, see the note on ch. 1:15. Shutting his eyes from looking at 
 evili. e. from conniving at it, or even beholding it as an indifferent spectator. 
 The 3 is then a mere connective like the English at or on ; but the combi- 
 nation of this verb and particle appears in many cases to denote the act of 
 gazing at a thing with pleasure, which idea would be perfectly appropriate 
 here. Lowth has, against the appearance of evil, which does not convey 
 the exact sense of the original. According to the natural connexion of the 
 passage, this verse would seem to contain the answer to the question in v. 
 14, and is so understood by those who make the question mean, who can 
 stand before this terrible Jehovah ? But on the supposition of an allusion 
 to eternal punishment, the answer is absurd, for it implies that the righteous 
 man can or will endure it. This may either be regarded as a proof that 
 there is no such allusion to eternal punishment in v. 14, or as a proof that 
 this is not an answer to the question there recorded. The former conclusion 
 is adopted by the latest German writers, who understand this verse as mean- 
 ing that God is a consuming fire only to the wicked, and that the righteous 
 man as here described is perfectly secure. On the other hand, Henderson 
 separates this verse from the preceding context by a larger space than usual, 
 making this the beginning, as it were, of a new paragraph. To this con- 
 struction there is the less objection, as the sentence is evidently incomplete 
 in this verse, tbe apodosis being added in the next. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 549 
 
 V. 16. He (the character described in v. 15) high places shall inhabit. 
 This does not denote exalted station in society, but safety from enemies, in 
 being above their reach, as appears from the other clause. Fastnesses (or 
 strongholds) of rocks (shall be) his lofty place, i. e. his refuge or his place 
 of safety, as in ch. 25: 12. To the idea of security is added that of suste- 
 nance, without which the first would be of no avail. His bread is given, 
 including the ideas of allotment or appointment and of actual supply. His 
 water sure, or, retaining the strict sense of the participle, secured. At the 
 same time there is evident allusion to the moral usage of the word as signi- 
 fying faithful, true, the opposite of that which fails, deceives, or disappoints 
 the expectation, in which sense the same word with a negative is applied 
 by Jeremiah (15 : 18) to waters that fail. Clericus explains the first clause 
 of this verse as a promise that those living in the plain should be as safe as 
 if they lived in the mountains. Grotius explains the second as a promise 
 of literal deliverance from famine. Knobel arbitrarily applies the whole to 
 protection and supply in a time of siege, and then infers that the passage 
 must have been composed before Sennacherib approached Jerusalem, be- 
 cause the Prophet afterwards was well aware that no siege had taken place 
 at all. This charge of false prediction is exploded by the simple observa- 
 tion, that the verse is an assurance, clothed in figurative language, of general 
 protection and support to the righteous. Vitringa's reference of the words 
 in their lower sense to the support of the Levitical priesthood, and in their 
 higher sense to the happiness of heaven, goes as much to an extreme, though 
 in an opposite direction. 
 
 V. 17. A king in his beauty shall thine eyes behold. Kimchi, by an 
 arbitrary syntax, takes the future as a past tense and refers it to the king of 
 Assyria, whom their eyes had seen but should see no more. Besides the 
 grammatical objection to this version, it is inconsistent with the other clause, 
 unless that also be referred to the same subject by sup, lying king before a 
 distant land. Of those who take the futures in their proper meaning, some 
 suppose Jehovah to be meant (Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis), others the Mes- 
 siah (Abarbenel), but most writers Hezekiah, either exclusively (Gesenius) 
 or as a type of Christ (Calvin). For this departure from his customary 
 mode of exposition, Calvin thinks it necessary to apologize by saying, ne 
 quis me- hie allegorias sequi puiet a quibus sum alienus. To see the king 
 in his beauty does not mean in his moral excellence (Hendewerk), but in 
 his royal state, with tacit reference to his previous state of mourning and 
 dejection (ch. 37 : 1). They (i. e. thine eyes) shall behold a land of dis- 
 tances or distant places. The most natural explanation of this phrase would 
 be a distant land, in which sense it is used by Jeremiah (8 : 19) and a part 
 of it by Zechariah (10 : 9), and by both in reference to exile or captivity. 
 
550 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 The verse before us, taken by itself, might be understood as a threatening 
 that the Jews should see the king of Babylon in his royal state and in a 
 distant land. Interpreters seem to be agreed, however, that in this con- 
 nexion it can be taken only as a promise. Grotius accordingly explains it 
 to mean that after the fall of the Assyrian host, the Jews should be free to 
 go abroad without restraint and especially to visit the scene of the catastro- 
 phe. This explanation he illustrates by a parallel from Virgil. Panduntur 
 portae.juvat ire et Dorica castra descrtosque videre locos lilusque rclictum. 
 Hitzig confines it to their literally seeing far and wide from the walls of 
 Jerusalem, their view being no longer obstructed by entrenchments or the 
 presence of the enemy. Luther and others, on the contrary, suppose the 
 land itself to be here described as actually widened by an accession of con- 
 quered territory. To all these explanations it may be objected that the 
 Prophet does not speak of distant boundaries or frontiers, as in ch. 26 : 15, 
 but of a distant land. The only explanation of the verse as a prom- 
 ise, against which this objection does not lie, is that of Henderson, who 
 translates the clause, they shall see distant lands, and explains it to mean 
 that instead of being cooped up within the walls of Jerusalem by the Assy- 
 rians, the inhabitants should not only freely traverse their own land, but 
 visit distant nations. Whether the liberty of foreign travel is in this con- 
 nexion an appropriate promise, may be made a question. Piscator under- 
 stands the clause to mean that their eyes should see ambassadors from a far 
 country, viz. those of Berodach-baladan (2 Kings 20: 12). But in this 
 case the most important word of the sentence is supplied by mere conjec- 
 ture. Vitringa applies the whole verse, in its lower sense, to the conquests 
 of the Maccabees and their enlargement of the Jewish territory, but in a 
 higher sense to the glorious reign of the Messiah. 
 
 V. 18. Thy heart shall meditate terror. This does not mean, it shall 
 conceive or experience present terror, but reflect on that which is already 
 past. What follows is explained by some as the language of the Jews 
 in their terror calling for the officers on whom they depended for pro- 
 tection. But the officers here named are not those to whom they 
 would probably have looked in this emergency. Others more natur- 
 ally understand it therefore as the triumphant exclamation of the people 
 when they found themselves so suddenly delivered from their enemies. 
 Where is he that counted 1 where is he that weighed 1 where is he that 
 counted the towers? As a noun, ^fib means a scribe, and is commonly so 
 rendered here. Some even give it the New Testament sense of y(ju, fiare\; 
 a learned man or doctor of the law. So the Septuagint (jgnfiftanxn)), the 
 Vulgate (literatus), Luther (Schriftgelehrien) , Vitringa (doctus). This 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 551 
 
 leads of course to an analogous interpretation of the other terms, as meaning 
 legis verba ponderous, doctor parvulorum, dialecticus subtilis, etc. etc. 
 Others, adhering to the Hebrew usage of the noun nfcb, understand by it a 
 secretary, financial or military, perhaps a secretary of state, or of war, or an 
 inspector-general (Barnes). The clause is still more modernized by J. D. 
 Michaelis : where is the general, where the engineer 1 But as the second 
 ifio is evidently construed as a participle, and in the primary sense of count- 
 ing, it is much more natural to understand the first ib& and ^pti) in like 
 manner, as denoting him who counted, him who weighed. This is Ewald's 
 construction (wer zahlte, wer wog), and Lowth gives the same sense to the 
 words as nouns (the accomptant, the weigher of tribute). Thus explained, 
 they may be applied either to the instruments of the Assyrian domination in 
 Judea, or to certain necessary officers attached to the besieging army. The 
 counting and weighing may be either that of tribute or of military wages. 
 The second *ibo denotes the same act as the first, but is applied expressly 
 to another object. The towers are of course the fortifications of Jerusalem. 
 By counting them some understand surveying them, either with a view to 
 garrisoning or dismantling ; others the act of reconnoitring them from with- 
 out, which some ascribe particularly to Rabshakeh or Sennacherib himself. 
 The general meaning of the verse is plain, as an expression of surprise and 
 joy, that the oppressor or besieger had now vanished. The Apostle Paul, 
 in 1 Cor. 1 : 20, has a sentence so much like this, in the threefold repe- 
 tition of the question where, and in the use of the word scribe, that it can- 
 not be regarded as a mere fortuitous coincidence. Of the mutual relation 
 of the passages two views have been taken by interpreters. Junius and 
 Cocceius regard that in Corinthians as a quotation of the one before us, 
 and Vitringa makes the former determine the whole meaning of the latter. 
 He accordingly explains the Hebrew words as all denoting some form of 
 worldly wisdom and sagacity or its possessors, and the whole verse as im- 
 plying that the great deliverance had not been wrought by any such means 
 but by God alone. The violence done by this interpretation to the language 
 of the Prophet is enough of itself to make the hypothesis on which it rests a 
 doubtful one. Calvin, on the other hand, denies that Paul has any refer- 
 ence to this place, which is going too far, since it is probable, as Henderson 
 observes, that the structure of the one passage may have suggested the other; 
 The expression it is written, in the preceding verse of the epistle, introduces 
 a quotation from ch. 29: 14, but does not necessarily extend to the next 
 verse, which may therefore be regarded as a mere imitation, as to form and 
 diction, of the one before us. 
 
 V. 19. The fierce (or determined) people thou shalt not see. Thou 
 shalt see no more the Assyrians, whose disappearance was implied in the 
 
552 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 questions of the foregoing verse. The essential idea of wna seems to be that 
 of firmness and decision, perhaps with the accessory idea of aggressive bold- 
 ness. It is taken in the stronger sense of impudent by several of the an- 
 cient versions. DeDieu and Capellus (the two Ludovici, as Vitringa calls 
 them) would read TSib so as to secure a parallel to S*fcJ in the other clause. 
 (Compare Ps. 114: 1.) A people deep of lip from hearing i. e. too ob- 
 scure for thee to understand. Deep is referred to the sound of the voice, 
 the mode of utterance, by the Septuagint (fiafrvcpwvoi), Clericus (e prof undo 
 gutture loquentem), and Vitringa, who illustrates the expression by the differ- 
 ence between the utterance of the Swiss and the Saxons on the one hand and 
 the French and English on the other. But the later writers more correctly 
 understand deep as denoting obscure or unintelligible. The preposition before 
 hearing, though not directly negative, is virtually so, as it denotes away from, 
 which is really equivalent to so as not to hear or be heard. (See the note on 
 ch. 5: 6.) Barbarous tongue (or of a barbarous tongue), without meaning 
 (literally, there is no meaning). The verb J*b, in its other forms, means to 
 mock or scoff, an idea closely connected, in the Hebrew usage, with that of 
 foreign language, either because the latter seems ridiculous to those who do 
 not understand it, or because unmeaning jargon is often used in mockery. 
 Jerome's translation of the last phrase, in quo nulla est sapientia, changes 
 the meaning of the clause entirely. Some of. the latest German writers un- 
 derstand it to signify not only unintelligible but unmeaning, and regard the 
 description as an illustration of Jewish narrowness and prejudice. The paral- 
 lelism might have taught them that no more was meant to be conveyed than 
 the actual want of meaning to the hearers. The whole is a mere periphrastic 
 description of a people altogether strange and foreign. Henderson supposes 
 the expressions to refer to the Medo-Persian mercenaries in the Assyrian 
 army, but most interpreters apply them directly to the Assyrians themselves. 
 According to Gill, the language here meant is the Latin ; but the people he 
 explains to be both Turks and Papists. 
 
 V. 20. Behold Zion the city of our festivals. Instead of the presence 
 of foreign enemies, see Jerusalem once more the scene of stated solemnities. 
 Houbigant and Lowth, on the alleged authority of the Targum, read thou 
 thalt see, which is not only unnecessary but less expressive than the direct 
 command to see the object as already present. The address is to the people 
 as an individual, and not to Zion itself, as Luther and the Targum have it. 
 Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet home, a tent (that) shall not be 
 removed (or taken down). The whole of this description is drawn from 
 the usages of the nomadic life. Its stakes shall not be pulled up forever, 
 and all its cords shall not be broken, or in our idiom, none of its cords shall 
 be broken. According to Kimchi, nxab means for a long time (ti yor) ; 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 553 
 
 according to Henderson, until the end of the old dispensation. The peculiar 
 beauty of the imagery lies in ascribing permanence to a tent, which from its 
 very nature must be movable. This may either imply a previous state of 
 agitation and instability, or that the church, though weak in herself, should 
 be strengthened and established by the power of God. Gill understands 
 the verse as describing what he calls the philadelphian church state. Con- 
 rad Pellican applies it to the rest and peace of heaven, Vitringa to the state 
 of the Jews under the Maccabees, considered as a type of the Christian 
 church. He also robs the passage of its beautiful simplicity, by making it 
 the language of a choir of teachers, or of the Prophet speaking in their 
 name, and by giving to each part of the tent a specific spiritual sense, the 
 stakes being the promises, and the ropes the hope and faith of true believers. 
 On this mode of expounding the prophetic figures, see the exposition of ch. 
 5: 3. 
 
 V. 21. But there shall Jehovah be mighty for us (or in our behalf). 
 Some take the particles ptt "o separately, as meaning because certainly. 
 There is no need, however, of departing from the ordinary sense of but, 
 which the phrase has elsewhere after a negation. The connexion of the 
 verses is that Zion shall never be weakened or removed, but on the contrary 
 Jehovah etc. The construction of T**W as a mere epithet of rftm is forbidden 
 by the collocation of the words. The sense seems to be that he will there 
 display his power for our protection and advantage. A place of rivers, 
 streams, broad (on) both hands (or sides), i. e. completely surrounding her. 
 Cocceius connects this clause with the verb of the preceding verse (thine 
 eyes shall see a place etc.) and throws the immediately foregoing words into 
 a parenthesis. J. D. Michaelis supplies we have. But most interpreters 
 connect these words directly with Jehovah. Of these some suppose dps 
 to be used like the Latin loco meaning in the place, instead. The promise 
 then is that Jehovah will supply the place of streams and rivers. Others 
 more boldly put eips in apposition with ttW, and explain the clause to 
 mean that Jehovah will himself be a place of streams and rivers to the peo- 
 ple. Clericus supposes the allusion to nomadic life to be still continued, and 
 the people to be described as encamping on the banks of noble streams, but 
 without incurring the dangers usually incident to such a situation. Accord- 
 ing to Gill, the ideas meant to be conveyed are those of abundance, freedom, 
 pleasant situation and security. Many interpreters suppose the situation of 
 Jerusalem to be here compared with that of Nineveh, Memphis, and other 
 cities situated on great rivers, the want of which advantage was abundantly 
 compensated by the divine protection. But the latest German writers 
 understand the clause as meaning that God himself would be to Zion what 
 moats and trenches are to fortified cities. This idea is neither natural in 
 
55 4 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 itself nor naturally suggested by the words streams and rivers, the plurals of 
 the terms which are commonly applied to the Nile and the Euphrates. The 
 most obvious explanation seems to be that this clause is an amplification of 
 the adverb taJ. Jehovah will be mighty for us there. What place is meant? 
 A place of rivers and streams broad on both sides, i. e. spreading in every 
 direction. There is the less occasion, therefore, to read Bti with Lowth or 
 tab with Koppe. The situation described is one which has all the advan- 
 tages of mighty streams without their dangers. There shall not go in it an 
 oared vessel (literally, a ship of oar), and a gallant ship shall not pass 
 through it. The parallel expressions both refer, no doubt, to ships of war, 
 which in ancient times were propelled by oars. The antithesis which some 
 assume between trading ships and vessels of war would here be out of place. 
 The fine old English phrase gallant ship is ill exchanged by some translators 
 for mighty or magnificent vessel. 
 
 V. 22. For Jehovah our Judge, Jehovah our Lawgiver, Jehovah our 
 King, he will save us. This is a repetition of the same idea, but without 
 the figures of the preceding verse. Ewald agrees with the older writers in 
 making Jehovah the subject and the other nouns the predicates of a series 
 of short sentences (Jehovah is our Judge etc.). Gesenius makes them all 
 the complex subject of the verb at the end. The general meaning is the 
 same in either case. 
 
 V. 23. Thy roves are cast loose ; they do not hold upright their mast ; 
 they do not spread the sail ; then is shared plunder of booty in plenty ; the 
 lame spoil the spoil. Cocceius refers the first clause to the tent (thy cords 
 are lengthened) and the rest to a ship. Clericus makes the whole relate to a 
 tent, and supposes *pn to denote the central pole or post. Interpreters are 
 agreed, however, that there is, at the beginning of this verse, a sudden 
 apostrophe to the enemy considered as a ship. This figure would be natur- 
 ally suggested by those of v. 21. It was there said that no vessel should 
 approach the holy city. But now the Prophet seems to remember that one 
 had done so, the proud ship of Assyria. But what was its fate? He sees 
 it dismantled and abandoned to its enemies. The first phrase is rendered 
 in Robinson's Gesenius, thy tacklings are broken in yicces, an expression 
 which could hardly be applied to ropes. The Rabbins understand it to 
 mean, thy ropes are abandoned by the sailors. The Vulgate version is 
 laxati sunt. The last two explanations may be combined by supposing the 
 words to mean that they cast the ropes loose and abandon them. Kimchi 
 explains *P as an adverb meaning well or rightly; Cocceius as a noun, 
 meaning the base or socket of the mast. This last is adopted by most of 
 the late writers; but an equally natural construction is to make "P an adjec- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 555 
 
 tive meaning upright, which is justified by usage and peculiarly appropriate 
 in this connexion. Some take 02 in its more usual sense of flag or banner, 
 without materially changing that of the whole sentence, tx marks the 
 transition from abandonment to plunder, whether past or future. W© iy 
 appears to be an emphatic pleonasm or reduplication. The eagerness of 
 the pillage is expressed by making the lame join in it. 
 
 V. 24. And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick (or have been 
 siclc). This may either mean that none shall be sick, or that those who 
 have been so shall be recovered. Some interpreters suppose an allusion 
 to the plague. The people dwelling in it (is) forgiven (its) iniquity. 
 Some suppose this to be an explanation of the sickness mentioned in the 
 first clause, as a spiritual malady. Others understand it as explaining bodily 
 disease to be the consequence and punishment of sin. The words may be 
 taken in a wider sense than either of these, namely, that suffering shall 
 cease with sin which is its cause. Thus understood, the words are strictly 
 applicable only to a state of things still future, either upon earth or in hea- 
 ven. The last clause shows the absurdity of making the first mean merely 
 that no one shall excuse himself from joining in the pillage on the plea of 
 sickness. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 This chapter and the next appear to constitute one prophecy, the first 
 part of which (ch. 34) is filled with threatenings against the enemies of the 
 church, the latter part (ch. 35) with promises to the church itself. The 
 threatenings of ch. 34 are directed, first against the nations in general, vs. 
 1_4 ? and then against Edom in particular, vs. 5-15, with a closing affirma- 
 tion of the truth and certainty of the prediction, vs. 16, 17. The destruc- 
 tion of the enemies of Zion and the desolation of their lands are represented 
 by the figures of a great sacrifice or slaughter, the falling of the heavenly 
 bodies, the conversion of the soil into brimstone and the waters into pitch, 
 and the inhabitation of animals peculiar to the desert. 
 
 Rabbi Moses Haccohen applies all this to the desolation of Edom in 
 the days of Isaiah. Grotius, who adopts the same hypothesis, supposes 
 these judgments to have been provoked by the aid which the Edomites 
 afforded to the Assyrians in their invasion of Judea, and to have been exe- 
 cuted by the Ethiopians. Schmidius also applies the chapter to the literal 
 
556 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 desolation of Edom in the days of Isaiah. Eusebius applies it to the day 
 of judgment and the end of the world. Cyril makes the same application 
 of vs. 1-4, but applies the rest to the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
 Jewish commonwealth, mystically represented here by Edom. Theodoret 
 extends this explanation to the whole, in which he is followed by Cocceius. 
 The rabbinical interpreters, with one exception which has been already 
 mentioned, explain Edom as a mystical or figurative name for Rome, or 
 rather Christendom, of which Rome was once the representative, and 
 understand the chapter as predicting the future downfall of the Christian 
 powers in the days of the Messiah. On this same rabbinical hypothesis 
 Vitringa rears a Christian exposition, by making Edom the emblem not of 
 Christian but of Antichristian (i. e. Papal) Rome. So J. H. Michaelis, 
 Gill, and others, most of whom however give the prophecy a greater latitude 
 of meaning, as a general threatening of destruction to the enemies of Zion, 
 but especially to Antichrist here typified as Edom. J. D. Michaelis regards 
 the prophecy as yet to be fulfilled, and thinks it possible that the ancient 
 Idumea may hereafter be possessed by an antichristian power whose destruc- 
 tion is here foretold. Rosenmuller and the other recent German writers 
 regard the whole as an extravagant expression of revengeful malice by a 
 writer long posterior to Isaiah. This gratuitous assumption is sustained by 
 the usual empirical criticism, which, as we have seen before, may be em- 
 ployed on either side of any question. Hitzig, while complaining of the 
 writer's difFuseness and verbosity, heaps up tautological expressions of con- 
 tempt in his own peculiar style. It is worthy of remark, too, that the 
 spirit of this chapter is extremely shocking to these pious unbelievers. 
 Leaving these prejudiced interpretations out of view, the reference of the 
 prophecy to Antichrist may be objected to, upon the ground that the sense 
 which it gives to Edom is a forced one, not sustained by any usage or 
 authority, except certain parts of the book of Revelation, which the older 
 writers used as a key to the ancient prophecies, whereas these alone afford 
 the key to it. The simplest and most satisfactory view of the whole passage 
 is the one proposed by Calvin, who regards it as a general threatening of 
 destruction to the enemies of Zion, Edom being particularly mentioned, as 
 an enemy of ancient Israel peculiarly inveterate and malignant, and thence 
 used to represent the whole class of such enemies. Thus understood, the 
 prophecy extends both to the past and future, and includes many particular 
 events to which interpreters have erroneously endeavoured to restrict it, not 
 excepting the destruction of Antichrist, as the greatest event of this kind 
 which is foretold in prophecy. Compare the note on ch. 11:4. 
 
 V. ) . Come near, ye nations, to hear, and ye peoples, hearken. Lowth 
 adds to me, on the authority of a single manuscript. Let the earth hear 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 557 
 
 and its fulness (that which fills it, all that it contains), the world and all its 
 issues (or productions, all that conies forth from it). This may either be 
 explained with Calvin as an appeal to inanimate nature, like the one at the 
 beginning of the book (ch. 1 : 2), or as an appeal to men, poetically repre- 
 sented as the fruit of the earth, which is the sense given in the ancient ver- 
 sions and adopted by Vitringa. Knobel supposes a climax or anticlimax, 
 the Prophet first invoking men (nations and peoples), then brutes (the ful- 
 ness of the earth), and then plants (its productions). But the sense thus 
 put upon the fulness of the earth is altogether arbitrary. This verse an- 
 nounces, as about to be delivered, a prediction of great moment and deserv- 
 ing the attention of the whole world. Cocceius understands by nations the 
 heathen and by peoples the tribes of Israel, a distinction which he makes 
 even in the first verse of the second Psalm. All other writers take the 
 words as poetical equivalents. 
 
 V. 2. This verse assigns the reason for the invocation in the one before 
 it. For (there is) anger to Jehovah. The English Version has, the indig- 
 nation of the Lord is. an idea which would be otherwise expressed in He- 
 brew. The construction is the same as in ch. 2: 12. Jehovah has anger 
 (or 75 angry) against all the nations. The common version is upon, which 
 is the primary, meaning of the particle, and is appropriate in this case as 
 suggesting the idea of infliction. That of hostility is of course implied, even 
 if not expressed. Vitringa needlessly and arbitrarily distinguishes between 
 the nations mentioned in the first verse and in this, upon the ground 
 that those who were to be destroyed would not be summoned to hear of 
 their destruction. But why not? It is exactly like the case of an indi- 
 vidual convict hearing his sentence before its execution. Vitringa also 
 makes D" 1 ^ mean nations in general, and tfW these nations, i. e. the ones 
 to be destroyed. But pf*W hi is the strongest expression possible in He- 
 brew for all nations. — And wrath (is to Jehovah) against all their host. 
 Not their armies in particular, as Clericus suggests, but their whole multitude, 
 all that belong to them. (Compare the same expression in Gen. 2: 1.) — 
 He has doomed them, or devoted them irrevocably to destruction. For the 
 peculiar usage of the Hebrew verb, see the note on ch. 1 1 : 15. — He has 
 given (i. e. appointed and abandoned) them to the slaughter. The past 
 tense is not a mere praeteritum propheticum, implying the certainty of the 
 event although still future, but describes the divine determination or decree 
 as really and literally past. 
 
 V. 3. And their slain shall be cast out. The Hebrew word strictly 
 means their wounded, and is so translated in the Septuagint and some other 
 versions. But usage gives it the specific sense of wounded mortally, and 
 
558 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 for the most part in battle. Cast out i. e. unburied. This suggests the 
 several ideas of contemptuous neglect, of a multitude too vast to be interred, 
 and perhaps of survivors too few to perform the duty. (Compare ch. 14: 
 18-20.) They shall not lie unburied merely for a time, but until they rot 
 upon the ground. And their corpses (or carcasses) , their stench shall go 
 up. The first noun is construed as an absolute nominative : as to their 
 carcasses, their stench etc. which is equivalent in our idiom to the stench of 
 their carcasses shall go up. With reference to the same revolting circum- 
 stance, Lucan calls a battle-field olentes agros. (Compare Amos 4 : 10. 
 Joel 2: 20.) — And mountains shall be melted with (or by) their blood, as 
 they are sometimes washed away by rains or torrents. This cannot mean 
 merely that blood shall run down from the hills (Clericus), but must be 
 taken as a strong poetical hyperbole descriptive of excessive carnage. 
 
 V. 4. And all the host of heaven (or heavenly bodies) shall consume away. 
 This verb is commonly applied to the pining or consumption occasioned by 
 disease. In Ps. 38: 6 it means to run as a sore, from which analogy Gese- 
 nius deduces here the sense of melting, and adopts Vitringa's notion that 
 the stars are poetically likened to wax candles. Maurer, with better taste, 
 supposes the obscuration of the heavenly bodies to be represented as a pining 
 away. The ideas of sickly lights and dying lights are not unknown to 
 modern poetry. — And, the heavens shall be rolled up (or together) like a 
 scroll, i. e. like an ancient volume (yolumen from volvo) or a modern map. 
 Grotius explains this as meaning that nothing should be seen in the heavens 
 any more than in a book rolled up or closed. This idea Umbreit carries 
 out by talking of the sky as God's great book, in which he has written his 
 eternal name with countless stars. J. D. Michaelis more naturally under- 
 stands the Prophet as alluding to the phenomena of storms, in which the 
 sky is first overcast and then covered with clouds, the motion of which gives 
 it the appearance of being rolled together. The best explanation seems 
 however to be that proposed by PfeifFer in his Dubia Vexata, to wit, that 
 as God is elsewhere described as having stretched out the heavens like a 
 curtain, their destruction or any total change in their appearance would be 
 naturally represented as a rolling up of the expanse. In like manner Hor- 
 ace says : horrida tempestas contraxit coelum. The Targum strangely 
 makes ifcos mean according to the book i. e. the scriptures. Montanus 
 no less strangely makes it govern o^a^n (sicut liber coelorum), a construc- 
 tion utterly precluded by the article. (See a similar mistake of Lowth in 
 ch. 17 : 8.) — And all their host (referring to the heavens) shall fade (or 
 r all away) like the fading of a leaf from a vine. This beautiful comparison 
 with the decay of plants makes it the more probable that the preceding 
 clause alludes to that of animal life and not to the melting of wax or tallow. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 559 
 
 — And like a fading (leaf) or a withered (fg) from a fig-tree. Knobel 
 explains rto as a feminine collective put for the plural masculine, an idiom 
 of which there are few if any unambiguous examples. As nbs is masculine, 
 the feminine adjective may be referred to a noun understood. J. D. Michaelis 
 imagines that this clause describes the seeming motion of the stars occasioned 
 by a nocturnal earthquake. Grotius supposes the description of the carnage 
 to be still continued, and the exhalations of the putrid corpses to be here 
 described as veiling the heavens and producing those meteoric appearances 
 called shooting stars. This extravagant conceit is justly condemned by 
 Gesenius as a most infelicitous conception of a poetic image, and is certainly 
 worse than his own prosaic supposition of wax candles. Such exhibitions 
 may enable us to estimate correctly the aesthetic contempt with which some 
 writers speak of this magnificent passage as plainly belonging to a later age. 
 A similar remark may be applied to Knobel's repetition of Vitringa's 
 indiscreet suggestion as to the popular belief of the Hebrews respecting the 
 heavens and the heavenly bodies. It would be no less rational to argue 
 from the foregoing verse, that they believed in streams of blood so vast as to 
 dissolve whole mountains. If the terms of that verse are poetical hyperbo- 
 les, on what ground is this to be explained as a lesson in natural philosophy ? 
 Another notion of Vitringa's, equally unfounded, although not adopted by 
 the modern Germans, is that the terms of this verse plainly show that the 
 prediction has respect to some great body politic or organized society, the 
 sun being the emblem of the civil power, the moon of the ecclesiastical, and 
 the stars of distinguished men in church and state. The context clearly 
 shows that the terms used are not symbolical but poetical, and that here, as 
 in ch. 13: 10, the idea, which they are all intended to convey is that of 
 revolution, of sudden, total, and appalling change. The imagery of the 
 passage has been partially adopted in Matt. 24 : 29 and Rev. 6:13, neither 
 of which however is to be regarded either as a repetition or an explanation 
 of the one before us. 
 
 V. 5. There is no need of giving ^3 the sense of yea (Augusti) or of 
 explaining it as a mere connective particle (Knobel), since it may be con- 
 strued, in its proper sense, either with v. 3 (Hitzig) or with the whole of the 
 preceding description. All this shall certainly take place, for my sword 
 (the speaker being God himself) is steeped (saturated, soaked) in heaven. 
 Most versions, ancient and modern, take the verb here in the sense of being 
 drunk or intoxicated, either with wrath or with the blood of enemies. It is 
 very improbable however that two different figures were intended here and 
 in v. 7, where all agree that the earth is described as being soaked or satu- 
 rated with blood. Koppe proposes to read ruft-vp sharpened, after the ana- 
 logy of Ezek. 21 : 33. The same sense had long before been put upon 
 
560 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 the common text by Clericus, who supposes an allusion to the wetting of 
 the grindstone or the blade in grinding. The Targum has revealed, on the 
 authority of which loose paraphrase Lowth reads made bare, adding with 
 great naivete in his note, whatever reading, different 1 presume from the 
 present, he might find in his copy, I follow the sense which he has given of 
 it. This implies that it is not even necessary to know what a reading is 
 before it is allowed to supersede the common text. The phrase in heaven 
 has been variously explained. Some of the older writers understand it as 
 expressing the certainty of the event (as firm or sure as the heavens) ; 
 others as descriptive of the great men who were to be destroyed. Gill says 
 it may denote the whole Roman papal jurisdiction, and Henderson, who 
 rejects all allusion to Rome, explains it to mean the Idumean heaven or the 
 ruling power in Kdom. Gesenius supposes the sword to be here described 
 as drunk with wrath in heaven before it is drunk with blood on earth ; 
 Ewald, as dropping blood in heaven as if by anticipation (wie zum 
 voraus). The best explanation is that of Calvin, who refers the expression 
 to the divine determination and foreknowledge. In the sight of God the 
 sword, although not yet actually used, was already dripping blood. The 
 sword is mentioned, neither because commonly employed in executions 
 (Barnes), nor in the sense of a butcher's knife (Vitringa), but as a natural 
 and common though poetical expression for any instrument of vengeance. 
 Knobel is singular in understanding this clause as referring to the slaughter 
 of the Babylonians already past, and now to be succeeded by that of the 
 Edomites. Behold, upon Edom it shall come down. Some translate the 
 future as a present, but therejs no sufficient reason for departing from the 
 proper sense. The Jewish tradition is that Edom in the prophecies means 
 Rome. For this opinion Abarbenel endeavours to secure a historical founda- 
 tion by making the Romans actual descendants of Esau. Vitringa justly 
 denounces this as egregious trifling, but adopts the same hypothesis, only 
 applying the name to Pagan and Papal Rome. At the same time, he ap- 
 pears unwilling to abandon altogether its application to the Jews themselves. 
 Now the only thing common to these three distinct subjects is their malig- 
 nant hatred of God's people. This may serve, therefore, to confirm Calvin's 
 doctrine, that the name is here applied to the inveterate enemies of the 
 church at large, and not to any one of them exclusively. Henderson, in 
 avoiding Vitringa's error, goes to the opposite extreme of confining the pre- 
 diction to the literal and ancient Edom. Even the German critics grant 
 that Edom is here mentioned as a representative. The same thing is clear 
 from the whole complexion of this prophecy and from the analogy of others 
 like it. The strength of the expressions cannot be explained by the gra- 
 tuitous assertion that it was merely adequate to meet the expectations of a 
 patriotic Jew in reference to the infliction of divine judgment on those who 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 561 
 
 had been the ancient and most inveterate enemies of his country. On the 
 other hand, they are sufficiently accounted for, by the supposition that the 
 passage is a prediction of the downfall not of Edom only but of others like 
 him. The fulfilment of these threatenings cannot be traced in the history 
 of ancient Edom. They ceased to be a people not by extirpation but by 
 incorporation with the Jews. The name Idumea, as employed by Josephus, 
 includes a large part of Judea. The Herods, the last royal family of Judah, 
 were of Idumean origin. — And upon the people of my curse or doom i.e. 
 the people whom I have doomed to destruction. (See v. 2.) This is not 
 an extension of the threatening against Edom to other nations (Junius), 
 but a repetition of it in a different form. B&B&fe is not an adverbial phrase 
 meaning justly, but a declaration of the end for which the sword was to 
 come down, viz. for judgment i. e. to execute justice upon Edom. 
 
 V. 6. A sword (is) to Jehovah (or Jehovah has a sword) ; it is full of 
 blood. The genitive construction (the sivord of Jehovah), although not 
 ungrammatical, is not to be assumed without necessity. — It is smeared with 
 fat. The allusion is not to the fatty part of the blood or to the fat com- 
 bined with it (Gesenius), but to fat and blood as the animal substances 
 offered in sacrifice. — With the blood of lambs and goats, mentioned as well- 
 known sacrificial animals, with the fat of the kidneys (or the kidney-fat) of 
 rams, mentioned either as remarkable for fatness or as a parallel expression 
 to the foregoing clause. — For there is to Jehovah (or Jehovah has) a sacri- 
 fice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. nn; is otherwise 
 explained to mean a victim (Vulgate), or the preparation for a feast (Coc- 
 ceius). Bozrah was an ancient city of Edom. Gesenius in his Commen- 
 tary identifies it with Bostra in Auranitis ; but in his Thesaurus he agrees 
 with Raumer and Hitzig in making it the same with the modern Busaireh, 
 a village and castle in Arabia Petraea south-east of the Dead Sea. (See 
 Robinson's Palestine, II. p. 570.) Cocceius thinks Jerusalem is here called 
 Bozrah as being a stronghold of thieves and robbers. Vitringa applies it 
 to Rome, which he derives from iwi high. Hitzig applies this verse to 
 the literal slaughter of the Edomitish flocks and herds, which seems incon- 
 sistent with the next verse. 
 
 V. 7. And unicorns shall come down with them, and bullocks with bulls. 
 And their land shall be soaked (or drenched) with blood, and their dust 
 with fat shall be fattened. The ancient versions, with great unanimity and 
 uniformity, explain ttfi as meaning the unicorn. This animal has been 
 commonly regarded as fabulous in modern times ; but of late some traces of 
 it have been found in Thibet and other parts of Asia. But even supposing 
 it to be a real animal, we have no reason to believe that it was ever common 
 
 36 
 
562 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 in the Holy Land, as the cm would seem to have been from the frequency 
 with which it is mentioned. The explanation of the Hebrew word by 
 Aquila and Saadias, as meaning the rhinoceros, may be considered as 
 exploded by Bochart. The modern writers are divided between a certain 
 species of gazelle or antelope and the wild buffalo of Palestine and Egypt. 
 The name may here be used either as a poetical description of the ox, or to 
 suggest that wild as well as tame beasts should be included in the threatened 
 slaughter. Some understand the term as denoting potent and malignant 
 enemies. Grotius gives a distinctive meaning also to the species mentioned 
 in the foregoing verse, the lambs being the common people, the goats the 
 priests, and the fat rams the men of wealth. This mode of exposition is at 
 variance with the very nature of figurative language. For die an in this 
 verse some of the old Jews read D-ioin Romans. Dust here denotes dry 
 soil, which is said to be enriched by the bodies of the slain. So Virgil says 
 that Roman blood had twice enriched the soil of Macedonia. The field of 
 Waterloo (says Barnes) has thus been celebrated, since the great battle there, 
 for producing rank and luxuriant harvests. To come down in the first clause 
 is by some explained as meaning to come down to the slaughter (Jer. 50 : 
 27. 51 : 40) ; by others to fall or sink under the fatal stroke (Zech. 11: 2). 
 
 V. 8. For {there is) a day of vengeance to Jehovah, a year of recom- 
 penses for the cause of Zion, i. e. to maintain her cause. Some have taken 
 this in an unfavourable sense as meaning to contend with Zion. Cocceius 
 and Umbreit regard day and year as a climax, but most writers as equiva- 
 lent indefinite expressions. This verse connects the judgments threatened 
 against Edom with the cause of Zion or the church of God. On the con- 
 struction and the meaning of the first words of the sentence, compare ch. 
 2: 12. 
 
 V. 9- And her streams (those of Idumea or the land of Edom) shall be 
 turned to pitch, and her dust to brimstone, and her land shall become burn- 
 ing pitch. This verse, as Calvin well observes, announces nothing new, 
 but repeats the same prediction under other figures, borrowed from the over- 
 throw of Sodom and Gomorrah, which throughout the Bible are set forth 
 for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 7). To the 
 fire and brimstone there mentioned, pitch or bitumen is added, as Hende- 
 werk and Knobel suppose, because the soil of Idumea, lying adjacent to 
 the Dead Sea, is bituminous and abounds in veins or springs of naphtha. 
 According to Sanctius, pitch is mentioned as a substance easily kindled and 
 burning long, mbns neither means her valleys (Septuagint) nor her torrents 
 (Lowth), but her streams in general, as distinguished from her dust or dry 
 ground, both being included in the general term land which occurs in the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 563 
 
 last clause (Hitzig). According to Knobel, the suffix in hsr^a still refers to 
 Idumea and the noun means surface. Grotius applies this description to 
 the burning of the Idumean cities. Clericus explains the first clause as 
 meaning that their streams should be as turbid as if turned to pitch. Barnes 
 correctly understands it as expressing in the strongest terms the idea of utter 
 and permanent destruction, as complete and terrible as if the streams were 
 turned to pitch. The old editions of the Chaldee paraphrase read here the 
 streams of Rome etc. According to the Talmud, Rome was founded on 
 the day that Jeroboam set up the golden calf, and is to be destroyed like 
 Sodom and Gomorrah. Upon this tradition (which is given at length in 
 Buxtorf 's Talmudical Lexicon under the word aai'i) Gill seizes with avidity, 
 so far as it is suited to his purpose, and applies it to the future destruction of 
 Rome by fire, as predicted in Rev. 17: 16. 18: 8. Vitringa also thinks it 
 not impossible that even this verse may be literally verified in the sulphure- 
 ous soil of Latium and Campania. He seems indeed to have regarded it as 
 an event likely to happen in his own day, and cites with great solemnity the 
 similar anticipations of Jerome Savonarola, as recorded by Philip de Comines, 
 and the prophecy found, according to Matthew of Paris, in the bed-room of 
 Gregory IX. So little does the failure of these earlier forebodings appear 
 to have taught him their groundless and unprofitable nature ! At the same 
 time he appears to allow ample space for the fulfilment by referring to the 
 great fire under Nero as a prelude to the final conflagration. 
 
 V. 10. Day and night it shall not be quenched ; forever shall its smoke 
 go up ; from generation to generation shall it lie waste, for ever and ever, 
 there shall be no one passing through it. The remarkable gradation and 
 accumulation of terms denoting perpetuity can scarcely be expressed in a 
 translation. This is especially the case with the last and highest of the 
 series, which Lowth renders to everlasting ages, and Henderson to all per- 
 petuity, neither of which is stronger than the common version for ever 
 and ever, or approaches much nearer to the strict sense of the Hebrew 
 phrase, to perpetuity of perpetuities. The original form of expression, 
 though not the exact sense of the words, is retained by Theodotion, sig 
 Zapata saxdrcov. Grotius's characteristic explanation is in these words : id 
 e$t, diu. Lowth's disposition to improve the common version by substi- 
 tuting Latin for Saxon words is exemplified in this verse, where he changes 
 waste and quenched into desert and extinguished. Grotius supposes an al- 
 lusion to the long-continued smoking of burnt cities, and quotes parallels 
 from Virgil and Seneca. A much more striking parallel is found in the 
 statement (Gen. 19: 28), that when Abraham looked toward Sodom and 
 Gomorrah, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 
 These sublime and fearful images are copied in the book of Revelation 
 
564 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 (14: 10, 11), but it does not follow that the copy, though inspired and 
 prophetic, was intended to determine the sense of the original. Rosenmul- 
 ler and Knobel understand the last words as meaning that no one shall go 
 to it or pass into it, but Gesenius and Ewald with the older writers, that no 
 one shall pass through or over it, implying that it shall not be a thorough- 
 fare for caravans or single travellers. Keith, in his Evidence of Pro- 
 phecy, has collected some remarkable illustrations of this passage from the 
 incidental statements of modern travellers with respect to what was once 
 the land of Edom. Thus Volney speaks of thirty deserted towns within 
 three days' journey ; Seetzen, of a wide tract utterly without a place of 
 habitation, and of his own route through it as one never before attempted ; 
 Burckhardt, of the passage as declared by the people of the nearest inhabited 
 districts to be impossible, in accordance with which notion he was unable to 
 procure guides at any price. These are striking coincidences, and as illustra 
 tions of the prophecy important, but are not to be insisted on as constituting 
 its direct fulfilment, for in that case the passage of these very travellers 
 through the country would falsify the prediction which they are cited to 
 confirm. The truth of the prophecy in this clause is really no more sus- 
 pended on such facts, than that of the first clause and of the preceding verse 
 upon the actual existence of bituminous streams and a sulphureous soil 
 throughout the ancient Idumea. The whole is a magnificent prophetic pic- 
 ture, the fidelity of which, so far as it relates to ancient Edom, is notoriously 
 attested by its desolation for a course of ages. In this verse Hitzig repre- 
 sents the writer as attaining his highest point of bitterness against the Edom- 
 ites ; and Knobel, in a kindred spirit, says that the repeated threatening of 
 perpetual desolation, while it makes the prediction more impressive, shows 
 great spite (yerrath grossen Hass), an expression far more applicable to the 
 comment than the text, which is as little open to the charge of malice as 
 the sentence which a judge pronounces on a convict. 
 
 V. 11. Then shall possess it (as a heritage) the pelican and porcupine, 
 the crane and crow shall dwell in it. And he (or one) shall stretch upon it 
 the line of confusion and the stones of emptiness. Having declared that 
 man should no longer pass through it, he now explains who shall be its inha- 
 bitants. The first verb is rendered by Cocceius, shall inherit; by Junius stiff 
 more fully, shall possess by hereditary right ; but by Gesenius and most later 
 writers, shall possess, which though correct is scarcely adequate, as the origi- 
 nal word could not fail to suggest to a Hebrew reader the idea of succession. 
 These animals should not only occupy the land, but occupy it as the suc- 
 cessors and to the exclusion of mankind. The n«p is no doubt the pelican, 
 as the etymology of the name (from Mp to vomit) agrees with the habits of 
 that bird, and the ancient versions so explain it. In this place, it is true, the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIY. 565 
 
 Septuagint has not nelexav, as Henderson quotes it, but the general term 
 ogvea, and the Vulgate not pelican but onocrotalus. The next word has 
 been translated owl (Calvin) and bittern (English Version), but is now- 
 agreed to mean the porcupine or hedgehog, as explained in the Septuagint 
 Qlivoi). The next word is now understood to denote not an owl (Bochart), 
 but a heron or crane ; according to the Septuagint, the ibis or Egyptian 
 heron. The essential idea, as Calvin observes, is that of wild and solitary 
 animals. (Compare ch. 13 : 21, 22. 14: 23. Rev. 18: 2.) Here again a 
 remarkable coincidence is furnished by the statements of travellers with 
 respect to the number of wild birds in Edom. Mangles, while at Petra, 
 describes the screaming of the eagles, hawks, and owls, seemingly annoyed 
 at any one approaching their lonely habitation. Burckhardt speaks of 
 Tafyle as frequented by an immense number of crows and of the birds 
 called katta, which fly in such large flocks that the boys often kill two or 
 three at a time merely by throwing a stick among them. In this last case 
 the coincidence is verbal also, as the katta bears a strong resemblance to 
 the nap. The apparent inconsistency between this clause and the descrip- 
 tion of the country in the verse before it only shows that neither can be 
 strictly taken, but that both are metaphorical predictions of entire desola- 
 tion. In the next clause the same idea is expressed by an entire change of 
 figure. The verb may be construed either with Jehovah understood (Kim- 
 chi), or indefinitely, as by -Junius (quisquis conabitur) and Augusti (man 
 zieht), which is really equivalent to the passive form adopted in the Vulgate 
 (extendetur). In the use of the words inn and 1H3, there may be a distinct 
 allusion to Gen. 1:2, as there is in Jer. 4 : 23. The line meant is a 
 measuring line, mentioned elsewhere not only in connexion with buildino- 
 (Zech. 1 : 16), but also with destroying (2 Kings 21 : 13). The stones 
 meant are not the black flints with which the soil of ancient Edom is pro- 
 fusely covered (Burckhardt), but stones used for weights (Deut. 25: 13. 
 Prov. 16 : 11), and here for plumb-line or plummet. This sense, which is 
 given in the Vulgate (perpendiculum) , is required by the parallelism and 
 assumed by all interpreters. The same figure is employed by Amos (7 : 
 7-9) to denote a moral test or standard, but in this case as a symbol of de- 
 struction. The plummet is here mentioned, not because actually used in 
 the taking down of buildings (Henderson), but as a parallel to line (Hitzig), 
 both together expressing the idea of exact and careful measurement. The 
 sense of the whole metaphor may then be either that God has laid this work 
 out for himself and will perform it (Barnes), or that in destroying Edom he 
 will act with equity and justice (Gill), or that even in destroying he will 
 proceed deliberately and by rule (Knobel), which last sense is well expressed 
 in Rosenmiiller's paraphrase (ad mensuram vastabitur, ad regulam depopu- 
 labitur). Ewald seems to understand the clause as meaning that the land 
 

 tt$ ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 should be meted out to new inhabitants, but that these should be only Waste 
 and Chaos. Calvin and others make it mean that all attempts at restoration 
 should be vain, the line and plummet of the builder should only serve as 
 measures of desolation. According to Clericus, the sense is that there should 
 be nothing to prevent one from measuring the ruins. The Septuagint curi- 
 ously assimilates the clauses by translating this : ass-centaurs shall inhabit it. 
 
 V. 12. Her caves and there is no one there (i. e. her uninhabited or 
 empty caves) they will (still) call a kingdom, and all her chiefs will be 
 cessation (i. e. cease to be). Lowth reads rrn^na or rr*nn bs, connects 
 it with the preceding verse (for which division of the text he cites the au- 
 thority of the Peshito), and translates the last words of that verse as follows : 
 and the plummet of emptiness over her scorched plains. Such a sense is 
 dearly purchased by an arbitrary change of text and the introduction of a 
 word of rare occurrence, not to say of doubtful meaning. Not content with 
 this, however, he reads Dtt) for du3, gives ao]3 the sense which he says it has 
 in Prov. 20: 6, and translates the first clause: no more shall they boast the 
 renown of the kingdom ! Most other writers take iwn in the sense given 
 to it by the Septuagint (ao%ovTeg) and Vulgate (nobiles). Montanus renders 
 it heroes. Gesenius retains the common meaning but derives it (on the 
 strength of an Arabic analogy) from the primary idea of free-born. It is 
 also commonly agreed since Vitringa, that this first word should be construed 
 as a nominative absolute (as to her nobles), and the first verb as indefinite. 
 That verb has been variously explained here as meaning to say (Augusti), 
 to cry (French Version), to lament (Castalio), to propose (DeDieu), to 
 name (Forerius), to recall (Grotius), to proclaim (Cocceius), and to call in 
 the sense of nominating or appointing (Vatablus). No less various are the 
 senses put upon the whole clause, among which however three may be par- 
 ticularly mentioned. According to the first, it means that there shall be 
 none to proclaim the kingdom (Ewald) or to call a king (Munster). Ac- 
 cording to the second, it means that there shall be no kingdom. This idea 
 is variously expressed and combined so as to mean that their princes will 
 be princes without land (Luther), or that they will lament for the destruction 
 of the kingdom (Castalio), or will cry that it is at an end (French Version), 
 or will call for its restoration (DeDieu) ; to which may be added Augustus 
 explanation, that men will say of her princes, they have no kingdom ! and 
 Grotius's, that they will call to mind (memoria recolent) their ancient royal 
 race now extinct, in favour of which he appeals to the Targum, which is 
 here of very doubtful meaning. A third sense, preferred by most of the 
 late writers, is that there shall be no one whom they can call to the king- 
 dom. The same elliptical construction is supposed to occur in Deut. 33 : 
 19. This great variety of explanations, and the harshness of construction 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 567 
 
 with which most of them are chargeable, may serve as an excuse for the 
 suggestion of a new one, not as certainly correct, but as possibly entitled to 
 consideration. All the interpretations which have been cited coincide in giv- 
 ing to D'nn the sense of nobles, which it certainly has in several places. (See 
 1 Kings 21 : 8, 11. Neh. 2: 16. 4 : 13.) But in several others, it no less 
 certainly means holes or caves. (See 1 Sam. 14: 11. Job 30: 6. Nah. 2: 
 13.) Now it is matter of history, not only that Edom was full of caverns, 
 but that these were inhabited, and that the aboriginal inhabitants, expelled 
 by Esau, were expressly called Horites (B*n'n) as being troglodytes or inha- 
 bitants of caverns (Gen. 14: 6, 36 : 20. Deut. 2: 12, 22). This being 
 the case, the entire depopulation of the country, and especially the destruc- 
 tion of its princes, might be naturally and poetically expressed by saying 
 that the kingdom of Edom should be thenceforth a kingdom of deserted 
 caverns. How appropriate such a description would be to the actual con- 
 dition of the country, and particularly to its ancient capital, may be seen 
 from Robinson's account of Petra (Palestine, II. pp. 514-537). The sup- 
 posed parallelism between WFWi and irniD, which Henderson urges against 
 Lowth's absurd emendation of the text, can have little weight in a case 
 where the construction is at best so difficult. It is proper to add that this 
 interpretation was suggested by the allusion to the Horites which Hendewerk 
 assumes, although he gives W*iti the sense of nobles with the great mass of 
 interpreters. Gesenius infers from his own interpretation of this clause, that 
 the kingdom of Edom was elective, and Hitzig adds that they sometimes 
 called a king from foreign parts, of which he finds an instance in Gen. 35 : 
 37 ; but Hendewerk objects that on the same grounds, Isaiah 3 : 6, 7Vould 
 prove Judah to have been an elective monarchy. Gill of course applies this 
 verse to the kingdom of the beast (Rev. 16 : 10) and JrnttJ to the cardinals. 
 
 V. 13. And her palaces (or in her palaces) shall come up thorns, net- 
 tles and brambles in her fortresses. The natural consequence of her de- 
 population. Here, as in ch. 5 : 6, Cocceius and Ewald construe the verb 
 with the noun of place (increscent spinis) ; but Gesenius, who adopts the 
 same construction in the other case, rejects it here, where it is much mol& 
 natural, as it precludes the necessity of supplying a preposition. In the 
 •next clause, Ewald supplies are ; but the preposition before fortresses makes 
 the other construction the more probable. Grotius quotes a beautiful par- 
 allel from Virgil. Carduus et spinis surgit paliurus acutis. The word 
 paliurus is itself used in the Vulgate version of this sentence. In rmsnan 
 Gill supposes an allusion to the name Bozrah. Grotius explains the phrase 
 to mean within the limits of her ancient walls. The situation here described 
 would of course be the resort of wild and solitary animals. And she shall 
 be a home of wolves. The Septuagint has sirens and the Vulgate dragons, 
 
568 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 which is retained in most of the old versions. Gill, who refers it all to 
 Rome directly, understands this to mean that as she had been the abode of 
 figurative dragons, i. e. of the old dragon, the devil and the beast, with their 
 creatures, popes and cardinals, so now she shall be occupied by literal 
 dragons, i. e. monsters of the wilderness. Gesenius and Ewald render fi^sn 
 jackals , but Henderson's version wolves is more expressive, and the exact 
 species meant is both dubious and unimportant. A court (or grass-plot) 
 for ostriches. Gesenius explains "vsri as an orthographical variation for 
 i*n a court or enclosure. Hitzig takes it in its usual sense of grass. In 
 like manner it had been explained as meaning grass or pasture long before 
 by Luther (Weide) and Cocceius (grameri). The general sense, in either 
 case, is that of an enclosed and appropriated spot, a play-ground or a dwell- 
 ing-place. The last phrase is rendered by Augusti, daughters of howling. 
 It is now understood to mean not owls but female ostriches. (See the note 
 onch. 13: 21.) 
 
 V. 14. And wild (or desert) creatures shall (there) meet with howling 
 creatures. The verb sometimes means to meet or encounter in the sense of 
 attacking (Ex. 4: 24. Hos. 13: 8) ; but here it seems to have the gen- 
 eral sense of falling in with. These lonely creatures, as they traverse Idu- 
 mea, shall encounter none but creatures like themselves. Gesenius and 
 Ewald follow Bochart in explaining ti^x to mean wild-cats. Lowth has 
 jackals. Most other writers, with greater probability, take it in the general 
 sense of those inhabiting the wilderness. (Compare the note on ch. 13 : 
 21.) *In like manner D" 1 "'!* may be understood, according to its etymology, as 
 signifying howlers, i. e. howling animals. This is less arbitrary, and at the 
 same time better suited to the context, than the explanation of the words 
 as names of particular species. The principal specific meanings put upon 
 o^tf are those of vultures (Luther), thoes (Bochart), mountain-cats (Lowth), 
 wild-cats (Grotius), wild dogs (Gesenius), and wolves (Ewald). Hen- 
 dewerk prefers the more general meaning beasts of prey (Raubthiere), for 
 which there seems to be no sufficient ground in etymology. Augusti 
 Retains both Hebrew words (Zihim and Ijim). Castalio has Sylvani and 
 Faunis. Next to the explanation first proposed, the most probable is that 
 given by Cocceius and the English Version, wild beasts of the desert and 
 wild beasts of the island. The antithesis might then be that between the 
 animals inhabiting dry places and those frequenting marshes or the banks of 
 streams (according to the wide sense of the Hebrew *K, explained in the 
 note on ch'. 20: 6), implying either the existence of such spots in Idumea, 
 or that the whole description is to be tropically understood. By the wild 
 beast of the desert Cocceius understands the Saracens and Turks, and by 
 the wild beasts of the island the Crusaders. In the words fi^s and d^k 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 569 
 
 there is a paronomasia but not a pun (Barnes). A pun is the use of one 
 word in two senses. A paronomasia is the likeness of two different words 
 in form or sound. And the shaggy monster shall call to his fellow. Hit- 
 zig and Ewald give sopi the sense of meeting, as a parallel to "poMs, and 
 suppose the Kal to be here construed as the Niphal is in Ex. 3 : 18. But 
 as the Kal itself never means to meet, excepting in a figurative application, 
 and as the other explanation gives a perfectly good sense, and adds variety 
 to the description, it is better to explain it as most writers have done since 
 the Septuagint version (jporjaovtai). For the true sense of "PSia, see the 
 extended comment on the plural form as it occurs in ch. 13 : 21. Ewald, 
 who has satyrs there, has he-goat in the case before lis ; and Hen- 
 derson, who has wild goats there, has here the shaggy he-goat. Other 
 writers still give the word, as in the former case, the sense of a hirciform 
 spectre (Bochart), field-spirit (Augusti), field-devil (Luther), wood-devil 
 (J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius), and the Dutch Version makes it flatly mean 
 de duyvel. Amidst these various and fanciful interpretations, the most con- 
 sistent with itself and with the etymology is still that of the Vulgate (pilosus). 
 This is preferable even to that given by Henderson and Ewald, on the 
 ground that it corresponds better with the general descriptive meaning 
 which, as we have seen above, most probably belongs to the words d^x and 
 ffw* in the preceding clause. If that clause speaks of wild and howling 
 beasts, and not of any one class exclusively, it is more natural that this 
 should speak of shaggy monsters generally than of goats. Hendewerk's 
 conjecture, that the Prophet here alludes to Mount Seir (wid), is not so 
 felicitous as that respecting the allusion to the Horites in v. 12. Only there 
 reposes the night-monster and finds for herself a resting-place. y* 9 which 
 the older writers render quinimo (Vitringa), certe (Cocceius), etc. is properly 
 a particle of limitation meaning only. The latest writers connect it with D©. 
 as meaning only there (Gesenius), or with the verb as meaning only rest 
 (DeWette), or with n-^b as meaning nonnisi spectra nocturna (Maurer). 
 The word nr»V*?>, which occurs only here, has experienced very much the 
 same fate with TOM In itself it means nothing more nor less than noctur- 
 nal, and would seem to be applicable either to an animal or to any other 
 object peculiarly belonging to the night. The Vulgate renders it by lamia, 
 a word used very much like the English witch, but derived from the name 
 of a Libyan queen, who having lost her child was said to prey upon the 
 children of others. With this may be connected another Roman super- 
 stition, that of the strix or varnpyre, which sucked the blood of children in 
 the cradle. These superstitions were adopted by the later Jews and con- 
 nected with the word before us, as denoting a nocturnal spectre (or she-demon 
 as Gill calls it) preying upon newborn children, against which the German 
 Jews are said to use traditional precautions. This gratuitous interpretation 
 
570 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 of the Hebrew word was unfortunately sanctioned by Bochart and Vitringa, 
 and adopted with eagerness by the modern Germans, who rejoice in every 
 opportunity of charging a mistake in physics or a vulgar superstition on the 
 Scriptures. This disposition is the more apparent here, because the writers 
 of this school usually pique themselves upon the critical discernment with 
 which they separate. the exegetical inventions of the Rabbins from the genu- 
 ine meaning of the Hebrew text. Gesenius, for example, will not even 
 grant that the doctrine of a personal Messiah is so much as mentioned in 
 the writings of Isaiah, although no opinion has been more universally main- 
 tained by the Jews, from the date of their oldest uncanonical books extant. 
 In this case, their unanimous and uninterrupted testimony goes for nothing, 
 because it would establish an unwelcome identity between the Messiah of 
 the Old and New Testament. But when the object is to fasten on the 
 Scriptures a contemptible and odious superstition, the utmost deference is 
 paid, not only to the silly legends of the Jews, but to those of the Greeks, 
 Romans, Zabians, and Russians, which are collated and paraded with a 
 prodigal expenditure of trifling erudition, to prove what never was disputed, 
 that these superstitions have existed and do still exist ; as if it followed of 
 course that they were current in the days of Isaiah, and if not believed are 
 distinctly mentioned by him. But this conclusion would be wholly unau- 
 thorized, even if the words of the Prophet at first sight seemed to bear that 
 meaning ; how much more when it can only be attached to them by vio- 
 lence. J. D. Michaelis, who stands among the writers on Isaiah at the turn- 
 ing point between belief and unbelief, acquits the Prophet of believing in 
 such spectres, but regards it as a case of accommodation to popular errors or 
 illusions, the same principle on which the demoniacal possessions of the gospel 
 are explained away, and as the ultimate result of the same process, the his- 
 torical existence of Christ himself resolved into a mythus. That a similar 
 mode of exposition was adopted by such men as Bochart and Vitringa, only 
 proves that they lived before its dangerous tendency had been developed. 
 It should also be considered that nocturnal spectres had not then been so 
 decisively referred to the category of ideal beings as they are at present. 
 These remarks are intended merely to prevent an inconsiderate adoption 
 of the views in question, on the authority either of the older writers or the 
 modern Germans. Against the views themselves there are substantive ob- 
 jections of the most conclusive kind. Besides the fact already mentioned, 
 that rv<W> strictly means nocturnal, and that its application to a spectre is 
 entirely gratuitous, we may argue here, as in ch. 13 : 25, that ghosts as well 
 as demons would be wholly out of place in a list of wild and solitary ani- 
 mals. That such animals are mentioned in the first clause of this verse 
 and of the next, is allowed by all interpreters, however widely they may 
 differ as to the specific meaning of the terras employed. Taking Gesenius's 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 571 
 
 interpretation, the first item in the catalogue is vAld cats, the second wild 
 dogs, the third demons, the fourth hobgoblins, and the fifth arrow-snaJces. 
 Is this a natural succession of ideas ? Is it one that ought to be assumed 
 without necessity ? The only necessity that can exist in such a case is that 
 of meeting the conditions of the context. The third and fourth particulars 
 in this list must of course be something doleful or terrific ; but they need 
 not be more so than the other objects in the same connexion. It is enough 
 if they belong to the same class, in this respect, with wild-cats, jackals, 
 wolves, and arrow-snakes. This is sufficiently secured by making r*V& 
 mean a nocturnal bird (Aben Ezra) or more specifically an owl (Cocceius) 
 or screech-owl (Lowth). But the word admits of a still more satisfactory 
 interpretation, in exact agreement with the exposition which has been 
 already given of the preceding terms as general descriptions rather than 
 specific names. If these terms represent the animals occupying Idumea, 
 first as belonging to the wilderness (c"^x), then as distinguished by their 
 fierce or melancholy cries (d^k), a °d tnen as sna ggy in appearance (-.ths), 
 nothing can be more natural than that the fourth epithet should also be ex- 
 pressive of their habits as a class, and no such epithet could well be more 
 appropriate than that of nocturnal or belonging to the night. Another ob- 
 jection to the meaning spectre is, that the poetry and legends of all nations 
 have associated with such beings the idea of inquietude. When Hamlet 
 says, Rest, rest, perturbed spirit ! he virtually tells the ghost to cease to be 
 one. But here, according to the fashionable exegesis, the spectre is described, 
 not as flitting or gliding through the land or among its ruins, but as taking 
 up its lodgings and reposing. Of all the figures that could be employed, 
 that of resting seems to be the least appropriate in the description of a 
 spectre, and especially of such as Gesenius describes to us from eastern 
 story books and rabbinical traditions. Of this incongruity he seems to have 
 had at least a vague apprehension, as he strangely says that the terms here 
 used imply a restless wandering state, whereas they seem to imply the very 
 contrary, and no less strangely cites Matt. 12 : 43, where the evil spirit is 
 expressly said to pass through dry places seeking rest and finding none. 
 On these grounds, therefore, that the Hebrew word, according to its deriva- 
 tion, simply means nocturnal ; that in this sense it suits perfectly the paral- 
 lelism and the context, as containing names of animals or rather descrip- 
 tions of their habits ; that the action described is peculiarly unsuited to a 
 ghost or a spectre ; that the Scriptures contain no intimations of the real 
 existence of such beings ; that the supposition of a mere accommodation to 
 the popular belief is dangerous, unworthy, and gratuitous ; and that the 
 existence of the popular belief itself so early is exceedingly improbable ; 
 we may safely set aside the spectral interpretation as untenable on philologi- 
 cal and historical grounds, and as certainly not worth being taken for granted. 
 
572 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 The same considerations make it unnecessary to retain the Hebrew word 
 (lilith), as Augusti and Henderson have done, as if in obedience to the 
 flippant direction of John David Michaelis, that whoever will not tolerate 
 a ghost here must retain the Hebrew word and imagine it to mean what he 
 pleases (was ihm beliebt). The alternatives in such a case are seldom so 
 few as they are sometimes represented by this learned and ingenious but 
 conceited • and dogmatical interpreter. It only remains to observe that the 
 Septuagint version, the authority of which has done so much to introduce 
 demons into ch. 13 : 23, makes use of the word datfiorut in this verse too, 
 but as the translation of d^s, while its favourite term dvoxt'vzavooi is em- 
 ployed to represent both d^a and WW. This absurd interpretation is so 
 far consistent with itself, that it makes the whole verse a catalogue of non- 
 descript hobgoblins, demons, and ass-centaurs, and if not a refutation of the 
 current exposition of n"M, is at least a severe satire on it. 
 
 V. 15. Several manuscripts and one of the oldest editions read *\*\&p as 
 in v. 11 above, and the Septuagint has iyjvog in both places. Jarchi and 
 Kimchi explain the common reading (flap) as a synonyme. It is supposed 
 to denote different kinds of birds by Calvin (ulula), Junius (merula), Coc- 
 ceius (anatarid) etc. Bochart objects that if a bird were meant, its wings 
 would have been mentioned in the other clause, and not merely its shadow. 
 Most of the modern writers follow Bochart in explaining it to mean the 
 serpens jaculus or arrow-snake, so called from its darting or springing mo- 
 tion. The same learned writer shows that the use of the word nest in refer- 
 ence to serpents is common in Arabic as well as Greek and Latin. There 
 is no need therefore of giving nnp a wider meaning as Jerome does (habuit 
 foveam). The next verb is rendered by the Vulgate, enutrivit catulos ; by 
 Castalio, as an adverbial expression meaning safely, with impunity ; but by 
 the great mass of interpreters, as meaning to lay eggs, a sense analogous to 
 that of the cognate form applied in ch. 66: 7 to human parturition. Jerome 
 translates the next verb circumfodit, but most other writers hatch, the pri- 
 mary sense being that of cleaving. (Compare ch. 59 : 5.) This meaning 
 Luther seems to give to FiW, perhaps by an inadvertent transposition. 
 Others explain it to mean gather (Junius), hide (Augusti), take refuge 
 (Rosenmuller), but the latest writers brood or cherish, after the Vulgate 
 (fovet). It is here applied to the young when hatched, as it is in Jer. 17 : 
 1 1 to the eggs of the partridge. Calvin seems to refer the suffix in nbsa not 
 to the animal but to some other object. Grotius's paraphrase is sub minis. 
 All the modern writers understand it to mean, under her own shadow. njn 
 is either the black vulture (Bochart) or the kite (Gesenius). Lowth's trans- 
 lation, every one her mate, may convey an incorrect idea, as both the Hebrew 
 words are feminine. Cocceius disregards the gender and translates the 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIV. 573 
 
 phrase, units cum altero. As to the particular species of animals referred to 
 in this whole passage, there is no need, as Calvin well observes, of troubling 
 ourselves much about them. (iVo/i est cur in iis magnopere torqueamur.) 
 The general sense evidently is, that a human population should be succeeded 
 by wild and lonely animals, who should not only live but breed there, im- 
 plying total and continued desolation. So Horace says of Troy : Priami 
 Paridisque busto insultat armentum, et catulos ferae celant inultae. 
 
 V. 16. Seek ye out of the book of Jehovah and read. Knobel connects 
 vr— t with the preceding verse (each one her mate they seek), and then 
 changes the remainder of this clause so as to read thus : sop 11 mm -ibcb hs, 
 by number will Jehovah call (them). This bears a strong resemblance to 
 Lowth's treatment of the first clause of v. 12, but is still more extravagant. 
 The book of Jehovah has been variously explained to mean the book of his 
 decrees (Aben Ezra), his annals or record of events (Forerius), the Scrip- 
 tures generally, or more particularly the book of Genesis, or that part which 
 relates to clean and unclean animals (Jarchi), the Mosaic law relating to that 
 subject (Joseph Kimchi), the law in general (Calvin), the book of Revela- 
 tion (Gill), the book of Prophecy in general (Junius), the Prophecies against 
 Edom in particular (Alting), and finally this very prophecy (David Kim- 
 chi). The most natural interpretation seems to be that which makes this 
 an exhortation to compare the prophecy with the event, and which is 
 strongly recommended by the fact that all the verbs are in the past tense, 
 implying that the Prophet here takes his stand at a point of time posterior 
 to the event. The book may then be this particular prophecy, or the whole 
 prophetic volume, or the entire scripture, without material change of sense. 
 The persons addressed are the future witnesses of the event, bsa does not 
 mean from top to bottom, as Vitringa imagines, but simply from upon, as 
 we speak of reading a sentence off a book or paper. This expression seems 
 to have been used in anticipation of the verb W"ip, which has here the sense 
 of publishing by reading aloud. One of them has not failed. A very few 
 writers understand this as relating to the evils threatened ; but the great 
 majority more naturally apply it to the animals mentioned in the preceding 
 verses, as signs of desolation. As if he had said, I predicted that Edom 
 should be occupied by such and such creatures, and behold they are all 
 here, not one of them is wanting. This is a lively and impressive mode of 
 saying, the prediction is fulfilled. One another they miss not. The verb 
 has here the sense of mustering or reviewing to discover who is absent, as 
 in 1 Sam. 20: 6. 25: 15. The reference is not to the pairing of animals 
 (Barnes), because both rvssx and nWflPi are feminine, and because the context 
 requires an allusion to the meeting of different species, not of the individuals 
 of one kind. For my mouth, it has commanded ; and his spirit, it has 
 
574 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 gathered them, i. e. the animals aforesaid. The last phrase is a more spe- 
 cific explanation of the general expression has commanded. To add a suffix 
 to the latter, therefore, would complete the parallelism but disturb the sense. 
 The sudden change of person from my mouth to his spirit has led to various 
 explanations. Houbigant reads i n B and Knobel IrTO, his mouth, which is 
 actually found in a few manuscripts. Lowth reads him for ton, the mouth 
 of Jehovah, which is not only arbitrary but in violation of his favourite prin- 
 ciple of parallelism. The same objection lies against the explanation of 
 Kin, by Glassius and Simonis, as a divine name, and by Rosenmuller and 
 Dathe, as a substitute for it. Such an explanation of the second sin is 
 precluded by the foregoing suffix. A much more plausible solution is the 
 one proposed by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who refer the suffix in im-i to ">s 
 (my mouth and its breath), and thus make God the speaker in both clauses. 
 But on the whole, the simplest course is either to suppose with Vitringa that 
 Jehovah speaks in one clause and the Prophet in the next, an enallage too 
 frequent to be inadmissible, or that the Prophet really refers the command to 
 his own mouth instrumentally, but then immediately names the Divine Spirit 
 as the efficient agent. This is the less improbable because the first clause 
 of the verse, as we have seen, contains an appeal to his own written predic- 
 tion. The Spirit of God is not merely his power but himself, with special 
 reference to the Holy Ghost, as being both the author and fulfiller of the 
 prophecies. 
 
 V. 17. He too has cast the lot for them, and his hand has divided it to 
 them by line. An evident allusion to the division of the land of Canaan 
 both by lot and measuring-line. (See Numb. 26: 55, 56. Josh. 18: 4-6.) 
 As Canaan was allotted to Israel, so Edom is allotted to these doleful crea- 
 tures. Having referred to the allotment as already past, he now describes 
 the occupation as future and perpetual. Forever shall they hold it as a 
 heritage, to all generations shall they dwell therein. Cocceius, who applies 
 the whole prediction to the unbelieving Jews, thus explains this last clause : 
 nunquam restituetur respublica Judaeorum in ilia terra. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXV. 
 
 A great and glorious change is here described under the figure of a 
 desert clothed with luxuriant vegetation, vs. 1, 2. The people are encour- 
 aged with the prospect of this change and with the promise of avenging 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 575 
 
 judgments on their enemies, vs. 3, 4. The same change is then expressed, 
 by a change of figure, as a healing of corporeal infirmities, vs. 5, 6. The 
 former figure is again resumed, and the wilderness described as free from all 
 its wonted inconveniences, particularly those of barrenness and thirst, disap- 
 pointment and illusion, pathlessness and beasts of prey, vs. 7-9. The 
 whole prediction winds up with a promise of redemption, restoration, and 
 endless blessedness, v. 10. 
 
 This chapter is regarded by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Rosenmiiller, as 
 entirely distinct from that before it ; by Hitzig as a separate composition of 
 the same writer ; but by most interpreters as a direct continuation of it. 
 According to Rosenmuller, it was written by the author of ch. xi, xn ; ac- 
 cording to Umbreit by the author of ch. xl-lxvi, according to Ewald by 
 another in imitation of that writer ; according to Gesenius by the author of 
 ch. xiii, xiv, which the passage before us resembles, he says, in its literary 
 merit and its moral defects, especially its spirit of revenge and blood- 
 thirsty hatred. All these writers agree that it cannot be the work of Isaiah. 
 As a sample of the proofs on which their judgment rests, it may be stated 
 that Hitzig makes the use of the form ^xn and of the phrase nb inn^s a 
 proof of later date. He authoritatively sets it down as belonging to the 
 period immediately before the termination of the exile. By such assertions 
 and pretended proofs, its genuineness is of course unshaken. 
 
 With respect to the subject of the chapter there is no less diversity of 
 judgment. It has been explained with equal confidence as a description 
 of the state of Judah under Hezekiah (Grotius), of the return from exile 
 (Clericus), of the state of Judah after that event (Rosenmuller), of that 
 state and the times of the New Testament together (J. H. Michaelis), of 
 the calling of the Gentiles (Cocceius), of the Christian dispensation (Luther, 
 Calvin, al.), of the state of the church after the fall of Antichrist (Vitringa), 
 of the state of Palestine at some future period (J. D. Michaelis), and of a 
 future state of blessedness (Gill). These arbitrary hypotheses refute each 
 other. The best description of the chapter is that given by Augusti in the 
 title to his version of it, where he represents it as the description of a happy 
 condition of the church after a period of suffering. This is no doubt its 
 true import, and when thus explained it may be considered as including 
 various particulars, none of which can be regarded as its specific or exclusive 
 subject. Gesenius says this prophecy was of course never fulfilled ; but so 
 far is this from being true, that it has rather been fulfilled again and again. 
 Without any change of its essential meaning it may be applied to the resto- 
 ration of the Jews from Babylon, to the vocation of the Gentiles, to the 
 whole Christian dispensation, to the course of every individual believer, and 
 to the blessedness of heaven. The ground of this manifold application is 
 not that the language of the passage is unmeaning or indefinite, but that 
 
576 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 there is a real and designed analogy between the various changes men- 
 tioned, which brings them all within the natural scope of the same inspired 
 description. 
 
 V. 1. Desert and waste shall rejoice (for) them. The verb is trans- 
 lated as an imperative of the second or third person by the Septuagint, 
 Cocceius, and others ; and as a descriptive present by Gesenius and some 
 later writers ; but there is no sufficient reason for departing from the strict 
 sense of the future. The desert has been variously explained to mean Idu- 
 mea, Judea, the Jewish church, the Christian church, the Gentile world, and 
 the wilderness separating Palestine from Babylonia. The true sense seems 
 to be that given by Gesenius, who supposes the blooming of the desert to be 
 used here, as in many other cases, to express an entire revolution, the subject 
 of the change being not determined by the figure itself but by the whole con- 
 nexion. The final d has been variously explained, as a suffix, equivalent to 
 dm, crib, or dbs ; as a paragogic letter, used instead of 1, on account of the 
 a following ; and as a mere orthographical mistake, arising from the same 
 cause. Those who make it a suffix refer it, either to the animals described 
 in the close of the preceding chapter, or to the judgments there threatened 
 against Edom, or to the Jewish exiles returning from captivity. The suffix 
 is not expressed in any of the ancient versions. Kennicott supposes the 
 D to have been added merely to complete the line ; but why should such a 
 form have been perpetuated ? The idea of the first clause is repeated in 
 the second. And the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom as the rose. 
 This explanation of the last word is given by several of the Rabbins, and 
 retained by Junius, Cocceius, Lowth, and Augusti. The later writers ob- 
 ject that the word, according to its etymology, must denote a bulbous plant. 
 The ancient versions, with Luther and Calvin, make it mean the lily, which 
 is retained by Ewald ; but for this flower the language has a different name. 
 Saadias and Abulwalid explain it the narcissus, which is approved by Gese- 
 nius in his Commentary, and after him by most of the later German writers. 
 But in his Thesaurus he makes it mean the colchicum autumnale or meadow- 
 saffron. Amidst this diversity and doubt, it is best with Barnes to retain 
 the English word rose, as more familiar and as conveying a more striking 
 image of beauty. The poetry, if not the botany, of this translation is supe- 
 rior to Henderson's (and blossom as the crocus). 
 
 V. 2. The same idea of complete and joyful change is again expressed 
 by the same figure, but with greater fulness, the desert being here described 
 as putting on and wearing the appearance of the spots most noted for luxu- 
 riant vegetation. (It shall) blossom, it shall blossom and rejoice ; yea, (with) 
 joy and shouting ; or, yea, joy and shouting (there shall be). The glory of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 577 
 
 Lebanon is given unto it (the desert), the beauty of Carrnel and of Sharon. 
 They (who witness this great change) shall see the glory of Jehovah, the 
 beauty of our God. The figures here employed are so familiar, and in 
 their obvious meaning so expressive, that we only weaken their effect by 
 treating them as symbols or an allegory. Thus Jarchi understands by the 
 glory of Lebanon the temple ; Gill, choice and excellent Christians, etc. 
 As a change in the relative condition of the Jews and Gentiles is no doubt 
 included in the prophecy, there is not the same objection to the opinion of 
 Forerius, that the second clause of the verse denotes the transfer of God's 
 spiritual presence, and the glory connected with it, from the Jewish to the 
 Christian church. According to Oecolampadius, Lebanon, Carmel, and Sha- 
 ron are here mentioned, as natural boundaries or landmarks of the country. 
 Schmidius supposes that a mountain, a cultivated field, and an extensive 
 plain, are given as samples of the whole, to intimate that nothing should be 
 wanting to the perfection of the state here promised and described. But 
 Lebanon and Carmel are both mountains, unless we give the latter its gene- 
 ric sense of fruitful field, as Junius and Tremellius do, in obvious violation 
 of the context, since the preceding and the following word are evidently 
 proper names. The glory or beauty of the places named is not fertility, 
 as Grotius thinks, but rather its effect as seen in their luxuriant vegetation. 
 The reduplication of the first verb in the sentence is regarded by almost all 
 interpreters as emphatic, though they differ greatly as to its precise force. 
 Calvin and Junius make it expressive of abundant and progressive growth, 
 as if he had said, it shall blossom more and more. Hitzig applies it to the 
 rankness of the growth (hoch sprosst sie auf), Knobel to its universality 
 (ganz sprosset sie). Augusti repeats the verb as in Hebrew (bluhen ja 
 bl'uhen), and the Vulgate copies the precise form still more closely (germi- 
 nans germinabit). — The future translation of jfca by Calvin and the English 
 Version is gratuitous and arbitrary. The preterite form points out the true 
 relation of the cause to its effect. It shall rejoice becajuse the glory of Le- 
 banon has been given to it. The pronoun they is referred by Vitringa to 
 the desert, Lebanon, etc. But as these are the immediate antecedents, 
 the pronoun would hardly have been introduced, except for the purpose 
 of directing attention to some other nominative than the nearest, as in 
 Psalm 22 : 18. The true sense is probably that given in the Septuagint (my 
 people) and the Targum (the house of Israel), and in a more general form 
 by Clericus (qui aderunt). Instead of Jfrn, the Seventy seem to have read 
 ^ffi (ta epTjfia iov 'Ioo8dvov), and this reading, with a corresponding change 
 of the preceding word, is adopted by Houbigant (frwtt mh), Kennicott 
 (•p-ntt rvna), and Lowth" (the well-watered plain of Jordan). The words, as 
 they stand in the common text, may be construed either with a preposition 
 
 37 
 
578 ISAIAH. CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 or the substantive verb understood. Eleven manuscripts read ■£ (to thee) 
 for r6 (to it), which merely converts the description into an apostrophe. 
 
 V. 3. With the prospect of this glorious change the people are com- 
 manded to encourage themselves and one another. Strengthen hands (now) 
 sinking, and knees (now) tottering make firm. The hands and knees are 
 here combined, as Vitringa observes, to express the powers of action and 
 endurance. The participial forms represent the hands as actually hanging 
 down, relaxed, or weakened, and the knees as actually giving way. The 
 passage thus explained is far more expressive than if we make the participles 
 adjectives, denoting a permanent quality or habitual condition. In itself, 
 the language of this verse is applicable either to self-encouragement or to the 
 consolation of others. It is understood to mean, renew your own strength, 
 by Cocceius and Clericus (reparate vires vestras). Most of the older 
 writers, and some moderns, make the other the prominent idea, and suppose 
 the command to be addressed to those in office (Barnes), or to ministers 
 (Calvin), or to the prophets (Knobel), or to these and other good men 
 (Grotius), or to the people generally (Junius). Neither of these interpreta- 
 tions is erroneous except in being too exclusive. There is no reason why 
 the words should not be taken in their widest sense, as meaning, let despon- 
 dency be exchanged for hope. That self-encouragement is not excluded, 
 may be learned from Paul's use of the words in that sense (Heb. 12: 12). 
 That mutual encouragement is not excluded, is sufficiently apparent from 
 the following verse. Thus understood the words may be considered as 
 including, but not as specifically signifying, spiritual weakness or inability 
 to do God's will (Targum), and the duty of encouraging the Gentiles with 
 the prospect of admission to his favour (Menochius). The specific applica- 
 tion of the passage to the Roman persecutions (Gurtlerus) is gratuitous. 
 Equally so is the idea that the Jews are here encouraged under the depress- 
 ing recollection of sufferings already past (Grotius), or under the alarm 
 excited by the foregoing threats (Calvin). The same objection lies against 
 the exclusive reference of the words to the exiles in Babylon who distrusted 
 the promises (Hendewerk) or believed themselves to be forsaken by Jehovah 
 (Knobel). As a general exhortation, they are applicable to these and to 
 many other situations, none of which can be regarded as the exclusive sub- 
 ject of the promise. The figures here used are the same with those em- 
 ployed in ch. 13: 7 and in Job 4 : 3, 4. The image presented is that of 
 persons who can scarcely lift up their hands or stand upon their legs (Gill). 
 The Septuagint supposes the command to be addressed to the hands them- 
 selves (laxvaare %9iQtt). Hitzig gratuitously changes hands to arms, as in 
 ch. 10: 10, 13. 14: 27. 19: 16. 25: 10. 26: 11 etc. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 579 
 
 V. 4. This verse shows how the command in the one before it is to be 
 obeyed, by suggesting, as topics of mutual encouragement, the vindicatory 
 justice of God, and his certain interposition in behalf of his people. Say 
 ye to the hasty of heart (i. e. the impatient, those who cannot wait for the 
 fulfilment of God's promise), Be firm, fear not ; behold your God (as if 
 already present or in sight) ; vengeance is coming, the retribution of God ; 
 he (himself) is coming, and will save you. The connecting link between 
 his vengeance and their safety is the destruction of their enemies. (Seeing 
 it is a righteous thing ivith God to recompense tribulation to them that 
 trouble you. 2 Thess. 1 : 6.) ^riTar, as a passive participle, corresponds, in 
 form and sense, to the English hurried. It has been variously explained as 
 meaning inconsiderate (Junius), precipitate (Cocceius), inconstant (Vata- 
 blus), faint-hearted (Lowth), palpitating (Rosenmuller), ready to flee (Ge- 
 senius), hasty in drawing black conclusions upon themselves and their state 
 (Gill). But the true sense seems to be the one expressed by Clericus, to 
 wit, impatient of delay in the execution of God's promises (qui nullas moras 
 aequo animo ferre possunt). This includes the ideas of despondency and 
 unbelieving fear, while at the same time it adheres to the strict sense of the 
 Hebrew word. Compare the analogous expression in ch. 28: 16, he that 
 believeth will not make haste or be impatient. — The construction of the 
 second clause is greatly perplexed by making os^nbx the subject of «ia\ 
 Thus the English Version, which is founded upon Calvin's, supplies two 
 prepositions and assumes an unusual inversion of the terms. Your God will 
 come (with) vengeance, even God (with) a recompense. This construction also 
 involves an anticlimax, as the simple name of God is of course less emphatic 
 than the full phrase your God. Luther has to vengeance, and God who recom- 
 penses. Jerome makes the construction still more complex by translating 
 Ki2^ as a causative (ullionem adducet retributionis) . The true construction, 
 as given by Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, and most later writers, makes behold 
 your God an exclamation, and vengeance the subject of the verb. Vitringa 
 observes that WOtS is here used to express both the present and the future, 
 an idea which may be conveyed in English by the idiomatic phrase, is com- 
 intr or about to come. The Kin might be grammatically construed with 
 bina (it will come), but as the act of saving is immediately afterwards ascribed 
 to the same subject, it is better to explain the pronoun as an emphatic desig- 
 nation of Jehovah. Not only his vengeance but himself is coming. Grotius, 
 true to his principle of seeking the fulfilment of all prophecies in the days of 
 the Prophet himself, explains he will save you as meaning he will not let the 
 Ethiopians reach you. The exclusive application of the threatening here 
 implied to the Babylonians, the Jews, Antichrist, or the Devil, is untenable 
 for reasons which have been already given in the exposition of the foregoing 
 verse. While Barnes denies that the phrase your God refers to the Messiah, 
 
530 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 Calovius alleges that the name of Jesus is expressly mentioned, being in- 
 cluded in the verb ro*. The words are really a promise of deliverance to 
 God's people, and include, as the most important part of their contents, the 
 unspeakable gift of Christ and his salvation. 
 
 Vs. 5, 6. The change in the condition of the people is now represented 
 by another figure, the removal of corporeal infirmities. Then (when God 
 has thus come) shall the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the 
 deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame leap (or bound) as an hart 
 and the tongue of the dumb shall shout (for joy), because waters have burst 
 forth in the ivilderness and streams in the desert. The reason assigned in 
 this last clause for the joy to be expressed shows clearly that the miracu- 
 lous removal of disease and the miraculous irrigation of the desert are in- 
 tended to express one and the same thing. The essential idea in both cases 
 is that of sudden and extraordinary change. This precludes Grotius's in- 
 terpretation of the fifth verse as meaning that the most obtuse and prejudiced 
 shall see and acknowledge what God has wrought. It also precludes Jona- 
 than's symbolical exposition of the words as predicting the removal of 
 spiritual disabilities, and the opposite hypothesis, maintained by many of 
 the older writers, that Isaiah here explicitly foretells the miracles of Christ. 
 Calovius asserts that Christ himself has so interpreted the passage in Matt. 
 11:5, Luke 7 : 22. But as Henderson justly says, there is no proof what- 
 ever that Christ refers John the Baptist to this prophecy ; he employs none 
 of the formulas which he uniformly uses when directing attention to the 
 Old Testament (e. g. in Matt. 9: 16. 11: 10. 12: 17. 13: 14), but 
 simply appeals to his miracles in proof of his Messiahship; the language is 
 similar, but the subjects different. Another argument is urged by J. D. 
 Michaelis, namely, that the last clause of the sixth verse cannot be applied 
 to the miracles of Christ, and yet it obviously forms a part of the same pro- 
 phetic picture. The evasion of this difficulty by assuming, as Vitringa 
 seems inclined to do, a mixture of literal and figurative language in the par- 
 allel clauses of the very same description, is one of those arbitrary exegeti- 
 cal expedients, which can only be affirmed on one side and rejected on the 
 other. To the question whether this prediction is in no sense applicable to 
 our Saviour's miracles, we may reply with Calvin, that although they are 
 not directly mentioned, they were really an emblem and example of the 
 great change which is here described. So too the spiritual cures effected 
 by the gospel, although not specifically signified by these words, are included 
 in the glorious revolution which they do denote. The simple meaning of 
 the passage is, that the divine interposition which had just been promised 
 should produce as wonderful a change in the condition of mankind, as if 
 the blind were to receive their sight, the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 581 
 
 the lame to walk, and deserts to be fertilized and blossom as the rose. In 
 the process of this mighty transmutation, miracles were really performed, 
 both of a bodily and spiritual nature, but the great change which includes 
 these includes vastly more. Gesenius and others understand the sixth verse 
 as describing the joy of the returning exiles, which might be compared to 
 that of men miraculously healed ; but it is far more natural to understand 
 the healing as descriptive of the change itself, which must therefore be much 
 more extensive than the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, although 
 this may be one of the particulars included. To the explanation of ispaa 
 as a future there is the same objection as to that of jrfe in v. 2. The origi- 
 nal form of expression is not that they shall rejoice for waters shall burst 
 forth, but that they shall rejoice because waters have burst forth already, 
 the last event being spoken of as relatively past, i. e. as previous to the act 
 of rejoicing which the future verb expresses. The version when they shall 
 have burst forth (Cocceius) yields an equally good sense, and indeed the 
 same in substance, but departs without necessity from the usual and strict 
 sense of the particle. The suggestion, which Barnes quotes from Camp- 
 bell's travels in South Africa, that lameness and dumbness (i. e. indisposi- 
 tion or inability to speak) are here alluded to as painful incidents to travel 
 in the desert, is striking and ingenious, but a little far-fetched and at variance 
 with the context, which requires changes more extraordinary than the mere 
 relief of taciturnity and footsore weariness. Here as in ch. 34 : 14, J. D. 
 Michaelis first suggests a fanciful interpretation (making lameness denote ill 
 success in war), and then prescribes as the only alternative a reference to 
 the paths of virtue and religion, in which those who are deficient may be 
 said to halt or limp. Clericus, who usually follows Grotius in preferring 
 the lowest and the most material sense of which the language is susceptible, 
 applies these words to spiritual changes, but thinks it necessary to apologize 
 for this departure from his usual mode of exegesis, which he does by adding 
 to his note upon the sixth verse, ex quibus intelligere licebit, quamquam 
 propriam verborum potestatem sectemur quotiescumque licet, nos ubi necesse 
 est ad tralatitium adeoque allegoricum (ut vocatur) sensum devenire. The 
 only wonder is that he was able to overcome his scruples in a case where 
 there is no necessity whatever for the so-called allegorical interpretation, but 
 a simple instance of poetical metaphor. The verb *fl\ to which the older 
 writers gave the sense of singing, is explained by the modern lexicographers 
 as properly denoting the expression of joyous feelings by inarticulate cries 
 or shouts. 
 
 V. 7. The idea of complete and joyful change is still expressed by the 
 transformation of a desert and the consequent removal of its inconveniences, 
 among which the Prophet here particularly mentions the tantalizing illusions 
 
582 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 to which travellers in the wilderness are subject. And the mirage shall 
 become a pool (or the sand lake a water lake, the seeming lake a real one), 
 and (he thirsty land springs of water, (even) in the haunt of wolves, their 
 lair, a court (or field) for reed and rush. Instead of the general meaning 
 put upon 8?WI by the older writers following the Septuagint (avvdoog) and 
 the Vulgate (quae erat arida), it is now agreed that the word denotes the 
 illusive appearance caused by unequal refraction in the lower strata of the 
 atmosphere, and often witnessed both at sea and land, called in English 
 looming, in Italian fata morgana, and in French mirage. J. D. Michaelis 
 thanks God that the German language has no need of such a term ; but 
 Ewald and Umbreit use Kimmung as an equivalent. Other equivalents are 
 employed by Hitzig (Wasserschein) , DeWette (Sandmeer), Hendewerk 
 (Sandschimmer), and Henderson (vapoury illusion). In the deserts of 
 Arabia and Africa, the appearance presented is precisely that of an exten- 
 sive sheet of water, tending not only to mislead the traveller but to aggra- 
 vate his thirst by disappointment. The phenomenon is well described by 
 Quintius Curtius in his Life of Alexander the Great. (Arenas vapor aestivi 
 
 solis accendit Camporum non alia quam vasti et profundi aequoris 
 
 species est.) It is thus referred to in the Koran (24 : 39) : And as for 
 those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage (l-jIvjuw) in the desert ; 
 the thirsty reckons it for water, till when he comes he finds it nothing. 
 More deceitful than the mirage (or serab), is an Arabian proverb. Gesenius 
 follows Hyde in deriving the Hebrew word from a Persian phrase meaning 
 a surface of water. Hitzig explains it as an Arabic derivative denoting an 
 abundant flow or stream. Its introduction here adds a beautiful stroke to 
 the description, not only by its local propriety, but by its strict agreement 
 with the context. The etymology of sira suggests the idea of a gushing 
 fountain, which is expressed in some translations, particularly those of Lowth 
 (bubbling springs) and Augusti (Sprudelquellen) . Gesenius and the other 
 recent German writers render tP3n jackals, as in ch. 13: 21 and 34: 13; 
 but Henderson's translation (wolves) has a better effect in English. The 
 essential idea is that of wild and solitary animals. ft*l and Tarn are com 
 bined as in ch. 34: 13. The latter word is explained by some as meaning 
 grass, and the whole clause as predicting, that hay and reeds and rushes 
 (Luther), or grass with reeds and rushes (Junius), shall grow in what was 
 once the haunt of wild beasts ; or that grass shall grow instead of reeds and 
 rushes (Augusti) ; or that grass shall be converted into reeds and rushes 
 (Cocceius). Most writers now however give van the sense of court, en- 
 closure, or the more general one of place, and understand the clause to 
 mean, that what was once the haunt of wild beasts should become a place 
 for the growth of reeds and rushes, which require a great degree of moisture, 
 and therefore imply an entire change in the condition of the desert. The 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 583 
 
 same sense is given by Calvin (locus erit arundini et junco) and Vitringa 
 (late excrescet calamus et j uncus). Knobel instead of n^2*i reads nasi on 
 the alleged authority of the Peshito and the Vulgate (orietur). In the 
 haunt of jackals springs up grass to (the height of) reeds and rushes, a 
 luxuriance of vegetation which of course implies excessive moisture. Even 
 if this construction of the particle were natural and justified by usage, the 
 change in the text would still be inadmissible because unnecessary. All 
 these interpretations understand the last clause as a distinct proposition or 
 description of a change to be wrought in the haunts or lairs of desert 
 animals. But Ewald regards the whole as a mere description of the desert 
 and continues the construction into the next verse. In the haunt of jackals, 
 (in) their lair, (in) the place for reeds and rushes, even there shall be a way 
 etc. As this removes the difficulty of explaining the growth of reeds and 
 rushes as a promise, it would seem to be entitled to the preference, but for 
 the length of the sentence which it assumes and the conjunction at the 
 beginning of v. 8. These objections may be obviated, and the advantages 
 of the construction still secured, by connecting this, as a descriptive clause, 
 not with what follows but with what precedes: fountains shall burst forth 
 in the haunt of wolves, (in) their lair (or resting place), (in) the court (or 
 growing-place) of reeds and rushes. We may then suppose either that 
 these marshy spots are represented as the favourite resort of certain animals, 
 or that two distinct descriptions of the wilderness are given, first by describ- 
 ing it as the resort of solitary animals and then as insusceptible alike of 
 culture and inhabitation. The description, even if inapplicable strictly to 
 the same spot, might correctly be applied to different parts of the same wil- 
 derness. The suffix in nss-> refers not to "px understood (DeDieu), but to 
 nisn as a pluralis inhumanus (Gesenius),or to each of the D^n distributively 
 (Junius : cubili cujusque) as an individual of the feminine gender (Lam. 
 4 : 31). There is consequently no need of reading n^n (Kennicott), fie 
 (Houbigant), ttsng or "sib (Lowth). Gesenius supplies a relative before 
 nxsi (which was its lair or where its lair was) ; but a much more natural 
 construction is proposed by Maurer and Hitzig, who explain it as in simple 
 apposition with e^an ma. The explanation which has now been given of 
 the verse, as a poetical description of complete and joyful change, excludes of 
 course the allegorical interpretation of the pools as meaning schools and the 
 fountains teachers (Vitringa), the dragon's den the heathen world (Schmi- 
 dius), the dragons themselves persecutors, pagan emperors and papal powers 
 (Gill), the reeds and rushes persons eminent in spiritual knowledge, authority, 
 and influence (Cocceius). All these particulars may be included in the 
 change described, but none of them can be regarded as specifically much 
 less as exclusively intended. 
 
584 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 V. 8. The desert shall cease not only to be barren but also to be path- 
 less or impassable by reason of sand. And there shall be there a highway 
 and a way ; and there shall not pass through (or over) it an unclean (thing 
 or person) ; and it shall be for them (alone). Job (12 : 24) speaks of a 
 -pn xb inn (a wilderness in which there is no way), and Jeremiah (18 : 15) 
 of a nbibo xb -pn (a way not cast up), to both which descriptions we have 
 here a contrast. The comparison suggested is between a faint track in the 
 sand and a solid artificial causeway. (Rosenmiiller: via aggerata. Hen- 
 derson : a raised road. Vatablus : exaltata lapidibus. Clericus : munita 
 semita.) Eighteen manuscripts and several ancient versions omit "p*", which 
 may be explained however (with Junius and Tremellius) as a hendiadys, 
 highway and way for high way. The way meant is explained by Forerius 
 to be Christ, faith, and the sacraments ; by Gill, a way cast up by sovereign 
 grace which is raised above the mire and dirt of sin, and carries over it 
 and from it. Grotius, as usual, goes to the opposite extreme of making it 
 denote the way to the temple. Gataker seems to apply it to the improve- 
 ment of the roads in Judea. Musculus understands it as ensuring to the 
 exiled Jews a free return to their own country. But even this return seems 
 to be only one of many particulars included in the promise of a general 
 change and restoration, which is really the thing denoted by this whole 
 series of prophetic figures. On the form and import of the phrase, it shall 
 be called, see ch. 1 : 26. (J. H. Michaelis : vocabitur quia erit.) For the 
 way of holiness, Clericus substitutes the classical expression, via sacra. 
 The next clause is paraphrased by Grotius as meaning that no Syrian, 
 Assyrian, Ethiopian, or Egyptian, shall be seen there. Hitzig explains it 
 as an exclusion of the heathen generally, and pronounces it a trace of later 
 Judaism. Knobel goes further and describes it as an effusion of national 
 hatred. The obvious meaning of the words is that the people of Jehovah 
 shall themselves be holy. (Compare ch. 1 : 25. 4 : 3.) This is in fact 
 the meaning even of those scriptures which exclude from Zion (or the 
 sanctuary) the Canaanite (Zech. 14 : 21), the uncircumcised (Ezek. 44: 9), 
 and the stranger (Joel 4 : 17). The aon may be grammatically construed 
 either with bnboa or with "pi which is sometimes masculine. It shall be 
 for is rendered by Hitzig it belongs to, without a material change of mean- 
 ing. The pronoun them, which has no expressed antecedent in the sentence, 
 has been variously applied to the blind whose eyes were opened (Junius), to 
 the saints (Gataker), to Israel (Kimchi), to the exiles (Hitzig), to those 
 recovered from idolatry (Henderson), and to those truly reformed by suffer- 
 ing (Knobel). Barnes and Henderson refer it, by prolepsis, to ft^HU in 
 the next verse. This is no doubt substantially correct ; but the precise 
 import of the original expression seems to be, that the highway shall belona 
 exclusively to them for whose sake it was made, for whose use it was 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 585 
 
 intended. A very different sense is put upon this phrase by Calvin, who 
 connects it with what follows and translates, et erit illis ambulans in via, 
 referring Kin to God himself, and explaining the whole as a promise that he 
 would go before them in the way thus prepared, as he went before Israel of 
 old in the pillar of cloud and of fire. The same construction is adopted by 
 DeDieu (et erit ipse illis ambulator viae), and Clericus (erit gui prior illis 
 viam ingredietur) , who applies it expressly to Christ as the dux salutis nos- 
 trae. Lowth says that the old English versions gave the same sense, but 
 that our last translators were misled by the absurd division of the verse in 
 the masoretic text, destroying the construction and the sense. His own 
 version is : but He himself shall be with them, ivalking in the way, which 
 he explains to mean, that God should dwell among them, and set them an 
 example that they should follow his steps. Among the later writers this 
 construction is approved by Dathe and Ewald (und da er den Weg ihnen 
 geht). The objections to it, stated by Gesenius, are, the sense which it 
 puts upon the particle in to^>, and the needless violation of the masoretic 
 accents. He, and most of the other modern writers, give precisely the 
 construction found in Junius and Tremellius (viator ne stulti quidem pote- 
 runt deerrare), taking 8 p1 -|bn as equivaleut to ma iss (ch. 33 : 8), and 
 though singular in form collective in meaning and construction. The 1 
 before d^ix is not expletive (Henderson) but exegetical and emphatic. 
 The meaning strictly is, the travellers and the fools, i. e. the travellers not 
 excepting such as are ignorant or foolish. bNViw is translated by the Septua- 
 gint disanaQfJisvoi, and by Cocceius leves. Gataker explains it as denoting 
 simple-minded Christians, while Henderson understands the whole clause as 
 a promise, that the Jewish exiles, however defective some of them might be 
 in intellectual energy, should not fail of reaching Zion. Hendewerk comes 
 nearer to the full sense of the words, which he explains to mean that only 
 moral impurity, not ignorance or weakness, should exclude men from this 
 highway. But the words, in their primary and strict sense, are descriptive, 
 not of the travellers, but of the way itself, which should not be a faint or 
 dubious track through shifting sands, but a highway so distinctly marked 
 that even the most ignorant and inexperienced could not miss it. The 
 straightness or directness of the path, which Grotius and Rosenmuller make 
 a prominent idea, may be implied, but is not expressed. 
 
 V. 9. The wilderness, though no longer barren or pathless, might still 
 be the resort of beasts of prey. The promised highway might itself be 
 exposed to their incursions. But immunity from this inconvenience is here 
 promised. There shall not be there a lion, and a ravenous beast shall not 
 ascend it, nor be found there ; and (there) shall walk redeemed (ones). 
 For a similar promise, in a still more figurative dress, see Hosea 2:18, and 
 
536 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 for a description of the desert as the home of deadly animals, Isaiah 30 : 6. 
 Hendewerk refers there and it to the desert, Hitzig and others to the way. 
 Both are consistent with the context, which describes all the inconveniences 
 and dangers of the desert as removed ; but in this place the primary allusion 
 is no doubt to the highway described in the foregoing verse. Hence the 
 phrase ascend it, i. e. from the level of the sands, through which the 
 road is supposed to be cast up. This precludes the necessity of referring, 
 with Gesenius, to the use of this verb by Ezra and Nehemiah in reference to 
 the journey from Babylon, or by Job in reference to the wilderness itself as 
 higher than the cultivated country (Job 6 : 18). Lowth seems to take "piD 
 IWi as a poetical description of the lion (the tyrant of the beasts). But 
 the first word is an adjective denoting violent, rapacious, ravenous, destruc- 
 tive, deadly. It is translated as a simple case of concord by the Vulgate 
 (mala bestia), Luther (reissendes Thier), Tremellius (violenta fera), the 
 English Bible (ravenous beast), and Henderson (destructive beast). The 
 original construction is retained by Cocceius (violenta fer arum), while 
 Knobel supplies a preposition (ein zerreissendes unter ihnen), and Ewald 
 makes it a direct superlative (das gewaltsamste der Thiere). These terms 
 are applied by the Targum to persecuting kings and rulers, by Jarchi to 
 Nebuchadnezzar in particular, by Junius to the enemies of the church, and 
 by Augusti to the avenger of blood. But they are rather intended to 
 complete the great prophetic picture of a total change in the condition 
 of the desert, under which general idea we may then include a great 
 variety of suitable particulars, without however making any one of them 
 the exclusive subject of the prophecy. The feminine verb xsian is well 
 explained by Knobel, as agreeing in form with tWH and in sense with "p^s. 
 There is no need therefore of reading «:*«* with Lowth on the authority of 
 four Hebrew manuscripts. Knobel gives d^isw its original and proper sense 
 of bought back i. e. out of the bondage into which they had been sold. 
 Most other writers give it the more general meaning freed or delivered. 
 (Junius: vindicati. Cocceius: asserti.) Barnes understands it in a double 
 sense, as expressive both of temporal and spiritual redemption. Augusti 
 refers it to the avenger of blood whom he supposes to be mentioned in the 
 other clause (von ihmgesichert wandelt man hin). Calvin construes lafcn as 
 a subjunctive (ut redempti ambulent). Vitringa makes the last clause a 
 distinct proposition, or rather the beginning of the next verse (et ibunt 
 asserti, et redempti etc.). Ewald adopts a construction somewhat similar 
 (so gehen sit erlbst, und Jahves losgekaufte u. s. w.). There is no need, 
 however, of departing from the simpler and more usual construction, which 
 connects it closely with what goes before, supplying there as in the English 
 Bible (the redeemed shall walk there) and only as in the version of Gesenius 
 (nur Erloste gehen dort). 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXV. 587 
 
 V. 10. The whole series of promises is here summed up in that of resto- 
 ration and complete redemption. And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return 
 and come to Zion with shouting, and everlasting joy upon their head ; glad- 
 ness and joy shall overtake (them), and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. 
 The first phrase, which is no doubt equivalent in meaning to o">Vi&o in v. 9, 
 is paraphrased as follows in one of the French versions : ceux-la desquels 
 VEternel aura paye la rangon. The connexion with the preceding context 
 is needlessly though not erroneously expressed in some versions by trans- 
 lating the initial particle yea (Lowth), so (J. H. Michaelis), or therefore 
 (Calvin). Zjon is mentioned as the journey's end; they shall not only 
 move towards it but attain it. The words everlasting joy may either be 
 governed by the preposition (with shouting and everlasting joy upon their 
 head), or construed with the substantive verb understood (everlasting joy 
 shall be upon their head). The latter construction seems to agree best 
 with the Masoretic accents. Jarchi understands by abis nnaia ancient joy 
 or the joy of old ; but more seems to be promised. The Chaldee Para- 
 phrase supposes the image here presented to be that of a cloud of glory 
 encompassing the head or floating over it. Gataker and Lowth suppose an 
 allusion to a crown or wreath, and Umbreit to a sacerdotal crown particu- 
 larly. Vitringa, Gill, and Rosenmiiller understand the Prophet as alluding 
 to the festal use of unguents. (See Ps. 45 : 8. Ecc. 9 : 8. Luke 7 : 46.) 
 Paulus combines the figure of a crown with that of unction. Gesenius, 
 Maurer, and Knobel explain joy upon the head as meaning its expression in 
 the countenance. According to Sanctius, head is put for person or the 
 whole body, which seems altogether arbitrary. Clericus explains the clause 
 to mean that joy shall be at the head i. e. march before them. It de- 
 serves to be recorded, as a monstrum inter pretationis, that Forerius sup- 
 poses an allusion to the washerwomen's practice of carrying clothes upon 
 their heads. In the last clause, joy and gladness may be either the sub- 
 ject or the object of the verb. The latter construction is given in the 
 English Bible (they shall obtain joy and gladness) after the example of the 
 Targum, Peshito, and Vulgate. In favour of the other, which is given in 
 the Septuagint (xaralriipETai avtovg), may be urged the analogy of Deut. 
 28 : 2 (all these blessings shall come on thee and overtake thee) and of the 
 last clause of the verse, where sorrow and sighing are allowed to be the 
 subjects of the verb by all except Cocceius, who consistently translates it, 
 shall escape sorrow and sighing. The figures of this verse are applied to 
 the return from exile by the Targum (from the midst of their captivity), 
 and Henderson thinks that deliverance not too trivial to be thus described. 
 Junius applies it in a wider sense to the reception of converts into the 
 church. Calvin extends it to the whole course of life and to its close. 
 The Talmud applies it to the world to come, and Gill says that 'the highway 
 
583 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 before described not only leads to Zion the church below, but to the Zion 
 above, to the heavenly glory ; and all the redeemed, all that walk in this 
 way, shall come thither; at death their souls return to God that gave them, 
 and in the resurrection their bodies shall return from their dusty beds and 
 appear before God in Zion.' The allusions to the Babylonian exile are 
 correctly explained by Barnes upon the principle that minor and temporal 
 deliverances were not only emblems of the great salvation but preparatory 
 to it. The devout Vitringa closes his exposition of the cheering promise, 
 with which Isaiah winds up the first great division of his prophecies, by 
 exclaiming to his reader, Ora mecum Dominum supplex, tit earn suo tempore 
 profiting impleat ; interim credens non festinabit. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 
 The next four chapters contain a historical appendix to the first part of 
 Isaiah's prophecies, relating chiefly to Sennacherib's invasion and the slaugh- 
 ter of his host, to Hezekiah's sickness and miraculous recovery, and to the 
 friendly intercourse between him and the king of Babylon. The same nar- 
 rative is found substantially in the second book of Kings (ch. xviii-xx), and 
 a different account of the same matters in the second book of Chronicles 
 (ch. xxxn). The close resemblance of the former passage to the one before 
 us has afforded full scope to the German appetite for critical conjecture and 
 ingenious combination. Paulus and Hendewerk adhere to the old opinion 
 of Grotius and Vitringa, that the narrative in Kings is a varied transcript of 
 the one in Isaiah ; but Eichhorn, Gesenius, Maurer, and DeWette regard 
 the latter as an addition, by the hand of a compiler, to the collection of 
 Isaiah's prophecies, abridged and otherwise altered from the book of Kings ; 
 while Koppe, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, Umbreit, and Knobel consider the two 
 narratives as parallel or collateral abridgments, made by different writers, 
 from the same original, viz. a more extended history, no longer in existence. 
 This last hypothesis is founded on the difficulty of maintaining either of the 
 others, a difficulty springing from the fact that neither of the passages sustains, 
 in all respects, the character of an original or an abridgment. Each contains 
 matter which is not found in the other, and although Gesenius and Knobel 
 have endeavoured to demonstrate that the diction, phraseology, grammatical 
 structure, and even the orthography of the passage before us, are sympto- 
 matic of a later origin, neither the principle which they assume, nor its 
 specific application here, is so unquestionable as to satisfy the mind of any 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 589 
 
 ordinary reader, in default of more conclusive evidence. The particular 
 points included in this general statement will be noticed in the exposition. 
 From the strong resemblance of the passages, and the impossibility of fixing 
 upon either as the more ancient and authentic of the two, the natural infer- 
 ence would seem to be, that they are different draughts or copies of the same 
 composition, or at least that they are both the work of the same writer, and 
 that this writer is Isaiah. That the prophets often acted as historiogra- 
 phers, and that Isaiah in particular discharged this office, are recorded facts. 
 Nothing can be more natural, therefore, than the supposition that he inserted 
 the same narrative in one book as a part of the chronicle of Judah, and in 
 the other as an illustrative appendix to his earlier prophecies. To what 
 extent this would make him the author of the books of Kings, is here a 
 question of but little moment. Whether these are to be regarded as com- 
 plete compositions of particular authors, or as continuous official records, 
 formed by successive entries, or as abstracts of such records made for per- 
 manent preservation, the supposition that he wrote both passages is equally 
 admissible. As to the variations of the two from one another, they are 
 precisely such as might have been expected in the case supposed, that is to 
 say, in the case of the same writer twice recording the same facts, especially 
 if we assume an interval between the acts, and a more specific purpose in 
 the one case than the other. It must also be considered that on this hypo- 
 thesis, the writer expected both accounts to be within the reach of the same 
 readers, and might therefore leave them to illustrate and complete each 
 other. That there is nothing in these variations to forbid the supposition of 
 their being from the same pen, is evinced by the circumstance that each of 
 the parallels has been declared, for similar reasons, and with equal confi- 
 dence, to be a transcript of the other. Against the supposition that Isaiah 
 is the author of both or either, even German ingenuity and learning have 
 been able to adduce no better arguments than one or two flimsy philo- 
 logical cavils, such as the use of Jewish in ch. 36: 11, and some others 
 which will be particularly mentioned in the exposition, together with the 
 usual objections founded on the assumed impossibility of miracles and inspi- 
 ration. Thus the recession of the shadow, the destruction of Sennacherib's 
 army, the prediction of his own death, and of the length of Hezekiah's life, 
 are all alleged with great naivete by the infidel interpreters as proofs that 
 these chapters are of later date, whereas they only prove that their writer 
 was a prophet sent from God. The simple common-sense view of the 
 matter is, that since the traditional position of these chapters among the 
 writings of Isaiah corresponds exactly to the known fact of his having writ- 
 ten a part of the history of Judah, the presumption in favour of his having 
 written both the passages in question cannot be shaken by the mere possi- 
 bility, or even the intrinsic probability, of other hypotheses, for which there 
 
590 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 is not ihe least external evidence. The specific end, for which the narrative 
 is here appended to the foregoing prophecies, appears to he that of showing 
 the fulfilment of certain prophecies which had relation to a proximate futu- 
 rity, and thereby gaining credence and authority for those which had a wider 
 scope and a remoter consummation. 
 
 V. 1 . And it was (or came to pass) in the fourteenth year of ihe king 
 Hezekiah. Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fenced (or 
 fortified) cities of Judah, and took them. The parallel passage in Kings 
 is immediately preceded by a summary account of the earlier events of 
 Hezekiah's reign, with particular mention of his religious reformations and 
 his extirpation of idolatry, to which is added an account of the deportation 
 of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser (2 Kings 18: 1—12). This visitation 
 is referred to the apostasy of Israel as its meritorious cause, and contrasted 
 with the favour of the Lord to Hezekiah as a faithful servant. While 
 Ephraim was carried away never to return, Judah was only subjected to 
 a temporary chastisement, the record of which follows. The verse which 
 directly corresponds to that before us (2 Kings 18: 13) differs from it only 
 in the omission of the idiomatic formula *JW. The statement in Chronicles 
 (32 : 1) is, that he entered into Judah and encamped against the fortified cities 
 and proposed (ie&oi) to subdue them to himself. The same restricted sense 
 is put by some interpreters upon the stronger phrase {and took them) which 
 Isaiah uses. Others, with the same view, limit the meaning of the word all 
 before cities. Gesenius understands the cities here meant to be those which 
 Rehoboam fortified (2 Chf. 11 : 5-12). Sennacherib is mentioned, under 
 nearly the same name, by Herodotus, who calls him the king of Assyria and 
 Arabia. This may either be accounted for, as an example of the loose 
 geographical distinctions of the ancient writers, or as implying that the 
 Assyrian conquests really included certain portions of Arabia. Between 
 this verse and the next, as they stand in Isaiah, the narrative in Kings in- 
 serts three others, which relate what immediately followed the invasion of 
 the country and preceded the attack upon Jerusalem. The substance oi 
 this statement is that Hezekiah sent to Sennacherib at Lachish, saying, 1 
 have offended (i. e. in renouncing his allegiance to Assyria), return from 
 me, that which thou puttest on me I will bear ; that Sennacherib accordingly 
 imposed a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty of gold, to pay 
 which Hezekiah gave him all the treasures of the palace and the temple, not 
 excepting the metallic decorations of the doors and pillars (2 Kings 18: 
 14—16). This last act seems to be entirely inconsistent with the view 
 which Calvin takes of Hezekiah's conduct in this whole transaction as en- 
 tirely innocent and laudable, evincing a pacific disposition and a willingness 
 to purchase peace at any price. He seems indeed to have been disposed 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 591 
 
 to buy it far too dearly when he stripped the house of God to pay for it, 
 an act which certainly implies distrust of the divine protection. There is 
 nothing, either in the case before us, or in the general analogy of Scripture, 
 to forbid the supposition, that the narrative was intended to exhibit the 
 weakness no less than the strength of Hezekiah's faith, in which case there 
 is no need of laboriously vindicating all his acts as perfectly consistent with 
 a strong and lively faith, although his general sincerity and godliness cannot 
 be questioned. Another addition to the narrative is found in the second 
 book of Chronicles (32: 1-8), where we read that Hezekiah, when he saw 
 that Sennacherib was come, and that his face was towards Jerusalem for 
 war, took measures to strengthen the defences of the city, and to cut off 
 the supply of water from the enemy, while at the same time he encouraged 
 the people to rely upon Jehovah and not to be afraid of the Assyrian host. 
 All this is spoken of as having taken place before what is recorded in the 
 next verse of the chapter now before us. If we suppose it to have followed 
 Hezekiah's message to Sennacherib and payment of the tribute, the infer- 
 ence would seem to be that the invader, having received the money, still 
 appeared disposed to march upon the Holy City, whereupon the king aban- 
 doned all hope of conciliation, and threw himself without reserve on the 
 divine protection. 
 
 V. 2. And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jeru- 
 salem, to king Hezekiah, with a strong force, and he stood by the conduit 
 (or aqueduct) of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller's field. Be- 
 sides Rabshakeh, the narrative in Kings mentions Tartan and Rabsaris ; 
 that in Chronicles uses the general expression his servants. Rabshakeh 
 may be named alone here as the chief speaker, or as the commander of the 
 expedition. The Jews have a tradition that he was a renegado or apostate 
 Jew, and one absurd story makes him out to have been a son of Isaiah. 
 Others account for his knowledge of Hebrew by supposing him to have 
 acquired it by intercourse with captives of the ten tribes. Lachish was a 
 town of Judah south-west of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt. This place 
 Sennacherib was now besieging (2 Chron. 32 : 9), and being probably de- 
 tained longer than he had expected, he detached a part of his forces to attack 
 Jerusalem, or rather to summon Hezekiah to surrender. That the main 
 body of the army afterwards advanced against Jerusalem is nowhere expli- 
 citly recorded, although some infer from ch. 10: 28-32 that they did so, 
 making a circuit to the north for the purpose of surprising the city. It is 
 said in Chronicles that Sennacherib was now before Lachish, in the military 
 sense, i. e. besieging it, with all his force, which some explain to mean with 
 a large part of it, others with his court and the usual accompaniments of 
 an eastern camp, in order to remove a supposed inconsistency with what 
 
592 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 is here said. But the phrase in Chronicles relates to the Assyrian force at 
 Lachish before Rabshakeh was detached, and is inserted merely to explain 
 the statement that he came from Lachish, because Sennacherib had halted 
 there with all his army. The verb lasi'may also be referred to the halt of 
 Rabshakeh's detachment, or to the position which they took up on arriving ; 
 but it is simpler to refer it to the spot on which Rabshakeh himself stood 
 during the interview about to be described. The spot was doubtless one of 
 great resort. For the localities here mentioned, see the notes on ch. 7 : 3 
 and 22: 9-11. The verse in Kings, which corresponds to this, is more 
 redundant in expression, from which Gesenius infers as a matter of course, 
 that it is the original and this the copy, as if amplification were not as easy 
 as abridgment. 
 
 V. 3. Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, who was over 
 the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder. 
 The parallel narrative (2 Kings 18: 18) prefixes to this verse a statement 
 that he called to (or for) the king, in answer to which summons these three 
 ministers came out. Eliakim here appears as Shebna's successor, according 
 to the prophecy in ch. 22 : 20, and Shebna himself as an inferior office- 
 bearer. Interpreters have amused themselves with trying to discover equiva- 
 lents in modern parlance for these three official titles, such as chamberlain, 
 steward, majordomo, secretary, master of requests, master of the rolls, his- 
 toriographer etc. It is enough to know that they probably denote three 
 principal officers of state, or of the royal household, which in oriental gov- 
 ernments is very much the same thing. Clericus, in his version of this sen- 
 tence, omits the name of Joah, and then notes it as an error of the Hebrew 
 text, to be corrected by a comparison with 2 Kings 18: 18. 
 
 V. 4. And Rabshakeh said to them : Say now (or if you please) to 
 Hezekiah, thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What is this confi- 
 dence which thou confidest in ? He expresses his contempt by withholding 
 the name of king from Hezekiah and calling his own master the great king, 
 a common title of the Persian and other oriental monarchs, corresponding to 
 Grand Seignior, Grand Monar que, and Emperor, as a distinctive royal title. 
 The interrogation in the last clause implies surprise and scorn at a reliance 
 so unfounded. Confide and confidence sustain the same etymological rela- 
 tion to each other as the Hebrew noun and verb. 
 
 V. 5. I say (or have said), only word of lips, counsel and strength for 
 the war ; now on whom hast thou confided, that thou hast rebelled against 
 me? The parallel passage in Kings has thou hast said, which Lowth 
 assumes to be the true text here, while others treat the common reading as 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 593 
 
 an error of the writer or abridger. It is much easier, however, to account 
 for «5*7»I|J as having arisen from FnEK, a defective orthography for *n-l&tt, than 
 to deduce the latter from the former. The truth no doubt is that both the 
 readings are original, since both may be so explained as to express the same 
 idea. Many interpreters regard what follows as a parenthesis (it is only 
 word of lips, i.e. mere talk). Others make it interrogative (is mere talk 
 counsel and strength for the war ?) Others suppose an ellipsis in each 
 member (I say you have only word of lips, but there is need of counsel and 
 strength for the war). The simplest construction is: I say, mere word of 
 lips is (your) counsel and strength for the war, i. e. your pretended strength 
 and wisdom are mere talk, false pretension. The allusion is not so much 
 to Hezekiah's prayers (Kimchi) as to his addresses to the people, recorded 
 in 2 Chr. 3*2: 6-8. The sense of the other passage (2 Kings 18: 20) 
 seems to be, thou hast said (to thyself, or thought, that) mere talk is counsel 
 and strength for the war. The contemptuous import of dtb»j W is appa- 
 rent from Prov. 14: 23. The rebellion mentioned in the last clause is 
 Hezekiah's casting off the Assyrian yoke (2 Kings 18: 7). 
 
 V. 6. Behold, thou hast trusted in the staff (or support) of this broken 
 reed, in Egypt, which, (if) a man lean upon it, will go into his hand and 
 pierce it ; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all those trusting in him. He 
 answers his own question. The charge of relying upon Egypt may be 
 either regarded as a true one, or as a malicious fabrication, or as a mere 
 inference from the analogy of other cases and the habitual relation of the 
 parties. Egypt may be called a broken reed, either as being always weak, 
 or in allusion to what it had already suffered from Assyria. Broken of 
 course does not mean entirely divided, but so bruised or shattered as to 
 yield no firm support but rather to do injury. (See ch. 42 : 3 below.) Nei- 
 ther Gesenius nor any other critic seems to consider cnstB bs as a gloss, a 
 strong proof that such explanatory clauses are not quite so unnatural as they 
 are elsewhere represented. (See the notes on ch. 7 : 17. 8 : 7.) 
 
 V. 7. And if thou say to me, we trust in Jehovah our God, is it not he 
 whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to 
 Judah and to Jerusalem, before this altar shall ye worship. The parallel 
 passage (2 Kings 18 : 22) has ye say in the plural, which Gesenius regards 
 as the original and proper form, because Hezekiah is afterwards mentioned 
 in the third person. But what then becomes of the favourite critical canon 
 that the more difficult reading is commonly the true one, or of the allegation 
 that the author of the text before us is proved to be a copyist by his dispo- 
 sition to remove irregularities and make the form of expression uniform ? 
 Rabshakeh's question evidently refers to Hezekiah's reformation of reli- 
 
 38 
 
594 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 gious worship (2 Kings 18: 4), which he erroneously regarded as a change 
 of the national religion. The parallel passage adds, at the end of the sen- 
 tence, in Jerusalem, which is just as likely to have been added in the one 
 copy, as to have been omitted in the other. 
 
 V. 8. And now, engage, I pray thee, with my lord, the Jcing of Assy- 
 ria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to 
 set riders upon them. A contemptuous comparison between the Jews, who 
 were almost destitute of cavalry, and the Assyrians, who were strong in that 
 species of force (ch. 5 : 28). aijrn is not to wager, nor to give pledges, 
 but simply to engage with ; whether in fight or in negotiation, must be de- 
 termined by the context. 
 
 V. 9. And hoiv wilt thou turn away the face of one governor (or satrap) 
 of the least of my master's servants 1 So thou hast reposed thyself on Egypt, 
 with respeci to chariots and horses. As a man is said to turn his face 
 towards an object of attack, so the latter may be said to turn back (or 
 away) the face of his assailant when he repels him. The last clause fs an 
 inference from the first, as the first is from the foregoing verse. If Hezekiah 
 could not command two thousand horsemen, he was unprepared to resist 
 even a detachment of the Assyrian force, and if thus helpless, he must be 
 trusting, not in his own resources, but in foreign aid. 
 
 V. 10. And now (is it) without Jehovah 1 have come up against this 
 land to destroy it ? Jehovah said to me, go up to (or against) this land, and 
 destroy it. Some interpreters suppose that the Assyrians had heard of 
 prophecies, in which they were described as instruments by which Jehovah 
 meant to punish his own people. It is much more natural, however, to 
 regard this as a bold attempt to terrify the Jews by pleading the authority 
 of their own tutelary deity for this invasion. The parallel passage (2 Kings 
 18 : 25) has place instead of the first land, a clear case, as Knobel imagines, 
 of assimilation on the part of the transcriber. But no such inference was 
 drawn from the opposite appearance in v. 7, nor is any attempt made to 
 explain why the b$ and -i« were not assimilated also. 
 
 V. 1 1 . Then said Eliakim, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, 
 Pray speak unto thy servants in Aramean, for we understand (it), and 
 speak not to us in Jewish, in the ears of the people who (are) on the wall. 
 This request implies an apprehension of the bad effect of his address upon 
 the multitude. Aramean corresponds very nearly to Syrian in latitude of 
 meaning ; but the language meant is not what we call Syriac, but an older 
 form, which was probably current, as the French is now, at the courts and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 595 
 
 among the educated classes of an extensive region. Jewish is Hebrew, so 
 called by the Jews, as the language of the whole British empire is called 
 English, or as German is sometimes called Saxon. The use of this term 
 here is urged by some as a proof of later date than the time of Isaiah, on 
 the ground that the distinctive name Jewish could not have been common 
 till long after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which left 
 Judah the only representative of Israel. But how long after this event 
 may we assume that such a usage became common ? The ten tribes were 
 carried into exile by Sennacherib's father, if not by his grandfather. It is 
 altogether probable that from the time of the great schism between Ephraim 
 and Judah, the latter began to call the national language by its own distinc- 
 tive name. At the period in question, such a designation was certainly 
 more natural, in the mouths of Jews, than Israelitish or even Hebrew. We 
 understand, literally, we (are) hearing, i. e. hearing distinctly and intelli- 
 gently. 
 
 V. 12. And Rabshakeh said : Is it to thy master and to thee, that my 
 master hath sent me to speak these words 1 Is it not to the men sitting on 
 the wall to eat their own dung and to drink their own water with you 1 
 The last clause might seem to mean, is it not appointed to them, necessary 
 for them, or are they not doomed etc 1 But since bs? is used in the parallel 
 passage (2 Kings 18: 27) after nbiu, as a simple equivalent to bx, it is bet- 
 ter to repeat the verb of the first clause at the beginning' of the second : has 
 he not sent me 1 The last clause is obviously descriptive of the horrors of 
 famine in their most revolting form. The same idea is conveyed still more 
 distinctly in Chronicles : whereon do ye trust that ye abide in the fortress of 
 Jerusalem ? doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over yourselves to die 
 by famine and by thirst, saying, the Lord our God shall deliver us out of 
 the hand of the king of Assyria 1 (2 Chr. 32: 10, 11). So here the peo- 
 ple are described as sitting on the wall, i. e. holding out against Sennacherib, 
 only that they may experience these horrors. The masoretic readings in the 
 margin of the Hebrew Bible are mere euphemistic variations, "piifl might 
 seem to mean thy masters, as the singular my master is expressed in the 
 same sentence by its proper form. But the fact is that the singular fta* is 
 never joined with any suffixes but those of the first person. The only form, 
 therefore, in which thy master could have been expressed, is that here used. 
 The ambiguity is removed by the connexion, which requires the phrase to 
 be applied to Hezekiah. 
 
 V. 13. And Rabshakeh stood and called with a loud voice in Jewish 
 (i. e. Hebrew), and said, Hear the words of the great king, the king of 
 Assyria. In so doing he not only testified his contempt for the king's mes- 
 
596 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 sengers by insolently disregarding their request, but made a politic appeal 
 to the hopes and fears of the multitude. That he stood and called, is ex- 
 plained by some to mean that he assumed a higher position, or came nearer 
 to the wall ; but the simplest and most natural explanation is, that he 
 remained where he was before and merely raised his voice. 
 
 » 
 V. 14. Thus saith the king: let not Hezekiah deceive you, for he will 
 
 not be able to deliver you. The repeated mention of the king reminds 
 them, that he is not speaking in his own name, but in that of a great mon- 
 arch. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 29) adds, out of his hand. 
 
 V. 15. And let not Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah, saying, Jeho- 
 vah will certainly save us, this city shall not be given up into the hand of 
 the king of Assyria. The only difference between this and the parallel 
 passage (2 Kings 18: 30) is that the latter inserts ra before this city, a 
 construction of the passive verb which, according to Knobel, was considered 
 incorrect by the transcriber. The idea of certain deliverance is expressed 
 by the idiomatic combination of the future and infinitive. 
 
 V. 16. Hearken not to Hezekiah, for thus saith the king of Assyria, 
 make with me a blessing, and come out unto me, and eat ye (every) man 
 his own vine and (every) man his own Jig-tree, and drink ye (every) man 
 the waters of his own cistern, risers usually means a blessing, but in a 
 few instances a gift or present, as a token of good will. Hence some 
 explain the phrase here used, make me a present, or make an agreement 
 with me by a present. Others give the Hebrew word, in this one case, the 
 sense of peace, which of course suits the connexion, because it' is in fact a 
 mere conjecture from the context. If an unusual meaning of the word must 
 be assumed, it might have that of kneeling, as a gesture of submission or an 
 act of homage, from Tps to kneel. It is possible, however, to adhere more 
 closely to the usage of the term, by taking blessing in the sense of friendly 
 salutation, which in the east is commonly an invocation of the divine bless- 
 ing. Thus the verb to bless is often used to express the act of greeting or 
 of taking leave. To make a blessing with one then might mean to enter 
 into amicable intercourse. To come out is in Hebrew the common military 
 phrase for the surrender of a besieged town. The inducements offered in 
 the last clause are in obvious antithesis to the revolting threat or warning 
 io the last clause of v. 12. To eat the vine and fig-tree (meaning to eat 
 their fruit) is an elliptical form of speech, which has its analogies in every 
 language. 
 
 V. 17. Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, 
 a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards. The parallel 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 597 
 
 passage (2 Kings 18: 32) adds, a land of oil-olive and honey, that ye may 
 live and not die, which has quite as much the aspect of an amplified copy 
 as of a redundant original. This reference to the deportation of the people 
 as a future event has led some interpreters to the conclusion, that Senna- 
 cherib was now on his way to Egypt, and deferred the measure until his 
 return. It has been disputed what particular land is here meant, some 
 saying Mesopotamia, to which others object that it was not a wine-growing 
 country. But, as Knobel observes, there is no need of supposing that the 
 Assyrian's description was exactly true. He may indeed have intended 
 merely to promise them in general a country as abundant as their own. 
 
 V. 18. Let not (or beware lest) Hezelciah seduce you, saying, Jehovah 
 tcill deliver us. Have the gods of the nations delivered every one his land 
 out of the hand of the king of Assyria ? ",s is commonly equivalent to lest, 
 and dependent on a foregoing verb, but sometimes (like the Latin ne) stands 
 at the beginning of a sentence. Here we may either supply take heed, or 
 regard p as equivalent to ?x, which is actually used in the parallel passage 
 (2 Kings 18: 32) with a repetition of the verb iSE^n (hearken not to 
 Hezekiah when he incites, or, for he shall incite you, saying). Had this 
 been the form of expression in Isaiah, we should have seen it noted as an 
 instance of assimilation characteristic of a later writer ; but as it unluckily 
 occurs in the other place, it is discreetly overlooked by the interpreters. 
 The Assyrian here, with characteristic recklessness, forsakes his previous 
 position, that he was but acting as Jehovah's instrument, and sets himself 
 in disdainful opposition to Jehovah himself. 
 
 V. 19. Where (are) the gods of Hamath and Arpad ? where the gods of 
 Sepharvaim ? and (when or where was it) that they delivered Samaria out 
 of my hand? In the rapidity of his triumphant interrogation, he expresses 
 himself darkly and imperfectly. The last clause must of course refer to the 
 gods of Samaria, though not expressly mentioned, "o is not an interrogative 
 pronoun (who have delivered?), nor an interrogative particle (have they 
 delivered?), but a connective particle, dependent upon something not ex- 
 pressed. For the situation of Hamath and Arpad, see the note on ch. 10: 
 9. Sepharvaim is probably the Sipphara of Ptolemy, a town aud province 
 in the south of Mesopotamia, already subject to Assyria in the days of Shal- 
 maneser. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 34) adds Hcna and Ivvah, 
 which are also named with Sepharvaim in 2 Kings 19: 13 and Isai. 37 : 13. 
 The question (where are they ?) seems to imply, not only that they had not 
 saved their worshippers, but that they had ceased to -be. 
 
 V. 20. Who (are they) among all the gods of these lands, that have 
 delivered their land out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem 
 
598 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 out of my hand? The parallel passage (2 Kings 18 : 35) omits these before 
 lands, another exception to the general statement, that the narrative before 
 us is an abridgment of the other. In this argumentative interrogation, he 
 puts Jehovah on a level with the gods of the surrounding nations. This is 
 still more frequently and pointedly expressed in the parallel passage in 
 Chronicles. Know ye not what I and my fathers have done unto all the 
 nations of the countries 1 Were the gods of the nations of the countries able 
 to deliver their country out of my hand 1 Who was there among all the gods 
 of these nations, which my fathers utterly destroyed, that was able to deliver 
 his people out of my hand, that your God should be able to deliver you out 
 of my hand 1 And now, let not Hezekiah deceive you, and let him not 
 seduce you, neither believe him; for no god of any nation or kingdom has 
 been able to deliver his people out of my hand, and out of the hand of my 
 fathers ; how much less shall your God deliver you out of my hand. 
 (2 Chron. 32: 13-15.) From the same authority we learn that over and 
 above what is recorded, Sennacherib's servants spake still more against the 
 God Jehovah and against Hezekiah his servant (v. 16), and that they cried 
 with a loud voice in the Jewish language, to the 'people of Jerusalem who 
 were on the wall, to affright them, and to trouble them, that they might take 
 the city ; and they spake against the God of Jerusalem as against the gods 
 of the nations of the earth, the work of men's hands (vs. 18, 19). 
 
 V. 21. And they held their peace, and did not answer him a word, for 
 such was the commandment of the king, saying, Ye shall not answer him. 
 Some interpreters refer the first clause to Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah ; but 
 the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 36) says expressly that the people held 
 their peace, which Knobel says is more correct, as if the two were inconsis- 
 tent, and gravely adds, that our narrator was thinking of the messengers. 
 The notion of some of the old writers, that they did confer with him, not- 
 withstanding what is here said, is gratuitous and arbitrary in a high degree. 
 
 V. 22. Then came Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, ivho (was) over the house, 
 and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder, unto Hezekiah, 
 with their clothes rent (literally, rent of clothes), and told him the words of 
 Rabshakeh. Some of the older writers understand the rending of their ear- 
 ments as a mere sign of their horror at Rabshakeh's blasphemies ; some of 
 the moderns as a mere sign of despondency and alarm at the impending 
 dangers ; whereas both may naturally be included. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 599 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 This chapter is a direct continuation of the one before it. It describes 
 the effect of Rabshakeh's blasphemies and threats on Hezekiah, his humilia- 
 tion, his message to Isaiah, and the answer, the retreat of Rabshakeh, 
 Sennacherib's letter, Hezekiah's prayer, Isaiah's prophecy, and its fulfilment, 
 in the slaughter of Sennacherib's army and his own flight and murder. 
 
 V. 1. And it was (or came to pass), when King Hezekiah heard (the 
 report of his messengers), that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with 
 sackcloth, and went into the house of Jehovah. Gill's suggestion, that he 
 rent his clothes because of the Assyrian's blasphemy and put on sackcloth 
 because of his threats, appears to be a fanciful distinction. Both acts were 
 customary signs of mourning and appropriate to any case of deep distress. 
 He resorted to the temple, not only as a public place, but with reference to 
 the promise made to Solomon (I Kings 8: 29), that God would hear the 
 prayers of his people from that place when they were in distress. Under 
 the old dispensation there were reasons for resorting to the temple, even to 
 offer private supplications, which cannot possibly apply to any church or 
 other place at present. This arose partly from the fact that prayer was 
 connected with sacrifice, and this was rigidly confined to one spot. 
 
 V. 2. And he sent Eliakim who was over the household, and Shebna 
 the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah, 
 the son of Amoz, the prophet. While he himself resorted to the temple, 
 he sent to ask the counsel and the intercessions of the Prophet. Calvin's 
 supposition, that Isaiah was directed to remain at home, amidst the general 
 alarm and lamentation, as a test of Hezekiah's faith, seems at least unne- 
 cessary. Eliakim and Shebna are again employed in this case, as being 
 qualified to make an exact report of what had happened, and in order to 
 put honour on the prophet by an embassy of distinguished men. In the 
 place of Joah, he sends the elders of the priests, i. e. the heads of the 
 sacerdotal families. The reference of elders to personal age, by Luther 
 (den altesten Priestern) and Barnes (the old men of the priests), is less 
 consistent with the context, which describes the other messengers by their 
 official titles only, and with the usage of tTCpi, as denoting the hereditary 
 chiefs of Levi no less than the other tribes. The king applies to the 
 prophet as the authorized expounder of the will of God. Similar applica- 
 tions are recorded elsewhere with sufficient frequency to show that they 
 were customary and that the prophets were regarded in this light. Thus 
 
600 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 Josiah sent to Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14), Zedekiah to Jeremiah (Jer. 37 : 
 3), etc. The impious Ahab required Micaiah to come to him, and that 
 only at the earnest request of King Jehoshaphat (I Kings 22 : 9). From 
 the mention of the Prophet's father two very different but equally gratuitous 
 conclusions are drawn ; one by Vitringa, who infers that Isaiah was of noble 
 rank; the other by Hendewerk, who infers that he cannot be the author of 
 this narrative, as he never would have called himself the son of Amoz. 
 In the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 2) the patronymic follows the official 
 title, whereas here it precedes it. As this last is the usual collocation, 
 Gesenius appears to think that it was substituted for the other by the later 
 writer, while Hitzig, for the very same reason, declares this to be the original 
 reading. The plural n^pts seems to show that pu is not here the name of 
 the material but of the garment (covered with sacks or sackcloth dresses). 
 Of the king's prompt appeal to God in his extremity, Gill quaintly says : 
 Hezekiah does not sit doivn to consider Rab shale eh? s speech, to take it in 
 'pieces, and give an answer to it, but he applies unto God. 
 
 V. 3. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, A day of anguish 
 and rebuke and contempt (is) this day, for the children are come to the 
 birth (or to the place of birth), and there is not strength to bring forth. 
 The indirect construction of the first words (that they might say to him), 
 adopted by some writers, is not only unnecessary but foreign from the 
 Hebrew idiom which, especially in narrative, prefers the most simple and 
 direct forms of expression. That Hezekiah told them thus to speak, is not 
 only implied in their doing so, but expressly asserted by themselves, and 
 need not therefore be recorded. As the execution of a command is often left 
 to be inferred from the command itself (ch. 7:3. 8:1, etc.), so here the 
 details of the command are to be gathered from the record of its execution. 
 The common version of in* (trouble) seems too weak for the occasion and 
 for the figure in the other clause. It is well explained by Vitringa, as 
 denoting, not external danger merely, but the complicated distress, both of 
 a temporal and spiritual nature, in which Hezekiah was involved by the 
 threats and blasphemies of the Assyrian. Rebuke is applied by the Sep- 
 tuagint (oveidiafiov) and some interpreters to the reproaches of Rabshakeh.: 
 but it is more agreeable to usage to explain it as signifying the divine rebuke 
 or chastisement, as in Ps. 73 : 4. 149: 7. It is characteristic of the 
 Scriptures and the ancient saints to represent even the malignity of human 
 enemies as a rebuke from God. The very same phrase (day of rebuke) is 
 used in the same sense by Hosea (5 : 9). The verb from which nstao is 
 derived means to treat with contempt, or more specifically, to reject with 
 scorn. It is sometimes used to denote God's rejection of his people (Deut. 
 32: 19. Jer. 14: 21. Lam. 2: 6), and Hitzig accordingly translates 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 601 
 
 the noun rejection or reprobation (Verwerfung). But as the verb more 
 frequently expresses man's contempt of God (e. g. ch. 1:4), interpreters 
 are commonly agreed in making the noun here mean blasphemy. The 
 terms employed by Lowth (contumely) and Henderson (calumny) are too 
 weak if the reference be to God, as the usage of the verb seems to require. 
 The oral expression of contempt for God is blasphemy. The metaphor in 
 the last clause expresses, in the most affecting manner, the ideas of extreme 
 pain, imminent danger, critical emergency, utter weakness, and entire 
 dependence on the aid of others. (Compare the similar expressions of ch. 
 26 : 18.) The reference of the passage to the interrupted reformation of 
 religion, or to the abortive effort to shake off the Assyrian yoke, is equally 
 illogical and tasteless, while the question, whether Judah is here represented 
 as the mother or the child, betrays a total incapacity to appreciate the 
 strength and beauty of the Prophet's metaphor. There is no more need of 
 mooting such points than if he had simply said, the present distress is like 
 the pains of childbirth. 
 
 V. 4. If per adventure Jehovah thy God will hear the words of Rab- 
 shalceh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the 
 living God, and will rebuke the xvords which Jehovah thy God hath heard, 
 then shalt thou lift up a prayer for the remnant (that is still) found (here). 
 ibix may generally be expressed by our perhaps, and this translation is 
 adopted here by most interpreters, who then take i at the beginning of the 
 last clause in the sense of therefore. But by retaining what appears to be 
 the primary and proper force of ''Vfil, as a contingent and conditional 
 expression, and making l the usual sign of the apodosis, we may throw the 
 whole into one sentence, and make more obvious the connexion of the 
 clauses. It was because Hezekiah thought Jehovah might hear, that he 
 asked Isaiah's prayers in his behalf. The meaning given to 'tyifc in this con- 
 struction is expressed in the English Version of Isai. 47 : 12 and Jer. 21 : 
 2, and might be substituted for perhaps in all the cases where the latter is 
 employed to represent this particle, in some with great advantage to the 
 clearness or the force of the expression. Lowth's explanation of *Vtll as 
 an optative particle (oh that Jehovah thy God would hear) is not justified 
 by usage. The doubt expressed in the first clause whether God will hear 
 is viewed by some interpreters as inconsistent with the statement in the last 
 clause that he has heard. To remove this imaginary discrepancy, some 
 deny that the first clause really expresses doubt or implies contingency; 
 others allege that hear is used in two distinct senses, that of simply hearing 
 and that of regarding or attending to, and acting accordingly. The true 
 solution seems to be that the preterite satis denotes a past time only in rela- 
 tion to the contingency expressed by *fitK Perhaps he will hear, and then 
 
602 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 punish what he has heard. Both verbs may then be understood in one and 
 the same sense, either that of simply hearing, or in that of acting as if one 
 heard. The reproach and blasphemy of the Assyrian consisted mainly in 
 his confounding Jehovah with the gods of the surrounding nations (2 Chron. 
 32: 19), in antithesis to whom, as being impotent and lifeless, he is here 
 and elsewhere called the living God. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and most 
 interpreters, ancient and modern, make n*ow an infinitive, connected by the 
 1 with cpn, and descriptive of Rabshakeh's blasphemies {and to rebuke me 
 in the words etc.). But reprove or rebuke is a description wholly inappro- 
 priate to such a speech, and the Hebrew word nowhere means to rail at or 
 revile. Usage moreover would require the particle to be repeated before 
 this infinitive, and Gesenius (in his Commentary) accordingly assumes that 
 maim is put for mainbi. The grammatical and lexicographical objections 
 may be both avoided by taking main as a preterite with the 1 conversive, 
 as in the English Version {and will reprove). The a may then be either 
 a mere connective of the verb with its object (rebuke the words), or denote 
 the occasion and the ground (rebuke him for the words etc.). Maurer, who 
 successfully defends this construction (in his note on 2 Kings 19: 4), in 
 order to show that he is not alone in his opinion, says, consentientem habeo 
 Fdsium. He might have gone a little further back, not only to Junius and 
 Tremellius, but to Jonathan, who paraphrases the expression thus, and will 
 take vengeance for the words etc. The same construction is adopted by 
 Gesenius in his Thesaurus. It is also retained in the modern English ver- 
 sions, among which that of Lowth puts a peculiar sense upon the clause, by 
 making it express a wish that God would refute Rabshakeh's words, mean- 
 ing no doubt by the actual exertion of the power which he called in question. 
 But this specific meaning of main cannot be sustained by usage. To lift 
 up a prayer is not simply to utter one, but has allusion to two common 
 idiomatic phrases, that of lifting up the voice, in the sense of speaking loud 
 or beginning to speak, and that of lifting up the heart or soul, in the sense 
 of earnestly desiring. The passive participle found is often used in Hebrew 
 to denote what is present in a certain place, or more generally what is extant, 
 in existence, or forthcoming. The meaning left, which is expressed in the 
 English and some other versions, is suggested wholly by the noun with 
 which the participle here agrees. As to the application of the whole phrase, 
 it may either be a general description of the straits or low condition to which 
 the chosen people were reduced (as the church at Sardis is exhorted to 
 strengthen the things which remain, Rev. 3 : 2), or be more specifically un- 
 derstood in reference to Judah as surviving the destruction of the ten tribes 
 (compare ch. 28 : 5), or to Jerusalem as spared amidst the general desola- 
 tion of Judah (compare ch. 1 : 8). In either case, the king requests the 
 prophet to pray for their deliverance from entire destruction. This appli- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 603 
 
 cation was made to Isaiah, not as a private person, however eminent in 
 piety, but as one who was recognized as standing in an intimate relation to 
 Jehovah, and as a constituted medium of communication with him. In 
 like manner God himself said to Abimelech of Abraham : he is a prophet, 
 and shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live (Gen. 20: 7). In recognition 
 of this same relation, Hezekiah twice says thy God, i. e. thine in a peculiar 
 and distinctive sense. This phrase is, therefore, not to be regarded as an 
 expression of despondency, nor even of humility, on Hezekiah's part, but 
 as a kind of indirect explanation of his reason for resorting to the Prophet 
 at this juncture. 
 
 V. 5. And the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah. This is a 
 natural and simple resumption of the narrative, common in all inartificial 
 history. It affords no ground for assuming a transposition in the text, 
 nor for explaining YacHft in v. 3 as a subjunctive. 
 
 V. 6. And Isaiah said to them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus 
 saith Jehovah, Be not afraid of (literally from before or from the face of) 
 the words which thou hast heard, (with) which the servants of the king of 
 Assyria have blasphemed me. The last verb means to rail at or revile, and 
 when applied to God must be translated by a still stronger term. The word 
 translated servants is not the same with that in the preceding verse, but 
 strictly means young men or boys, and is so translated in the Targum and 
 Vulgate. Many interpreters regard it as a contemptuous description, and it 
 is so translated by Hitzig (Knappen), Umbreit (Buben), Henderson (strip- 
 lings), and in other modern versions. 
 
 V. 7. Behold I am putting (or about to put) a spirit in him, and he 
 shall hear a noise, and shall return to his own land, and I will cause him 
 to fall by the sword in his own land. Calvin translates the first clause, ecce 
 apponam illi ventum, and explains it to mean that God would carry him 
 away as with a wind (compare ch. 17 : 13). The English Version renders 
 it, behold I will send a blast upon him, meaning either a pestilential blast or 
 a destructive tempest. Others understand by mi the destroying angel, or 
 an evil spirit by whom he should be haunted and possessed. But most 
 interpreters refer the phrase to an effect to be produced upon the mind of 
 the Assyrian. Thus some explain rm to mean terror, others courage, 
 others a desire to return home, others simply a change of mind. The most 
 probable conclusion is, that it does not denote a specific change, but divine 
 influence as governing his movements. WWV strictly means any thing 
 heard, and Luther accordingly translates the phrase, he shall hear something. 
 Most writers understand this as referring to the news mentioned in v. 9 
 
604 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 below. But Henderson observes that this news, far from driving Sennacherib 
 home, led to a fresh defiance of Jerusalem. He therefore ingeniously sug- 
 gests, that this expression has reference to the news of the destruction of 
 his host before Jerusalem while he himself was absent. But in the next 
 verse Rabshakeh is said to have rejoined his master, nor is there any further 
 mention of an army at Jerusalem. It is possible, indeed, though not 
 recorded, that Rabshakeh left the troops behind him when he went to Lib- 
 nah, under the command of Tartan or Rabsaris (2 Kings 18: 17), and 
 this is still more probable if, as some suppose, Rabshakeh was a mere embas- 
 sador or herald, and Tartan the real military chief. If it can be assumed, 
 on any ground, that the great catastrophe took place in the absence of Sen- 
 nacherib, which would account for his personal escape, then Henderson's 
 explanation of rwratt is more satisfactory than any other. The modern 
 Germans are perplexed by this verse. They would gladly explain the pre- 
 diction in the last clause as a prophecy ex eventu ; but in that case, how 
 could the slaughter of the host have been omitted ? The only escape from 
 this dilemma is by the arbitrary allegation that the prophecy was falsely 
 ascribed to Isaiah by a later writer. If this be so, we may as well reject 
 the whole ; for what assurance have we that a writer, who fabricates miracles 
 and prophecies, is faithful in his history of other matters ? The inconve- 
 niences of this attempt to save a part while really discrediting the whole 
 are curiously apparent from Gesenius's endeavour to explain the first clause 
 of this verse as a sagacious political conjecture and the other as a subsequent 
 interpolation. * 
 
 V. 8. And Rabshakeh returned and found the king of Assyria fight- 
 ing against (i. e. besieging) Libnah, for he heard that he had decamped 
 from Lachish. Both these towns were in the plain or lowlands of Judah 
 south-west of Jerusalem (Josh. 15 : 39, 42), originally seats of Canaanitish 
 kings or chiefs, conquered by Joshua (Josh. 12 : 11, 15). Lachish was one 
 of the fifteen places fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11 : 9), and one of 
 the last towns taken by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 34 : 7). It was still in 
 existence after the exile (Neh. 1 1 : 30). Libnah was a city of the Levites 
 and of refuge (Josh. 21 : 13), and appears to have been nearer to Jerusa- 
 lem. Henderson infers that Sennacherib had conquered Lachish, most 
 other writers that he failed in the attempt. Some of the older writers 
 make Libnah an Egyptian city, either because one of the stations of the 
 Israelites in the wilderness bore this name (Num. 33 : 20), or because Jose- 
 phus, in order to reconcile Isaiah's narrative with that of Herodotus, repre- 
 sents Sennacherib as leaving Lachish to besiege Pelusium. The last verb 
 in this verse properly denotes the removal of a tent or an encampment, an 
 idea happily expressed in Lowth's translation by the military term decamped. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 605 
 
 The sense of this verb can be here expressed in our idiom only by the use 
 of the pluperfect, which form is given by most versions to the verb before 
 it likewise, and Hendewerk extends it even to the verbs of the first clause, 
 which is wholly gratuitous. 
 
 V. 9. And he (Sennacherib) heard say concerning Tirhakah Icing oj 
 Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee ; and he heard (it) and 
 sent (or wfien he heard it he sent) messengers to Hezekiah, saying (what 
 follows in the next verse). On the meaning of the Hebrew name ©ts, see 
 the notes on ch. 18: 1 and 20: 3. Tirhakah was one of the most famous 
 conquerors of ancient times. Megasthenes, as quoted by Strabo, puts him 
 between Sesostris and Nebuchadnezzar. He is also named by Manetho as 
 one of the Ethiopian dynasty in Egypt. He was at this time either in close 
 alliance with that country, or more probably in actual possession of Thebais 
 or Upper Egypt. The fact that an Ethiopian dynasty did reign there, is 
 attested by the ancient writers, and confirmed by still existing monuments. 
 The Greek forms of the name (Taqay.6g, Tdoxog, TtQxav) vary but little 
 from the Hebrew. Barnes and some of the older writers suppose that 
 Sennacherib had already been driven out of Egypt by this king, and was 
 now afraid of being followed into Palestine ; but this conclusion is hardly 
 warranted by the facts of the history, sacred or profane. It is unnecessary 
 to suppose, with J. D. Michaelis, that Tirhakah had crossed the desert to 
 invade Assyria, or even with Rosenmiiller, that he was already on the fron- 
 tier of Judah. The bare fact of his having left his own dominions, with 
 the purpose of attacking Sennacherib, would be sufficient to alarm the latter, 
 especially as his operations in the Holy Land had been so unsuccessful. He 
 was naturally anxious therefore to induce Hezekiah to capitulate before the 
 Ethiopians should arrive, perhaps before the Jews should hear of their 
 approach. That he did not march upon Jerusalem himself, is very probably 
 accounted for by Vitringa, on the ground that his strength lay chiefly in 
 cavalry, which could not be employed in the highlands, and that the polior- 
 cetic part of warfare was little* known to any ancient nation but the Romans, 
 as Tacitus explicitly asserts. To this may be added the peculiar difficulty 
 arising from the scarcity of water in the environs of Jerusalem, which has 
 been an obstacle to all the armies that have ever besieged it. (See the 
 notes on ch. 22 : 9-11.) Gesenius supposes that symptoms of the plague 
 had begun to show themselves in Palestine. Instead of ^5 before Tirhakah, 
 the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 9) has ^>K, which is the more remarkable 
 because the latter particle is represented by some critics as a favourite of 
 the copyist or later writer, to whom they ascribe this portion of Isaiah. 
 Instead of the second heard, the parallel passage has he returned, which, 
 according to a common Hebrew idiom, may qualify the next verb (sent) 
 
606 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 by giving it the sense of sent again. This, which certainly yields an appro- 
 priate meaning, is restored by Lowth in this place as the true text, while 
 Gesenius and the later German writers, who are usually bold enough in 
 critical conjecture, choose in this case to regard the reading in Isaiah as a 
 tautology of the later writer. Yet the variation is precisely such as one 
 writer would be apt to make in recording the same matter twice. 
 
 V. 10. Thus shall ye say to Hezekiah, Icing of Judah, Let not thy 
 God deceive thee, in whom thou trustest, saying, Jerusalem shall not be 
 given into the hand of the king of Assyria. This recognition of Hezekiah's 
 royal dignity, of which Rabshakeh seemed to take no notice, if significant 
 at all, as some interpreters imagine, may be accounted for upon the ground, 
 that in this message the design of the Assyrian was not to destroy the peo- 
 ple's confidence in Hezekiah, but the king's own confidence in God. For 
 the same reason, Sennacherib's blasphemy is much more open and direct 
 than that of Rabshakeh. The word saying may be referred either to Heze- 
 kiah or to God. The English Version makes the last construction necessary, 
 by changing the collocation of the words ; but Luther, Gesenius, and many 
 others understand the sense to be, in whom thou trustest, saying. This is 
 in fact entitled to the preference, on the ground that nais is the nearest 
 antecedent. On the whole, it is best, in a case so doubtful, to retain the 
 Hebrew collocation with all its ambiguity. The word surrendered, used by 
 Henderson in this verse, is not only less simple than the common version 
 given, but confines the clause too strictly to the act of the besieged, instead 
 of making it at least include the act of God himself, as the protector of 
 Jerusalem 
 
 V. 11. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done 
 to all the lands, by utterly destroying them, and thou shalt be delivered! 
 The interjection behold appeals to these events as something perfectly noto- 
 rious ; as if he had said, see what has happened to others, and then judge 
 whether thou art likely to escape. The pronoun thou, in the first clause, 
 not being necessary to the sense, is, according to analogy, distinctive and 
 emphatic, and may be explained to mean, thou at least hast heard, if not 
 the common people. In the last clause, the same pronoun stands in oppo- 
 sition to the other kings or kingdoms who had been destroyed. This clause 
 is, in most versions, rendered as an interrogation, but is properly an excla- 
 mation of contemptuous incredulity. All the lands may be either an ellip- 
 tical expression for all the lands subdued by them, or, which is more in 
 keeping with the character of the discourse, a hyperbolical expression of 
 the speaker's arrogance. wnnn*> strictly means to doom them, or devote 
 them irrevocably to destruction, but in usage commonly includes the idea of 
 
/ 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 607 
 
 execution as well as of design. (Compare the note on ch. 11 : 15.) From 
 the mention of the king* of Assyria in the plural, some writers take occasion 
 to accuse Rabshakeh of intending to arrogate the glory of these conquests 
 to Sennacherib exclusively, whereas the latter did not dare to do so in ad- 
 dressing Hezekiah. But others, with more probability, infer that the singu- 
 lar form, employed by Rabshakeh, is itself to be understood collectively, 
 like Icing of Babylon in the fourteenth chapter. 
 
 i 
 
 V. 12. Did the gods of the nations deliver them, which my fathers 
 destroyed, (to wit) Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of 
 Eden which is (or who were) in Telassar 1 Here again the collocation of 
 the words makes the construction doubtful, though the general sense is clear. 
 nnix may either be referred to lands in the preceding verse (the masculine 
 form being then a license, or perhaps a sign that by the lands we are to 
 understand the people who inhabited them), or to vibst, or to d* 1 ^, or it may 
 be connected with ^ek in the sense of those whom, which appears to be 
 preferred by Hitzig. The construction then is, did the gods of the nations 
 deliver those whom my fathers destroyed! With respect to the places 
 mentioned in the second clause, all that is absolutely necessary to the just 
 understanding of the sentence, is that they were well known, both to speaker 
 and hearer, as Assyrian conquests. The difficulty of identifying some of 
 them affords an incidental argument in favour of the antiquity and genuine- 
 ness of the passage. Gozan is probably the modern Kaushan, the Gauza- 
 nitis of Ptolemy, a region of Mesopotamia, situated on the Chaboras, to 
 which a portion of the ten tribes wefe transferred by Shalmaneser. Haran 
 was a city of Mesopotamia, where Abraham's father died, the Carrae of the 
 Romans, and famous for the great defeat of Crassus. Rezeph, a common 
 name in oriental geography, here denotes probably the Rhessapha of Pto- 
 lemy, a town and province in Palmyrene Syria. Eden means pleasure or 
 delight, and seems to have been given as a name to various places. Having 
 been thus applied to a district in the region of Mount Lebanon, the native 
 Christians have been led to regard that as the site of the terrestrial paradise. 
 Equally groundless are the conclusions of some learned critics as to the 
 identity of the place here mentioned with the garden of Eden. In Isaiah 
 51 : 3, the reference is not to a country well known and distinguished for 
 its fertility (Barnes), but to the garden of Eden as a matter of history. 
 Such allusions prove no more, as to the site of the garden, than the similar 
 allusions of modern orators and poets to any delightful region as an Eden or 
 a Paradise. Even the continued application of the name, in prose, as a 
 geographical term, proves no more than the use of such a name as Mount 
 Pleasant in American geography. The inference, in this place, is especially 
 untenable, because the word sons or children, prefixed to Eden, leaves it 
 
608 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 doubtful whether the latter is the name of a place at all, and not rather that 
 of a person, whose descendants were among the races conquered by Assyria. 
 The relative pronoun may agree grammatically either with sons or Eden, 
 and the form of the verb to be supplied must be varied accordingly. Tel- 
 assar, which Gesenius thinks may be identical with the Ellasar of Gen. 
 14: 1, where it is substituted for the latter by the Targum of Jerusalem, 
 appears to be analogous in form to the Babylonian names, Tel-abib, Tel- 
 melah, Tel-hasha, in all which tel means hill and corresponds to the English 
 mount in names of places. 
 
 V. 13. Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the 
 king of the city Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah ? The question implies that 
 they were nowhere, or had ceased to be. The first three names occur in 
 the same order in Rabshakeh's speech (ch. 36 : 19), and the remaining two 
 also in the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 34). As the love of uniformity 
 and assimilation here betrayed is on the part of the pretended older writer, 
 the German critics have discreetly overlooked it. Of Hena nothing what- 
 ever is known, and of Ivvah only that it may be identical with the Avva of 
 2 Kings 17 : 24, from which Assyrian colonists were transferred to Samaria. 
 The absence of all further trace of these two places, and the peculiar form 
 of the names, led J. D. Michaelis to follow Symmachus and Jonathan in 
 making both words verbs or verbal nouns, implying that the kings just men- 
 tioned had been utterly subverted and destroyed. But this interpretation, 
 although highly plausible in this one case, is much less natural, if not 
 wholly inadmissible, in 2 Kings 18: 34. It would be easy to affirm, no 
 doubt, that the writer of the latter passage misunderstood the one before us ; 
 but from this suggestion even Gesenius and his followers are precluded by 
 their foregone conclusion that the text in Kings is the more ancient of the 
 two. Another explanation of these words is that suggested by Luzzatto, 
 who regards them as the names of the deities worshipped at Hamath, Arpad, 
 and Sepharvaim, and takes "j^e in the sense of idol or tutelary god, which 
 last idea is as old as Clericus. This ingenious hypothesis Luzzatto endea- 
 vours to sustain by the analogy of Adrammelech and Anammelech the gods 
 of Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17 : 31), the second of which names he regards as 
 essentially identical with Hena. In favour of this exposition, besides the 
 fact already mentioned that the names, as names of places, occur nowhere 
 else, it may be ujged that it agrees not only with the context in this place, 
 but also with 2 Kings 18: 34, in which the explanations of the words as 
 verbs or nouns is inadmissible. This explanation, and the grounds on which 
 it rests, are at least entitled to a fair comparison with that first given, as the 
 one approved by most interpreters. Musculus understands the dual form of 
 Sepharvaim as denoting that it consisted of two towns, perhaps on different 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 609 
 
 sides of the Euphrates, and that Uena and Ivvah were the distinctive names 
 of these. The particular mention of the city Sepharvaim, and the construc- 
 tion of that word with b, are peculiarities not easily accounted for. The 
 substitution of mx for 1^ (2 Kings 19: 13) is of course ascribed by Gese- 
 nius and Knobel to the later writer's fondness for exact uniformity,. his own 
 violations of it to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 V. 14. And Hezelciah took the letters from the hand of the messengers, 
 and read it, and went up (to) the house of Jehovah, and Hezelciah spread 
 it before Jehovah. As nothing had been previously said respecting letters, 
 we must either suppose that the preceding address was made not orally but 
 in writing, or that both modes of communication were adopted. The latter 
 is most probable in itself, and agrees best with the statement in 2 Chr. 32 : 
 17, that besides the speeches which his servants spake against the Lord God 
 and against his servant Hezekiah, Sennacherib wrote letters to rail on the 
 Lord God of Israel and to speak against him. The singular pronoun (it), 
 referring to the plural antecedent (letters), is explained by David Kimchi 
 distributively, as meaning every one of them ; by the Targum, as meaning 
 simply one of them, i. e. according to Joseph Kimchi, the one that contained 
 the blasphemy. Luzzatto supposes that it was customary to send duplicates 
 of the same letter, as the modern Samaritans did in their correspondence 
 with Job Ludolf, and that Hezekiah, though he took both or all, had no 
 occasion to read more than one of them. This is certainly ingenious and 
 plausible ; but perhaps the most satisfactory explanation is, that D"nso, like 
 the Latin literae, had come to signify a single letter, and might be therefore 
 treated indiscriminately either as a singular or plural form. This is the 
 more probable, because it can hardly be supposed that Sennacherib would 
 write more than one letter to Hezekiah on this one occasion, unless in the 
 way suggested by Luzzatto, which is not to be assumed without necessity or 
 evidence. That he wrote at the same time to the chief men or the people, 
 is an arbitrary and improbable assumption, and even supposing that he did, 
 why should Hezekiah be described as receiving all the letters? Some ver- 
 sions wholly disregard the difference of number. Thus the Septuagint and 
 Luther make both noun and pronoun singular, while Calvin and the Vulgate 
 make both plural. The parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 14) removes all 
 appearance of irregularity by reading them instead of it. This is so glaring 
 an exception to the sweeping allegation of a constant disposition, in the text 
 before us, to remove anomalies and seeming incongruities, that Gesenius is 
 under the necessity of finding some expedient for the vindication of his dar- 
 ling theory. This he plausibly accomplishes by saying, that as both texts 
 have the singular form spread it in the other clause, the later writer chose 
 to assimilate the phrase in question to this, and not to the preceding plural 
 
 39 
 
610 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 | 
 
 noun. It does not seem to have occurred to the ingenious special pleader, 
 that the last it needs as much to be explained as the first, and that such a 
 copyist as he supposes, instead of saying read it because he was going to 
 say spread it afterwards, would naturally first say read them, and then say 
 spread them for the sake of uniformity. Such explanations appear almost 
 puerile compared with the obvious and simple supposition of two draughts 
 or copies by the self-same writer. Another characteristic observation of 
 Gesenius on this verse is, that Hezekiah must have spread the letter in the 
 temple in order to let Jehovah read it from the Holy of Holies, and that 
 accordingly in v. 10, he is called upon to open his eyes, which he says 
 reminds him of the praying machines of Thibet. This specimen of exe- 
 getical wit is eagerly caught up and repeated by later and inferior writers. 
 The spreading of the letter before God is supposed by Clericus to have 
 been designed to excite the feelings and the prayers of the people, by 
 Calvin to affect the feelings of the king himself. It seems, however, 
 to have been no studied, calculated movement, but a natural expression 
 of anxiety and trust in God, as a protector and a confidential friend, a state 
 of mind which to an infidel must needs appear ridiculous. As any man 
 would carry an open letter, which troubled or perplexed him, to a friend 
 for sympathy and counsel, so the pious king spreads this blasphemous epistle 
 before God, as the occasion and the subject of his prayers. Josephus says 
 he left it afterwards rolled up in the temple, of which there is no record in 
 the narrative before us. He also says that Hezekiah lay prostrate, in the 
 Jewish manner, in the presence of Jehovah, from which it might seem that 
 he took inoifi^ in the sense o( stretched himself , which would be ungramma- 
 tical and contrary to usage. But Vitringa is no doubt correct in his opinion, 
 that Josephus had no reference to this word, but to the signs of mourning 
 mentioned in the first and second verses, with which he would naturally 
 associate prostration as their usual accompaniment. (See for example 1 Chr. 
 21 : 16.) 
 
 V. 15. And Hezekiah prayed to Jehovah, saying {what foilows in the 
 next verse). Hendewerk observes that this mode of proceeding was char- 
 acteristic of a person more like David in devotion than in energy and enter- 
 prise. With a far superior appreciation of the good king's character, Gill 
 quaintly says that, instead of answering the letter himself, he prays the Lord 
 to answer it. Instead of to, the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 15) has 
 before Jehovah. 
 
 V. 16. Jehovah of Hosts, God of Israel, dwelling between (or sitting 
 upon) the cherubim, thou art he, the God (i. e. the only true God), thou alone, 
 to all the kingdoms of the earth ; thou hast made the heavens and the earth. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 611 
 
 The parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 15) omits njtzy, upon which Gesenius 
 remarks that the combination here used is very common in the prophecies, 
 while it scarcely occurs at all in the historical books. What can be more 
 natural, therefore, than that IsaiaK should employ it in the case before us, 
 and the simple prose form in the book of Kings ? This is surely a more 
 obvious conclusion than the one which Gesenius draws, viz. that the later 
 copyists and compilers of the books of the Old Testament altered the text 
 at will, to make it suit the customary form of expression in their own day. 
 The cherubim were visible representations of spiritual beings, or, as Bahr 
 and Hengstenberg suppose, of the perfection of the creature in its highest 
 form. The name is most probably derived from --:, as a synonyme of -ip 
 to approach, or as a transposition of -=- to ride, in allusion to the angels 
 as the bearers of God's chariot. This last verb is connected with the noun 
 in Ps. 18: 11. Eichhom's attempt to identify the word with the yoimtg or 
 griffins of eastern mythology has been repeated by some later writers, but 
 with small success. Some suppose an allusion, in the case before us, to 
 Jehovah's riding on the cherubim (Ps. 18: 11) or angels through the air; 
 others to his being enthroned above the material cherubs in the temple. 
 This sense is given by Luther and the ancient versions, but Calvin and 
 many later writers understand him to be here described as dwelling between 
 the cherubim. (Compare Ex. 25 : 22.) In either case, there is allusion to 
 his manifested presence over the mercy-seat, called by the later Jews she- 
 chinah, which word is itself used in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the verse 
 before us. Forerius translates the Hebrew phrase without a preposition, 
 inhabitant of the cherubim, which would seem, however, to describe God as 
 dwelling in the images, not over them or under the shadow of their wings. 
 The pronoun son is understood by some as an emphatic or intensive addition 
 like the Latin ipse : thou thyself (art) the God etc. Others regard it 
 as an idiomatic substitute for the copula or verb of existence, used with all 
 the persons : thou art the God etc. But on the general principle of adher- 
 ing to the strict sense of words where it is possible, it is best to translate 
 it thou (art) he, and to regard what follows as explanatory of this pregnant 
 and concise expression. The God of all the kingdoms of the earth is not 
 an exact translation of the Hebrew words, in which the God stands by itself 
 as an emphatic phrase, meaning the only God, the true God, and what fol- 
 lows is intended to suggest a contrast with the false gods of the nations, hzb 
 is not simply of all, in all, for all, or over all, but with respect to all. Thou 
 art the one true God, not only with respect to us, but with respect to all the 
 nations of the earth. The reason follows : because thou hast made them 
 all, and not the earth only, but the heavens also. All this is indirectly a 
 reply to the Assyrian blasphemies, which questioned the almighty power of 
 Jehovah, and put him on a level with the idols of the heathen. The same 
 
612 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 antithesis between the impotence of idols and the power of God, as shown 
 in the creation of the world, occurs in Ps. 96: 5 and Jer. 10: 11. 
 
 V. 17. Bow thine ear, O Jehovah, and hear ; open thine eyes, O Jeho- 
 vah, and see ; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which he hath sent 
 (or who hath sent) to reproach the living God. These expressions are 
 entirely analogous to those in many other places, where God is entreated to 
 see and hear, i. e. to act as if he saw and heard. The attempt of Gesenius 
 and his followers to restrict them to the reading of the letter or the hearing 
 it read, neither requires nor deserves refutation. Gesenius also takes r^rs as 
 a singular, substituted for the plural *(*p9 of the parallel passage (2 Kings 
 19: 16), through the transcriber's ignorance of the Hebrew idiom, which 
 always speaks of turning one ear, but of opening both eyes. If this distinc- 
 tion is as natural and obvious as he represents, it is strange that even a tran- 
 scriber, to whom the Hebrew was vernacular, should not have been aware 
 of it. Supposing, however, that Isaiah wrote both narratives, there would 
 be nothing more surprising in his saying eyes in one and eye in the other, than 
 there is in the coexistence of such forms as word of God and words of God, 
 his mercy and his mercies, where the predominance of one form does not 
 preclude the occasional occurrence of the other. Gesenius moreover did 
 not think it necessary to inform his readers of the fact, which Henderson 
 has brought to light, that more than fifty manuscripts, and nearly twenty 
 editions, have the usual plural form yfrt, an amount of evidence ten times 
 as great as that which Gesenius, in other cases, thinks enough to justify the 
 boldest changes in the text. Still less did he consider himself called upon 
 to mention, that the common reading ^T9 itself may be a plural form, 
 according to analogy, as stated expressly by himself in his Lehrgebdude 
 (p. 215) and his smaller Grammar (<§> 35. Remark 3). Least of all did he 
 see cause to state, that this explanation of the form is rendered almost neces- 
 sary here by the parallelism, because if ^315 were written instead of *ps 
 merely because of a pause in the sentence, then ^ajx, which occupies the very 
 same position in the other member, would be written 5ja.T» ; and as this is 
 not the case, the obvious conclusion is, that the seghol in Sff9 is the union- 
 vowel of a plural noun before the suffix, with the ■" omitted as in Ex. 33 : 13 
 and other cases cited by Gesenius in his grammars. The fact that frs has 
 a stronger disjunctive accent than *j:tn, instead of weakening confirms the 
 argument, because if the former were in pause, the structure of the sentence 
 would require the latter to be so too. What Gesenius says in reference to 
 the use of the word Hosts in the preceding verse, viz. that it throws light 
 upon other critical phenomena, may be applied with justice to his own style 
 of criticism in the case before us. Instead of assuming, as he often does 
 without a tithe of the same evidence, that "p" 1 * is the true text, or reflecting 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 613 
 
 that "^s itself may be a plural according to his own showing elsewhere, and 
 must be a plural according to the favourite rule of parallelism, he first takes 
 for granted that it is a singular, and then makes use of it not only as a devi- 
 ation from the older copy, but as characteristic of an ignorant and therefore 
 a later writer. For by some strange process it has been discovered, that 
 the later Hebrew writers were not only inferior in composition, but in know- 
 ledge of the idioms of the language, whereas in Greece and Rome the 
 decline of original composition coincided with the rise and progress of gram- 
 matical science. The only end for which these inconsistencies are pointed 
 out, is that the reader may correctly estimate authoritative dicta of the same 
 kind elsewhere. The simplest version of nbiu *hdx is, who has sent. To 
 express the idea, which he has sent, usage would seem to require a suffix with 
 the verb, and accordingly we read in 2 Kings 19 : 16, wbir TO*, i. e. which 
 he has sent, referring irregularly to the plural words, or who has sent him, 
 meaning Rabshakeh, which is the construction given in the English Version 
 of that passage. 
 
 V. 18. It is true, O Jehovah, the kings of Assyria have wasted all the 
 lands and their land. The first word in the original is a particle of conces- 
 sion, admitting the truth of what Sennacherib had said, so far as it related 
 merely to his conquest of the nations and destruction of their idols. The 
 repetition, lands and land, has much perplexed interpreters. Vitringa sup- 
 plies nations or peoples before lands, as in 2 Chr. 32 : 13. Others suppose 
 nWV* itself to be here used in the sense of nations, as the singular seems 
 sometimes to denote the inhabitants of the earth or land. This supposition 
 would account at the same time for the masculine suffix in cms. Gesenius 
 follows J. D. Michaelis and Augusti in giving this suffix a reflexive sense, 
 or referring it to the Assyrians themselves {their own land). The meaning 
 then is that they had destroyed not only other countries but their own, 
 which agrees exactly with the charge against the king of Babylon in ch. 
 14 : 20, thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast 
 destroyed thy land and slain thy people. As this sense, however, is not so 
 appropriate here, where Hezekiah is confirming what Sennacherib himself 
 had said, it is better to adopt one of the other constructions, which brings 
 the sentence into strict agreement, not as to form but as to sense, with the 
 parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 17), where we have the unambiguous term 
 nations. This is justly described by Rosenmuller as the easier construction 
 of the two, which would militate against the foregone conclusion of the later 
 Germans, as to the relative antiquity and characteristic features of the two 
 texts. Gesenius, therefore, while he grants that the form of expression in 
 the case before us is harsher and more difficult, alleges, with perverse inge- 
 nuity, that this arose from the attempt to remove another incongruity, to wit, 
 
614 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 the application of the verb :nn to persons, in avoiding which the copyist 
 committed the solecism, larids and their land. But this hypothesis, besides 
 its fanciful and arbitrary character as a mere makeshift, and its gratuitous 
 assumption of the grossest stupidity and ignorance as well as inattention in 
 the writer, is sufficiently refuted by the emphatic combination of the same 
 verb and noun in ch. 60: 12. Even if that were the composition of a later 
 writer than Isaiah, it would prove that such a writer could not have been so 
 shocked at the expression as to make nonsense of a sentence merely for the 
 purpose of avoiding it. The reader will do well to observe, moreover, that 
 the same imaginary copyist is supposed, in different emergencies, to have 
 been wholly unacquainted with the idioms of his mother tongue, and yet 
 extremely sensitive to any supposed violation of usage. Such scruples and 
 such ignorance are not often found in combination. A transcriber unable 
 to distinguish sense from nonsense would not be apt to take offence at mere 
 irregularities or eccentricities in the phraseology or diction of his author. 
 
 V. 1 9. And given (or put) their gods into the fire — for they (were) no 
 gods, but wood and stone, the work of men's hands — and destroyed them. 
 Most interpreters separate the clauses and translate bits&pi, therefore (or so) 
 they have destroyed them. But the true construction seems to be the one 
 proposed by Henderson, who connects this verb directly with the first clause, 
 and throws the intervening member into a parenthesis. Instead of the 
 peculiar idiomatic use of the infinitive ("i*" 1 :), the parallel passage (2 Kings 
 17 : 18) has the preterite (^r,5), a substitution of an easy for a difficult con- 
 struction so undeniable that Gesenius can escape from it only by asserting 
 that the form here used belongs to the later Hebrew, an assertion which not 
 one of his followers has ventured to repeat, while Hendewerk flatly contra- 
 dicts it. Knobel strangely imagines that Hezekiah here accuses the Assyrian 
 of impiety towards those whom he acknowledged to be gods, whereas through- 
 out this verse and that before it, he is simply acknowledging that Sennacherib 
 had destroyed the idols of the nations, and assigning a reason for it, viz. that 
 they were no gods but material idols. The application of the word gads to 
 the mere external image is common in profane as well as sacred writings, 
 and arises from the fact that all idolaters, whatever they may theoretically 
 hold as to the nature of their deities, identify them practically with the 
 stocks and stones to which they pay their adorations. 
 
 V. 20. And now, oh Jehovah our God, save us from his hand, and all 
 the kingdoms of the earth shall know, that thou Jehovah art alone (or that 
 thou alone art Jehovah). The adverb now is here used both in a temporal 
 and logical sense, as equivalent, not only to at length, or before it is too late, 
 but also to therefore, or since these things are so. The fact that Sennache- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 615 
 
 rib had destroyed other nations, is urged as a reason why the Lord should 
 interpose to rescue his own people from a like destruction ; and the fact 
 that he had really triumphed over other gods, as a reason why he should be 
 taught to know the difference between them and Jehovah. The argument 
 or motive here presented, although sneered at by the infidel interpreters, is 
 not only common in the Scriptures, but involved in the very idea of a God. 
 The considerations which make such a motive unbecoming in the case of 
 creatures are entirely inapplicable to the Supreme Being. The requisition 
 of a sentimental modesty on his part only shows that he who makes it has 
 no higher conception of a God than as a vague sublimation of humanity. 
 The construction of ~?i* as an optative (let all the kingdoms of the earth 
 know), or a subjunctive (that all the kingdoms of the earth may know), 
 although admissible, ought not to be preferred to the future proper, where 
 the latter yields a sense so good in itself and so well suited to the context. 
 The last words of the verse may either mean, that thou Jehovah art the only 
 one (i. e. as appears from the connexion, the only true God), or, that thou 
 alone art Jehovah, with particular allusion to the proper import of that name 
 as signifying absolute, eternal, independent existence. The last construction 
 is preferred by Hitzig ; but the first, which is adopted by Gesenius, is also 
 recommended by its more exact agreement with the masoretic accents. It 
 need scarcely be added that these questions of construction do not affect the 
 general sense, which is, that the deliverance of his people from Sennacherib 
 would prove Jehovah to be infinitely more than the gods of the nations 
 whom he gloried in destroying. 
 
 V. 21. And Isaiah, the son of Amoz, sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus 
 saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, (as to) what thou hast prayed to me 
 (with respect) to Sennacherib king of Assyria, (the apodosis follows in the 
 next verse.) Vitringa's supposition that the communication was in writing, 
 is favoured by the analogy of v. 14, and by the length and metrical form 
 of the message itself. Knobel suggests that the messenger was probably 
 a younger prophet. Why Isaiah corresponded thus with Hezekiah, instead 
 of speaking with him face to face, as he did in other cases, both before and 
 after this, none of the interpreters have been able to explain, except by 
 resolving it into a positive command of God. J. D. Michaelis connects TOW 
 with n ^s in the sense of / to whom ; but this use of the first person in imme- 
 diate combination with the third, although not unexampled, is too rare to 
 be assumed without necessity. The same objection lies against the expla- 
 nation of ">£X as a conjunction meaning as, whereas, forasmuch, or the like. 
 The same essential meaning is obtained by making it as usual a relative 
 pronoun, construed adverbially, a form of speech which cannot be trans- 
 ferred to our idiom without the introduction of a preposition. Gesenius 
 
616 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 regards it as an idiomatic pleonasm, and accordingly omits it in his version, 
 which is simply, thou hast prayed etc. Lowth follows several of the ancient 
 versions in making it the object of the verb vjim (I have heard) which he 
 inserts in the text on the authority of the parallel passage (2 Kings 19 : 20.) 
 This emendation would be highly probable but for the fact that the sacred 
 writers often intentionally varied their expressions in repeating the same 
 matter, for the proof and illustration of which usage see Hengstenberg's 
 exposition of the fourteenth and eighteenth Psalms (Commentary, vol. I. 
 pp. 269, 372). Be this as it may, no stretch of ingenuity can make the 
 construction in Isaiah easier or more obvious than the one in Kings. Gese- 
 nius therefore contents himself with saying that the later writer omitted 
 insattJ for the sake of brevity, and yet he makes him use t Wti in a sense 
 wholly different from that which it must have if insa® were inserted. 
 Another difference between the two texts is the use of b» here in the place 
 of bs. This agrees well enough with the hypothesis that bx is a favourite 
 of the later writer, but not at all with the assumption that his changes were 
 intended to remove irregularities and make the construction easy, bx may 
 either be regarded as equivalent to Vs (against) in this connexion, or be 
 taken in the wider sense of as to or concerning. 
 
 V. 22. This is the word which Jehovah hath spolcen concerning (or 
 against) him. The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee, she hath 
 laughed thee to scorn, the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head 
 after thee. There is no need of giving word the sense of decree, or even 
 prophecy. The simple meaning is that what follows is a revelation from 
 God in answer to the vaunting of Sennacherib and the prayers of Hezekiah. 
 The two explanations of the preposition h$ t between which interpreters 
 appear to be divided, differ only in extent and definiteness. For the mean- 
 ing of the phrase "i^x na, see the note on ch. 1:8; for the construction of 
 nVma, that on ch. 23: 12. As all interpreters agree that this last word is 
 in apposition (as to sense) with na, so Hengstenberg supposes the latter 
 to sustain the same relation to yns, on which supposition the meaning of 
 the whole phrase is, the virgin daughter of Zion, i. e. Zion considered as a 
 daughter and a virgin. It may be a personification either of the whole 
 church and nation, or of the city of Jerusalem, which last seems more 
 appropriate in this connexion. J. D. Michaelis and Hitzig understand the 
 figure of virginity as meaning that the city was still unconquered. Calvin 
 and Clericus, with strange inattention to the form of the original, take virgin 
 daughter of Zion as a vocative, and refer the verb to the Assyrian (he hath 
 despised thee, oh virgin, etc.), a construction utterly prohibited, not only by 
 the masculine form of the pronoun thee, which might be differently pointed 
 but by the feminine termination of the verbs, which is a necessary part of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 617 
 
 the text. The sense of "pinx is not merely at thee, but after thee as thou 
 fleest. Henderson has behind thee, which is only defective in not suggest- 
 ing the idea of his flight. Luzzatto endeavours, but without success, to 
 explain the shaking of the head as a gesture of compassion or condolence, 
 even where it is combined with other tokens of contempt. His argument 
 rests wholly on a supposititious meaning of the cognate TO. Maurer and 
 Knobel understand by shaking a derisive nodding or vertical motion of the 
 head accompanied by laughter. Gesenius supposes that a wagging or lateral 
 motion of the head, although not used by us for such a purpose, may have 
 been common as a gesture of derision in the east, the rather as such signs 
 are to a great extent conventional, and as other derisive gestures mentioned 
 in the Scriptures, such as clapping the hands, are equally foreign from our 
 habits and associations. Hitzig supposes that the shaking of the head, with 
 the Hebrews as with us, was a gesture of negation, and that the expression 
 of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sennacherib had been able to effect 
 his purpose. Thus understood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, 
 no, no ! i. e. he could not do it ! A similar explanation of this gesture is 
 given by Hengstenberg in his Commentary on Psalm 22 : 8. The meaning 
 of the whole verse, divested of its figurative dress, is that the people of God 
 might regard the threats of the Assyrian with contempt. 
 
 V. 23. Whom hast thou reproached and reviled, and against whom hast 
 thou raised {thy) voice, and lifted thine eyes (on) high towards (or against) 
 the Holy One oj Israel 1 This is equivalent to saying, dost thou know who 
 it is that thou revilest? To raise the voice may simply mean to speak, or 
 more emphatically to speak boldly, perhaps with an allusion to the literal 
 loudness of Rabshakeh's address to the people on the wall (ch. 36: 13). 
 The construction loftiness of eyes (meaning pride) is inconsistent both with 
 the pointing and accentuation, nna is a noun of place, here construed as 
 an adverb, and in sense equivalent to heavenward or towards heaven. The 
 act described is that of looking up to heaven as he uttered his blasphemies. 
 The English and many other versions make the last words of the second 
 clause an answer to the foregoing question. {Against whom etc? Against 
 the Holy One of Israel). This construction is retained by Gesenius, but 
 Ewald carries the interrogation through the verse, and renders i, at the 
 beginning of the last clause, that or so that, while Hitzig makes the whole 
 of that clause an exclamation. This construction is more natural than that 
 which makes the answer begin in the middle of the last clause, instead of 
 the beginning of the next verse, where he is expressly charged with blas- 
 phemy against Jehovah. 
 
 V. 24. By the hand of thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord and 
 said, With the multitude of my chariots (or cavalry) I have ascended the 
 
618 
 
 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 height of mountains, the sides of Lebanon, and I will cut down the loftiness 
 of its cedars and the choice of its firs (or cypresses), and I will reach its 
 extreme height (literally, the height of its extremity), its garden-forest 
 (literally, the garden of its forest). This may be regarded either as the 
 substance of another message actually sent by Sennacherib, or as a transla- 
 tion of his feelings and his conduct into words. By the hand may then 
 mean simply through (as in ch. 20: 1), or refer par:icularly to the letters 
 mentioned in v. 14. The parallel passage has -psx^E thy messengers, a 
 variation just as likely to be made by the original writer as by a later copy- 
 ist. The textual reading in that passage has sa->2 instead of 3"0, which is 
 given in the margin. Gesenius points the former sina and translates the 
 whole phrase with my chariot of chariots (33*1 being often used collectively) 
 i.e. my innumerable chariots (compare Nah. 3 : 17). Ewald points it 
 ab^a, by the driving of my chariots. The reading in the text before us, 
 and in the margin of the other, is of course regarded as an attempt to sim- 
 plify and clear up an obscure expressi n, a tendency diligently noted when 
 it shows itself on the right or rather the convenient side., Vitringa gives to 
 a ?^5 here as in ch. 21 : 7, the sense of cavalry ; but other interpreters ap- 
 pear to be agreed, that there is no sufficient reason, in this case, for depart- 
 ing from the usual and proper sense, especially as little would be gained by 
 it, lofty and rugged mountains being scarcely more accessible to horses than 
 to chariots. Some understand the sides of Lebanon strictly as denoting its 
 acclivities ; others with more probability give it the peculiar idiomatic sense 
 of extremities, whether of length, depth, or height, the latter being here 
 required by the connexion. (See the note on ch. 14: 13.) tTte raip is 
 explained by Clericus to mean its standing cedars, but by other inter- 
 preters its lofty cedars, as the parallel expr.s ions mean its choice firs or 
 cypresses. (Compare the note on ch. 14 : 8.) The explanation of Carmel&s 
 a proper name can only be admitted on the supposition that the pronouns 
 in this clause refer to Hezekiah or to Judah. If on the contrary they refer 
 to Lebanon, which seems the only natural construction, bs-o must be taken 
 in its primary and proper sense of fruitful field, vineyard, garden, orchard, 
 or the like. It is here combined with forest, either for the purpose of 
 describing the cedar groves of Lebanon as similar to parks and orchards, or of 
 designating the spot where the cultivated slope of the mountain is gradually 
 changed into a forest. It was long supposed that the only cedar grove of 
 Lebanon was the one usually visited near the highest summit of the range; 
 but in 1805, Seetzen discovered two others of greater extent, and the Ameri- 
 can missionaries have since found many trees in different parts of the moun- 
 tain. (Robinson's Palestine. III. 440.) Instead of "isp oi-na the parallel 
 passage has nip yiVo (his extreme abode), a variation both in sense and form, 
 which Gesenius and his followers think decidedly more poetical and difficult 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 619 
 
 than that before us, and of course more ancient, as the inference happens 
 in this case to favour the foregone conclusion. Such assertions are best 
 answered by a counter assertion, in itself at least as plausible, that the 
 diversity is just such as might have been expected in the case of one and 
 the same writer. The reference to Lebanon in this verse is by many inter- 
 preters literally understood ; but why should the Assyrian attempt or even 
 threaten so absurd a passage with his mounted troops, when a shorter and 
 easier one lay open to him ? Others regard Lebanon as a poetical descrip- 
 tion of the kingdom of the ten tribes, or of Judah, or of Israel in general, 
 with special mention of Jerusalem, or the temple, or the tcwer of Lebanon, 
 as its extreme height or abode. But if we take into consideration the whole 
 context, and the strongly hyperbolical expressions of the other messages and 
 speeches of Sennacherib, it will be found most natural to understand this 
 verse as a poetical assertion of the speaker's power to overcome all obstacles. 
 
 V. 25. J have digged and drunk water, and I will dry up with the sole 
 of my feet (literally, steps) all the streams of Egypt. As in the preceding 
 verse, he begins with the past tepe and then changes to the future, to 
 denote that he had begun his enterprise successfully and expected to con- 
 clude it triumphantly. The confusion of the tenses, as all futures or all 
 preterites, is entirely arbitrary, and the translation of them all as presents is 
 at least unnecessary, when a stricter version not only yields a good sense, 
 but adds to the significance and force of the expressions. According to 
 Luzzatto, *>ip means to spring up or gush forth as a fountain, and the verse 
 is a poetical description of the conqueror under the figure of a stream which 
 drinks in its tributary waters and exhausts all other rivers in its course. 
 This last expression the ingenious rabbin wisely disguises in a paraphrase, 
 as he could scarcely have found any reader, Jew or Gentile, who would 
 tolerate the figure of one stream drying up others with the sole* of its feet. 
 Another original interpretation of the verse is that proposed by Barnes, who 
 gives the usual explanation of the first word, but applies that clause to the 
 supply of the Assyrian cities with water. The obvious objections to this 
 exposition are, that it does not follow, because digging of wells is a public 
 benefit in desert countries and among nomadic tribes, that the supply of a 
 great kingdom like Assyria would be so described ; but secondly and chiefly, 
 that the parallelism and indeed the whole connexion of the clauses is 
 destroyed by this interpretation of the first. What coherence is there 
 between the assertions, that he had supplied his own kingdom with wa- 
 ter, and that his army was numerous enough to exhaust the streams of 
 Egypt? Vitringa understands the first clause as meaning that he had sated 
 his desire of conquest, he had sought and found, he had dug for water and 
 slaked his thirst. The objection to this interpretation is, not that it makes 
 
620 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 the first clause figurative, which agrees exactly with the style of the whole 
 passage, but that it makes it too indefinite to match the other clause pre- 
 cisely. If the latter, as all except Luzzatto se^m to grant, describes the 
 march of a great army, there is a natural presumption that the other has 
 respect to the same subject. The best interpretation, therefore, on the whole, 
 is that which understands the verse to mean that no difficulties or privations 
 could retard his march, that where there was no water he had dug for it 
 and found it, and that where there was he would exhaust it, both assertions 
 implying a vast multitude of soldiers. The drying up of the rivers with the 
 soles of the feet is understood by Vitringa as an allusion to the Egyptian 
 mode of drawing water with a tread-wheel (Deut. 11 : 10). Others suppose 
 it to mean, that they would cross the streams dry-shod, which does not seem 
 to be a natural explanation of the words. Bochart understands the sense 
 to be that the dust raised by their march would choke and dry up rivers. 
 In favour of supposing an allusion to the drawing out of water, is the obvious 
 reference to digging and drinking in the other clause. This appears to pre- 
 clude the explanation of the language as a boast that the elements themselves 
 were subject to him, not unlike that whiqji Claudian puts into the mouth of 
 Alaric. Suhsidere nostris stib pedibus monies, arescere vidimus amnes. Even 
 there, however, the literal and figurative meanings seem to run into each 
 other, as the poet adds a few lines lower, fregi Alpes, galeis Padum victri- 
 cibus hausL That such hyperboles were wont to be applied to the oriental 
 armies, we may learn from Juvenal. Credimus altos defecisse amnes, epota- 
 que flumitia Mtdo. The old interpretation of iise •n'w, as meaning the 
 waters of Jerusalem while in a state of siege, or the moats of fortified places 
 in general, is now universally abandoned for the meaning which the same 
 words have in ch. 16 : 6. (See above, p. 350.) 
 
 V. 26. Hast thou not heard 1 From afar I have done it, from the days 
 of old, and have formed it. Now I have caused it to come, and it shall be 
 (or come to pass), to lay waste, (as or into) desolate heaps, fortified cities. 
 Clericus makes this a continuation of the speech ascribed to Sennacherib, 
 who is here boasting that he (i. e. Assyria) had created Egypt, meaning 
 that Egypt was peopled from Assyria, which was now about to lay it waste. 
 This interpretation is refuted at great length by Vitringa, whose main objec- 
 tion to it is, that Assyria was no more the founder of Egypt than of any 
 other ancient state. Vitrinira supposes this interpretation to have sprung 
 from an unwillingness to recognise the doctrine of divine decrees. But 
 such a motive cannot be imputed to Calvin, who, although he agrees with 
 most interpreters in making these the words of God himself, refers them not 
 to his eternal purpose, but to his having made Jerusalem or Zion what she 
 was, and to his fixed determination to preserve her. In order to sustain this 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 621 
 
 explanation of the first clause, he is obliged to read the second interroga- 
 tively, which is altogether arbitrary. Most writers, ancient and modern, 
 are agreed in applying the first clause, either to express predictions, or to 
 the purpose and decree of God. The sense is then substantially the same 
 with that of ch. 10: 5, 15, to wit, that the Assyrian had wrought these 
 conquests only as an instrument in the hand of God, who had formed and 
 declared his purpose long before, and was now bringing it to pass. Hast 
 thou not heard] may either be a reference to history and prophecy, or a 
 more general expression of surprise that he could be ignorant of what was so 
 notorious. Gesenius directs attention to the form ""E^b in the parallel pas- 
 sage (2 Kings 19: 25) as less usual; but the inference, which he evidently 
 wishes to be drawn from this variation, is precluded by the use of the same 
 combination here in the phrase pimsb. A writer who, through ignorance 
 or want of taste, took offence at the double preposition in the one word, 
 could not have retained it in the other. Instead of i mw, Luzzatto reads 
 ^pn", which is unnecessary, as the future is entirely appropriate. Most 
 writers take this as the second person of the verb, and thou shalt be, or that 
 thou shouldcst be, Ewald more simply makes it the third person, agreeing 
 with the noun to which the pronoun it must be referred, namely, the series 
 of events in which Sennacherib had gloried. The parallel passage has the 
 contracted form PWnV, which, as being unusual and irregular, is supposed 
 by Gesenius to have been amended in the later copy. For ta^a Lowth 
 reads D^ui, and translates the whole phrase, warlike naiions. Most other 
 writers are agreed in making it mean ruined or desolated heaps. The con- 
 struction is that of a double accusative, without an ellipsis of the particle, 
 which may however be supplied in English. 
 
 V. 27. And their inhabitants are short of hand ; they are broken and 
 confounded ; they are grass of the field and green herbage, grass of the 
 house-tops, and a field before the stalk (or standing corn), i. e. before the 
 grain has grown up. This may be regarded either as a description of the 
 weakness of those whom the Assyrian had subdued, or as a description of 
 the terror with which they were inspired at his approach. In the former 
 case this verse extenuates the glory of his conquest, in the latter it enhances 
 it. A short hand or arm implies inability to reach the object, but does not 
 necessarily suggest the idea of mutilation. In a negative sense, it is applied 
 to God, Num. 11 : 23. Isai. 50: 2. 59: 1. Here, as in many other cases, 
 the particle of comparison is not expressed. Green herbage, literally, the 
 green of herbage. Barnes supposes an allusion to the ease with which 
 grass is trodden down by an army ; but how does this cohere with the men- 
 tion of grass upon the house-tops ? In this last expression there is reference 
 at once to the flat surface, the earthy material, and the various uses of the 
 
622 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 oriental house-top, in consequence of which seeds would frequently spring 
 up there, but without depth of root and therefore short-lived. The com- 
 parison of human frailty and infirmity to grass is very common in the Scrip- 
 tures. Instead of marc, the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 26) has nsba 
 blasting or blasted corn, which has led some to regard rraiu? either as an 
 error of transcription or as an orthographical variation of the other word. If 
 this be so, the text before us cannot be charged with always giving the pre- 
 ference to regular and familiar forms. But as the plural -T2-ir is elsewhere 
 used in the sense of fields, this may be here retained, the idea of blasting 
 being either supplied by the connexion, or omitted altogether. In the latter 
 case, the comparison is simply with the weakness and fragility of immature 
 grain, field being put by a common figure for its contents or products. The 
 general meaning of the whole verse evidently is that tiey were unable to 
 resist him. 
 
 V. 28. And thy sitting doivn, and thy going out, and thy coming in, 1 
 have known, and thy raging (or provoking of thyself) against me. The 
 Targum explains sitting to mean sitting in council, going out going to war, 
 and coming in the invasion of Judali. It is commonly agreed, however, 
 that these phrases are combined to signify all the actions of his life, like 
 sitting down and rising up in Ps. 139 : 2, going out and coming in, Deut. 
 28 : 6, 1 Kings 3 : 7 and elsewhere, the latter especially in reference to 
 military movements (1 Sam. 18: 16. 2 Sam. 5: 2). 
 
 V. 29. Because of thy raging against me, and (because) thy arrogance 
 has come up into my ears, I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in 
 thy lips, and I will cause thee to return by the way by which thou earnest. 
 The sense of tumult, given by the English and other versions to ^NBJ, is 
 founded on the etymology proposed by Rabbi Jonah, who*derives it, through 
 •pair, from nxta. The more obvious derivation is from the verb ^xia and its 
 root ",x , u, meaning to rest or be quiet, from which we may readily deduce 
 the ideas of security, indifference, nonchalance, superciliousness, and arro- 
 gance. However dubious the etymology may be, the whole connexion 
 makes it certain that the word is expressive of something in the conduct of 
 Sennacherib offensive to Jehovah. In the first clause there is an abrupt 
 change of construction from the infinitive to the finite verb, which is not 
 uncommon in Hebrew, and which in this case does not at all obscure the 
 sense. Another solution of the syntax is to take )^ as an elliptical expres- 
 sion for "<»» )T* or •'a ",r<, as in Num. 20: 12 and I Kings 20: 42, and 
 make nbs agree with both the verbal nouns preceding. This is the con- 
 struction given in the English Version. The figures in the last clause are 
 drawn from the customary method of controlling horses, and from a less 
 
 
ISAIAH, •HAP. XXXVII. 623 
 
 familiar mode of treating buffaloes and other wild animals, still practised in 
 the east and in menageries. (Compare Ezek. 19: 4. 29: 4. hS: 4. Job 
 41 : 1. The figure may be taken in a general sense as signifying failure 
 and defeat, or more specifically as referring to Sennacherib's hasty flight. 
 
 V. 30. And this to thee (oh Hezekiah, shall be) the sign (of the fulfil- 
 ment of the promise): cat, the (present) year, that which grow eth of itself , 
 and the second year that which springeth of the same, and in the third year 
 tow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof. The 
 preceding verse closes the address to the Assyrian, begun in v. 22, and the 
 Prophet now continues his message to Hezekiah. It is commonly agreed 
 that mso denotes voluntary growth or products, such as spring from the 
 seed dropped before or during harvest. Most writers give a similar meaning 
 to otjb (2 Kings 19: 29 umo), the etymology of which is very doubtful. 
 Hitzig applies it, in a wider sense, to spontaneous products generally, such 
 as milk, honey, etc. Aquila and Theodotion render the two words avroficcTu 
 and avtocpvJj. Symmachus and Jerome make the second mean apples. As 
 to the general meaning of the verse, there are two opinions. Rosenmuller, 
 Augusti, and Gesenius understand the infinitive birx as referring to the past. 
 The sense will then be that although the cultivation of the land had been 
 interrupted for the last two years, yet now in this third year they might 
 safely resume it. To this interpretation it may be objected, that it arbitrarily 
 makes the year mean the year before the last, and no less arbitrarily assumes 
 that the infinitive is here used for the preterite. The later German writers 
 seem to have gone back to the old and obvious interpretation, which refers 
 the whole verse to the future. This is grammatically more exact, because 
 it takes the year in a sense analogous to that of the day, the common He- 
 brew phrase for this day, and assimilates the infinitive to the imperatives 
 which follow. Thus understood, the verse is a prediction that for two years 
 the people should subsist upon the secondary fruits of what was sown two 
 years before, but that in the third year they should till the ground, as usual, 
 implying that Sennacherib's invasion shouid before that time be at an end. 
 But why should this event be represented as so distant, when the context 
 seems to speak of Sennacherib's discomfiture and flight as something which 
 immediately ensued? Of this two explanations have been given. The one 
 is, that the year in which these words were uttered was a sabbatical year, 
 and the next the year of Jubilee, during neither of which the Jews were 
 allowed to cultivate the ground, so that the resumption of tillage was of 
 course postponed to the third. It is no conclusive objection to this theory, 
 that the chronological hypothesis which it involves cannot be positively 
 proved. The difficulty in all such cases arises from the very absence of 
 positive proof, and the necessity of choosing between different possibilities- 
 
624 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 A more serious objection is, that the mode of subsistence for the first two 
 years seems to be mentioned, not as a mere preparation for what follows, 
 but as a substantive prediction. Even this, however, would be of no weight 
 in opposition to an hypothesis which accounts for the known facts and 
 explains the language of the passage. The other solution of the difficulty 
 is, that Sennacherib was now on his way to Egypt, and that the Prophet 
 expected his return within a year, by which the Jews would be again 
 deterred from making the usual provision for their own subsistence, and thus 
 the crops of two years would be lost. But such an expectation of the Pro- 
 phet would have been falsified by the Assyrian's immediate retreat to his 
 own country, and however this may recommend the supposition to those 
 who refuse to admit his inspiration, can have no weight with those who 
 regard him as a prophet. The proofs of his divine legation and foreknow- 
 ledge are so many and various, that when two hypotheses present them- 
 selves, the one which clashes with his inspiration is of course to be rejected. 
 The only remaining question is, wherein the sign consisted, or in what sense 
 the word sign is to be understood. Some take it in its strongest sense of mira- 
 cle, and refer it, either to the usual divine interposition for the subsistence of 
 the people during the sabbatical years, or to the miraculous provision pro- 
 mised in this particular case. Others understand it here as simply meaning 
 an event inseparable from another, either as an antecedent or a consequent, 
 so that the promise of the one is really a pledge of the other. Thus the 
 promise that the children of Israel should worship at Mount Sinai was a 
 sign to Moses that they should first leave Egypt, and the promised birth of 
 the Messiah was a sign that the Jewish nation should continue till he came. 
 (See above, p. 119.) 
 
 V. 31. And the escaped (literally (he escape) of Judah, that is left, 
 shall again take root downward and bear fruit upward. This verse fore- 
 tells, by a familiar figure, the returning prosperity of Judah. tjO^ usually 
 means to add, and is taken here by Hendewerk in the sense of enlarging or 
 increasing. Gesenius seems to make it simply equivalent to the English 
 take or strike in a similar connexion. Ewald and the older writers under- 
 stand it as implying repetition, an idea which may be expressed in transla- 
 tion by again, anew, or afresh. For the peculiar use of the abstract noun 
 nta^D, see above, ch. 4 : 2. 10 : 20. 15: 9. 
 
 V. 32. For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and an escape 
 from Mount Zion ; the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts shall do this. For the 
 meaning of the last clause, see the commentary on ch. 9: 8. The first 
 clause is an explanation of the use of the words n*j-»bc and mauDa in the 
 foregoing verse. Grotius (on 2 Kings 19 : 31) understands the going forth 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 625 
 
 literally of the people being pent up in Jerusalem, but now set at large by 
 the retreat of the invaders, and again quotes from Virgil, Panduntur portae ; 
 juvat ire et Dorica castra desertosque videre locos. (See above, on ch. 33 : 
 17.) But it is much more natural to understand it figuratively like the 
 preceding verse, and as denoting simply that some in Jerusalem or Zion shall 
 be saved. 
 
 V. 33. Therefore (because Jehovah has determined to fulfil these pro- 
 mises), thus saith Jehovah (with respect) to the king of Assyria, he shall 
 not come to this city, and shall not shoot an arrow there, and shall not come 
 before it with a shield, (or a shield shall not come before it), and shall not 
 cast up a mound against it. Some understand this as meaning simply that 
 he should not take the city, others that he should not even attack it. pB 
 has its ordinary sense of shield, and not that of ouvaamafibg or testudo. In 
 favour of the usual construction of nsanp^ is the fact that all the other verbs 
 have Jehovah for their subject. Some translate bx into, which is favoured 
 neither by the usage of the particle nor by the context, which relates to 
 movements of the enemy without the walls. Calvin understands by nbbfc 
 the balista, or ancient engine for projecting stones and other missiles, a gra- 
 tuitous expedient to evade an imaginary difficulty, as to the use of the verb 
 -JBU3, which usually means to pour, but may also be applied to excavation 
 and the heaping up of earth. This verse seems to show that Jerusalem 
 was not actually besieged by the Assyrians, or at least not by the main 
 body of the army under Sennacherib himself, unless we assume that he had 
 already done so and retreated, and regard this as a promise that the attempt 
 should not be repeated. 
 
 V. 34. By the toay that he came shall he return, and to this city shall 
 he not come, saith Jehovah. The first clause may simply mean that he 
 shall go back whence he came, or more specifically, that he shall retreat 
 without turning aside to attack Jerusalem, either for the first or second time. 
 The construction given in the English Bible (by the same shall he return) 
 makes aa emphatic and connects it with the following verb. This is also 
 the masoretic interpunction ; but according to analogy and usage, it belongs 
 to what precedes and must be joined with "W8^ as the usual Hebrew expres- 
 sion for in which. 
 
 V. 35. And I will cover over (or protect) this city, (so as) to save it, 
 for my own sake, and for the sake of David my servant. This does not mean 
 that the faith or piety of David, as an individual, should be rewarded in his 
 descendants, but that the promise made to him, respecting his successors, 
 and especially the last and greatest of them, should be faithfully performed. 
 
 40 
 
626 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 
 
 (See 2 Sam. 7 : 12, 13). It is equally arbitrary, therefore, to make David 
 here the name of the Messiah, and to infer, as Hitzig does, from this men- 
 tion of David, that vs. 32-35 are by a later writer. Knobel, on the con- 
 trary, notes it as characteristic of Isaiah, and refers to ch. 9 : 6. 11:1. 10. 
 29 : 1, as parallel examples. Umbreit says the genuineness of these verses 
 can be called in question only by a perfectly uncritical skepticism (Zivei- 
 felsucht). The terms of the promise in the first clause may be compared 
 with those of ch. 33 : 5. 
 
 V. 36. And the angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of 
 Assyria an hundred and eighty and five thousand, and they (the survivors, 
 ■qv the Jews) rose early in the morning, and behold all of them (that were 
 smitten) were dead corpses. Various attempts have been made to extenuate 
 this miracle, by reading qlfex for C)b«, (chiefs instead of thousands), or by 
 supposing that the vast number mentioned were in danger of death from the 
 plague or otherwise. Others, unable to explain it away, and yet unwilling 
 to admit the fact recorded, resort to the cheap and trite expedient of calling 
 it a myth or a traditional exaggeration. Such assertions admit of no refuta- 
 tion, because there is nothing to refute. Receiving, as these very authors 
 do, the other statements of the context as historical, they have no right to 
 single this out as a fabrication. If it is one, then the rest may be so too, 
 for we know that fictitious writers do not confine themselves to prodigies 
 and wonders, but often imitate the actual occurrences of real life. In the 
 fact itself, there is nothing incredible. Those who reject it themselves 
 refer to the enormous ravages of the plague. If the population of whole 
 cities may be buried in a night by a flow of lava, or in an instant by an 
 earthquake, what is there to shock the understanding in the statement of 
 the text, especially on the supposition, favoured by these same interpreters, 
 that the angel of Jehovah is a hebraism for the plague, or some other physi- 
 cal cause or means of destruction. But even if we give the phrase its usual 
 sense, " there is," to use the words of Barnes, " no more improbability in 
 the existence of a good angel than there is in the existence of a good man, 
 or in the existence of an evil spirit than there is in the existence of a bad 
 man ; there is no more improbability in the supposition that God employs 
 invisible and heavenly messengers to accomplish his purposes than there is 
 that he employs men." There is consequently no need of departing from 
 the strict sense of the words, or of disputing whether by the angel of the 
 Lord we are to understand a storm, a hot wind, or a pestilential fever. As 
 little necessity or reason is there for attempting to make the verse descriptive 
 of a gradual or protracted mortality, so that every morning when they rose 
 there was nothing to be seen but corpses. The terms used can naturally 
 signify nothing but a single instantaneous stroke of divine vengeance, and 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVII. 627 
 
 the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 35) says expressly that the angel smote 
 this number in that night. Skeptical critics would be glad to have it in 
 their power to plead the silence of profane tradition as an objection to the 
 narrative before us. But although such an inference would be wholly in- 
 conclusive, even if the fact were so, it happens in this case that the fact is 
 not so. The account which Herodotus received from the Egyptian priests? 
 as to Sennacherib's retreat from Pelusium, occasioned by an irruption of 
 field-mice, which Vulcan sent to rescue Sethos, who was priest to that 
 divinity as well as king of Egypt, is admitted by the latest German writers, 
 notwithstanding the denial of Gesenius, to be an evident variation of this 
 history, not more corrupt than in many other cases where the identity of 
 origin has never been disputed. The transfer of the scene of the event to 
 Egypt, and the substitution of Sethos and Vulcan for Hezekiah and Jehovah, 
 are in strict accordance with the common practice of the ancient nations, 
 to connect the most remarkable events, by their traditions, with their own 
 early history. Even the figment of the mice may be regarded as a change 
 of no unusual character or magnitude, unless we choose to assume, with 
 J. D. Michaelis, that it was founded on a misconception of the mouse as 
 the hieroglyphical emblem of destruction. The ancient date of the tra- 
 dition was attested, in the days of Herodotus himself, by a statue of Sethos 
 in the temple of Vulcan, holding a mouse in his hand, with the inscription 
 ig ifit rig oQtav 6vae§)jg ea7(a. The parallel narrative in .2 Chr. 32: 21, 
 instead of numbering the slain, says that all the mighty men of valour, and 
 the leaders, and the captains, in the camp of the Assyrian were cut off. 
 Where this terrific overthrow took place, whether before Jerusalem, or at 
 Libnah, or at some intervening point, has been disputed, and can never be 
 determined, in the absence of all data, monumental or historical. Through- 
 out the sacred narrative, it seems to be intentionally left uncertain, whether 
 Jerusalem was besieged at all, whether Sennacherib in person ever came 
 before it, whether his army was divided or united when the stroke befell them, 
 and also what proportion of the host escaped. It is enough to know that 
 one hundred and eighty-five thousand men perished in a single night. 
 
 V. 37. Then decamped, and departed, and returned, Sennacherib, "king 
 of Assyria, and dwelt (or remained) in Nineveh. The form of expression 
 in the first clause is thought by some writers to resemble Cicero's famous 
 description of Catiline's escape (abiit, excessit, evasit, erwpit), the rapid 
 succession of the verbs suggesting the idea of confused and sudden flight. 
 His dwelling in Nineveh is supposed by some interpreters to be mentioned 
 as implying that he went forth no more to war, at least not against the Jews. 
 An old tradition says that he lived only fifty days after his return : but 
 according to other chronological hypotheses, he reigned eighteen years 
 
628 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 longer, and during that interval waged war successfully against the Greeks 
 and founded Tarsus in Cilicia. 
 
 V. 38. And he was worshipping (in) the house of Nisroch his god, 
 and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword, and 
 they escaped (literally, saved themselves) into the land of Ararat, and 
 Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. The Jews have a tradition that 
 Sennacherib intended to sacrifice his sons, and that they slew him in self- 
 defence. Another tradition is, that he had fled into the temple of his god 
 as an asylum. A simpler supposition is, that the time of his devotions 
 was chosen by his murderers, as one when he would be least guarded or 
 suspicious. Hendewerk cites, as parallel instances of monarchs murdered 
 while at prayer, the cases of the Caliph Omar and the emperor Leo V. 
 For the various derivations of the name Nisroch which have been proposed, 
 see Gesenius's Thesaurus, torn. II. p. 892. The name Adrammelech occurs 
 in 2 Kings 17 : 31, as that of a Mesopotamian or Assyrian idol. Berosus 
 has Ardumusanus, and Abydenus Adramelus, which are obvious corruptions 
 of the Hebrew or Aramean name. In like manner Esarhaddon is called 
 Asordanius by Berosus, and Axerdis by Abydenus, who moreover has 
 Nergilus instead of Sharezer, a discrepancy which seems to be explained 
 by the combination JSergal-sharezer (Jer. 39: 3, 13). Supposing this to 
 have been the full name of Sennacherib's son, one half would seem to have 
 been preserved by Abydenus, and the other by Isaiah. Ararat, both here 
 and in Gen. 8 : 4, is the name of a region, corresponding more or less 
 exactly to Armenia, or to that part of it in which ftie ark rested. The 
 Armenians still call their country by this name. From the expression moun- 
 tains of Ararat (Gen. 8: 4), has sprung the modern practice of applying 
 this name to the particular eminence where Noah landed. The country of 
 Ararat is described by Smith and Dwight, in their Researches in Armenia, 
 vol. II. p. 73, etc. The original name is retained in the Vulgate, while the 
 Septuagint renders it 'Aopevia. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVIII. 
 
 This chapter contains an account of Hezekiah's illness and miraculous 
 recovery, together with a Psalm which he composed in commemoration of 
 his sufferings and deliverance. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 1-11) 
 varies more from that before us than in the preceding chapter. So far as 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 629 
 
 they are parallel, the narrative in Kings is more minute and circumstantial, 
 and at the same time more exactly chronological in its arrangement. On 
 the other hand, the Psalm is wholly wanting in that passage. All these 
 circumstances favour the conclusion that the text before us is the first draught, 
 and the other a repetition by the hand of the same writer. 
 
 V. 1. In those days Hezelciah was sick unto death, and Isaiah, the son 
 of Amoz, the Prophet, came to him, and said to him, Thus saith Jehovah, 
 Order thy house, for thou (art) dying, and art not to live. As Hezekiah 
 survived this sickness fifteen years (v. 5), and reigned in all twenty-nine 
 (2 Kings 18 : 2), those days must be restricted to the fourteenth year, which 
 was that of the Assyrian invasion. Whether this sickness was before the 
 great catastrophe, as Usher, Lightfoot, and Prideaux suppose, or after it, as 
 Calvin, Vitringa, and Gesenius think, is not a question of much exegetical 
 importance. The first opinion is sustained by the authority of the Seder 
 Olam, the last by that of Josephus. In favour of the first is the promise in 
 v. 6, according to its simplest and most obvious meaning, though it certainly 
 admits of a wider application. It is also favoured by the absence of allu- 
 sions to the slaughter of Sennacherib's host in the song of Hezekiah. But 
 on the other hand, his prayer is only for recovery from sickness, without 
 any reference to siege or invasion. Vitringa objects to this hypothesis, that 
 the king of Babylon, who was tributary to Assyria, would not have dared 
 to send a message of congratulation to Hezekiah before the destruction of 
 the host. But even granting this, which might be questioned, and admitting 
 the assumed fact as to the dependence of the king of Babylon, why may we 
 not suppose that the catastrophe occurred in the interval between Isaiah's 
 sickness and the embassy from Merodach-baladan ? Calvin objects to the 
 hypothesis which makes the sickness previous in date to the destruction of 
 the host, that it would not have been omitted in its proper place. It is alto- 
 gether natural, however, that the Prophet, after carrying the history of Sen- 
 nacherib to its conclusion, should go back to complete that of Hezekiah also. 
 rvrab strictly means to die, i. e. so as to be ready to die, or at the point of 
 death. An analogous Greek phrase (aa&weia nobg ftdvarov) is used in 
 John 11 : 4, to denote a sickness actually fatal. Here it expresses merely 
 tendency or danger, the natural and necessary course of things without a 
 special intervention. Order thy house is ambiguous, both in Hebrew and 
 in English. The b may express relation in general, or indicate the object 
 of address. In the former case the sense will be, give orders with respect 
 to thy house. (LXX. ra£ca mol tov oiixov gov.) In the latter, order or 
 command thy household, i. e. make known to them thy last will. Grotius 
 quotes from Plutarch the analogous expression, ivzelXea&ai rolg oixeioig. In 
 either case, the general idea is that of a final settling of his affairs, in the 
 
630 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 prospect of death. (Compare 2 Sam. 17 : 23.) There is no need of depart- 
 ing from the strict sense of nfa as an active participle. The modern writers 
 infer from the treatment described in v. 21, and said to be still practised in 
 the east, that Hezekiah had the plague, which would make it less improba- 
 ble that this was the instrument employed in the destruction of Sennache- 
 rib's army. Of those who make the sickness subsequent to this great deliv- 
 erance, some suppose the former to have been intended, like the thorn in 
 Paul's flesh, to preserve Hezekiah from being exalted above measure. That 
 he was not wholly free from the necessity of such a check, may be inferred 
 from his subsequent conduct to the Babylonian envoys. 
 
 V. 2. And Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, and prayed to Jeho- 
 vah. Jerome understands by the wall that of his heart, Vatablus the side 
 of his bed, Jonathan the wall of the temple, towards which Daniel prayed 
 (Dan. 6: 11). But this last was a practice which arose during the exile, 
 and even the promise in 1 Kings 8 : 25 has reference to that condition. 
 The obvious meaning is the wall of the room, towards which he turned, not 
 merely to collect his thoughts, or to conceal his tears, but as a natural 
 expression of strong feeling. As Ahab turned his face toward the wall in 
 anger (1 Kings 20: 2), so Hezekiah does the same in grief. There is no 
 need of supposing with Lowth, that the bed was in the corner of the room, 
 so that he could not turn either way without looking towards the wall. 
 Calvin regards the conduct of Hezekiah in this, and all other parts of the 
 narrative, as an eminent example of pious resignation. Vitringa seems to 
 admit that the effect here described was connected in some degree with 
 Hezekiah's undue attachment to the things of this life. Grotius ascribes it 
 to the indistinct views then enjoyed of a future state. Josephus thinks he 
 was the more distressed because he had as yet no heir, since Manasseh was 
 not born till three years afterwards (2 Kings 21 : 1). 
 
 V. 3. And he said, Ah Jehovah, remember, I beseech thee, how I have 
 walked before thee in truth and with a whole heart, and that which is good 
 in thine eyes I have done. The figure of walking before God includes the 
 ideas of communion with him and subjection to him, and is therefore more 
 comprehensive than the kindred phrase of ivalking with him. By truth we 
 are here to understand sincerity and constancy. The explanation of n^tt by 
 Gesenius as meaning devoted (like the Arabic jJLwuo Moslim) is justified 
 neither by Hebrew etymology nor usage, which require it to be taken in 
 the sense of whole or perfect, as opposed to any essential defect. The 
 reference of this and the following phrase to freedom from idolatry and zeal 
 for the worship of Jehovah, is too limited. This verse is not an angry 
 expostulation, nor an ostentatious self-praise, but an appeal to the only satis- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 631 
 
 factory evidence of his sincerity. Calvin supposes Hezekiah to be here 
 resisting a temptation to despondency arising from the sudden intimation of 
 approaching death, njx is a strong expression of entreaty. It is more 
 regularly written elsewhere nsk. Hitzig supposes it to be a contraction of 
 K5~bi< (Gen. 19: 7) ; but as it is also used where there is no negation, it is 
 better to derive it with Gesenius from nx and S3. 
 
 T T 
 
 V. 4. And the word of Jehovah was (or came) to Isaiah, saying (what 
 follows in the next verse). Calvin supposes a considerable time to have 
 elapsed before this second message was sent; but he seems to have over- 
 looked the more particular statement in the parallel passage (2 Kings 20 : 
 4), that the word of the Lord came to him before he had gone out of the 
 middle court (according to the keri), or the middle city (according to the 
 kethib). The former reading is found in the ancient versions, but the latter 
 as usual is supposed to be more ancient by the latest critics. The middle 
 city may either mean the middle of the city (media urbs), or a particular 
 part of Jerusalem so called, perhaps that in which the temple stood, or more 
 generally that which lay between the upper city on Mount Zion and the 
 lower city on Mount Akra. The communication may have been through 
 the middle gate mentioned by Jeremiah (39: 3). In either case, the inter- 
 val could not have been a long one, though sufficient to try the faith of 
 Hezekiah. The omission of these words in the text before us is ascribed 
 by Knobel to ignorance of the localities on the part of a writer living after 
 the exile. It might have been supposed that even such a writer, living on 
 the spot and with the older Scriptures in his hands, would have enjoyed as 
 good opportunities of understanding such a point as Knobel himself. 
 
 V. 5. Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David 
 thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears (or weep- 
 ing) ; behold, I am adding (or about to add) unto thy days fifteen years. 
 The parallel passage (2 Kings 20 : 5) has : return and say to Hezekiah, 
 the chief (or leader) of my people, Thus saith Jehovah etc. After tears it 
 adds : behold, (I am) healing (or about to heal) thee ; on the third day thou 
 shalt go up to the house of Jehovah. David is particularly mentioned as 
 the person to whom the promise of perpetual succession had been given 
 (2 Sam. 7 : 12). The construction of t)o*p ^r\ is the same as in ch. 29: 
 14. Gesenius and the rest of that school set this down of course as un- 
 doubtedly a prophecy ex eventu, because (says Knobel with great naivete) 
 Isaiah could not know how long Hezekiah was to live. Hendewerk adds 
 that Jehovah is here represented as changing his mind and directly contra- 
 dicting himself. To this no further answer is necessary than what Calvin 
 had said long before, to wit, that the threatening in v. 1 was conditional, 
 
632 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 and that the second message was designed from the beginning no less than 
 the first. The design of the whole proceeding is well explained by Vitringa 
 to have been to let Hezekiah feel his obligation to a special divine interpo- 
 sition for a recovery which might otherwise have seemed the unavoidable 
 effect of ordinary causes. 
 
 V. 6. And out of the hand of the king of Assyria 1 will save thee and 
 this city, and I will cover overKpv protect) this city. Hitzig, Hendewerk, 
 and Knobel, with some of the older writers, infer from this verse that the 
 army of Sennacherib was still in Judah. Gesenius and Rosenmuller follow 
 Calvin and Vitringa in referring it to subsequent attacks or apprehensions. 
 This is really more natural, because it accounts for the addition of this 
 promise to that of a prolonged life. The connexion, as explained by Cal- 
 vin, is, that he should not only live fifteen years longer, but should be free 
 from the Assyrians during that time. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20 : 6) 
 adds, for my own sake and for the sake of David my servant, as in ch. 37 : 
 35. Had this addition been made in the text before us, it would of course 
 have been an instance of repetition and assimilation, symptomatic of a later 
 writer. 
 
 V. 7. And this (shall be) to thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah 
 will perform this word which he hath spoken. The English Version has a 
 sign ; but the article is emphatic, the (appointed) sign (proceeding) from 
 Jehovah (not merely from the Prophet). The translation this thing, al- 
 though justified by usage, is here inadmissible because unnecessary. The 
 parallel narrative in Kings is much more circumstantial. What occurs 
 below, as the last two verses of this chapter, there stands in its regular 
 chronological order, between the promise of recovery and the announcement 
 of the sign, so that the latter appears to have been given in compliance with 
 Hezekiah's own request and choice. And Isaiah said, This (shall be) to 
 thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah will perform the thing which he 
 hath spoken ; shall the shadow advance ten degrees, or shall it recede ten 
 degrees 1 And Hezekiah said, It is a light thing for the shadow to decline 
 ten degrees ; nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees (2 Kings 
 20: 9, 10). As to the transposition of vs. 21, 22, see below. 
 
 V. 8. Behold, I (am) causing the shadow to go back, the degrees which 
 it has gone* down (or which have gone dotvn) on the degrees of Ahaz 
 with the sun, ten degrees backward; and the sun returned ten degrees 
 on the degrees which it had gone down. As to the nature of the phe- 
 nomenon here described, there are three opinions. The first is that the 
 Prophet took advantage of a transient obscuration, or of some unusual 
 refraction, to confirm the king's belief of what he promised. The sec- 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 633 
 
 ond is that the whole is a myth or legend of a later date. The third 
 is that Isaiah did actually exhibit a supernatural attestation of the truth 
 of his prediction. This is supposed by some to have consisted merely in 
 the foresight of a natural phenomenon, while others regard the phenomenon 
 itself as miraculous. Of these last, some again suppose a mere miracu- 
 lous appearance, others an actual disturbance of the ordinary course of 
 nature. This last is not a question of much exegetical or practical impor- 
 tance, since it neither can nor need be ascertained, whether the course of 
 the sun (or of the earth around it) was miraculously changed, or the shadow 
 miraculously rendered independent of the sun which caused it. The former 
 hypothesis is favoured by the statement that the sun went back, if taken in 
 its strictest and most obvious sense, although it may be understood as a 
 metonymy of the cause for the effect. At any rate, little would appear to 
 be gained by paring down a miracle to certain dimensions, when even on the 
 lowest supposition it can only be ascribed to the almighty power of God, with 
 whom all things are not only possible but equally easy. The choice is not 
 between a greater and lesser miracle, but between a miracle, a myth, and a 
 trick. The last two suppositions are so perfectly gratuitous, as well as impi- 
 ous, that no believer in the possibility of either miracle or inspiration can 
 entertain them for a moment. And if thus shut up to the assumption of a 
 miracle, it matters little whether it be great or small. It is enough that 
 God alone could do it or infallibly predict it. As to the disproportion of 
 the miracle to the occasion, it remains substantially the same on any suppo- 
 sition which involves a real miracle at all. If this be admitted, and the 
 historical truth of the narrative assumed, the safest course is to expound it 
 in its simplest and most obvious sense. Another question in relation to 
 this verse, of far less moment in itself, has given rise to a vast amount of 
 learned and ingenious controversy. This is the question whether the de- 
 grees here mentioned were the graduated scale of a dial, or the steps of a 
 staircase. In this dispute, besides the exegetical writers on Isaiah and the 
 second book of Kings, we meet with the great names of Usher, Petavius, 
 Salmasius, Scaliger, and others of eminent repute but later date. It is 
 important to observe that there is no word in the text necessarily denoting 
 such an instrument. By comparing the text and margin of the common 
 English Version, it would seem that the translators were disposed to put 
 this sense upon the words T2JET2J3 tnx pibsa, which they render, the sun-dial 
 of Ahaz, but which literally mean, the degrees of Ahaz in (or by) the sun. 
 So too the Targum has hour-stone (k^sib *px), and the Vulgate horologium. 
 The only word corresponding to all this in the original is mVsn, which, like 
 the Latin gradus, first means steps and then degrees. The nearest approach 
 to the description of a dial is in the words, degrees of Ahaz. This circum- 
 stance may show that the reference to a dial, properly so called, is not so 
 
634 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 obvious or necessary in the Hebrew text as in the English Version. It was 
 further alleged by Scaliger, and other early writers on the subject, that 
 the use of dials was unknown in the days of Hezekiah. Later investigations 
 have destroyed the force of this objection, and made it probable that solar 
 chronometers of some sort were in use among the Babylonians at a very early 
 period, and that Ahaz may have borrowed the invention from them, as he 
 borrowed other things from the Assyrians (2 Kings 16 : 10). There is 
 therefore no historical necessity for assuming, with Scaliger, that the shadow 
 here meant was the shadow cast upon the steps of the palace, called the 
 stairs of Ahaz because he had built them or the house itself. The only 
 question is, whether this is not the simplest and most obvious explanation of 
 the words, and one which entirely exhausts their meaning. If so, we may 
 easily suppose the shadow to have been visible from Hezekiah's chamber, 
 and the offered sign to have been suggested to the Prophet by the sight of 
 it. This hypothesis relieves us from the necessity of accounting for the 
 division into ten or rather twenty degrees, as Hezekiah was allowed to 
 choose between a precession and a retrocession of the same extent (2 Kings 
 20; 9). These two opinions are by no means so irreconcilable as they 
 may at first sight seem. Even supposing the degrees of Ahaz to have 
 been an instrument constructed for the purpose of measuring time, it does 
 not follow that it must have been a dial of modern or of any very artificial 
 structure. A Jewish writer, quoted by Grotius, describes it as a globe 
 within a concave hemisphere, casting its shadow on the concave surface. 
 But besides the arbitrary character of this supposition, it does not account 
 for the description of the shadow as descending with the sun, since the 
 shadow on such an instrument would ascend as the sun descended. Knobel 
 imagines that there may have been an artificial eminence or mound, with 
 steps or terraces surrounding it, on which the shadow cast by an obelisk or 
 gnomon at the summit would grow longer as the day declined, or in other 
 words, descend with the descending sun. But a still more simple supposi- 
 tion is that the gnomon was erected on a staircase of suitable exposure, or 
 that a column at the top cast a shadow which was found available for a 
 rude measurement of time. The minor questions, whether the gnomon was 
 designed to be such, or was erected for some other purpose, and whether 
 tvbvQ means ordinary steps or astronomical degrees, do not affect the essen- 
 tial fact, that the recession of the shadow was perceptible in such a situation 
 and on such a scale as to be altogether incontestable, mtaan may either 
 be connected with what goes before {the shadow of the degrees), or con- 
 strued as an accusative of measure {the degrees which it has gone down), 
 
 V. 9. A writing of Hezekiah , king of Judah, when he was sick, and 
 lived (i. e. recovered) from his sickness. This is the title or inscription of 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 635 
 
 the following psalm (vs. 10-20), not inserted by a copyist or compiler, but 
 prefixed, according to the ancient oriental usage, by the author himself, and 
 therefore forming an integral part of the text. The title Btfe8, prefixed to 
 several of the Psalms, is regarded by Gesenius as an orthographical variation 
 of the word (apo?) here used. Others derive the former from a different 
 root, but suppose its form to be copied from the one before us. (See Heng- 
 stenberg on Psalm 16 : 1.) The specific senses put upon this word by the 
 Septuagint (prayer), the Targum (confession), and Gesenius, (song), are 
 inferred from the contents of the passage itself, and do not belong to the He- 
 brew word, which simply means a writing. The particle prefixed is strictly 
 equivalent neither to by nor of, but means belonging to, as in the frequent 
 formulas Tnb and nxs^ab in the titles of the Psalms, belonging to David (as 
 the author), belonging to the chief musician (as the performer). The con- 
 jecture of Grotius, that Isaiah dictated the psalm, or put it into Hezekiah's 
 mouth, is perfectly gratuitous. That Hezekiah should compose a psalm, is 
 not more strange than that he should make a collection of proverbs (Prov. 
 25: 1). It would have been far more strange if one so much like David, 
 in character and spirit, had not followed his example in the practice of 
 devotional composition. The inspiration and canonical authority of this 
 production are clear from its having been incorporated by Isaiah in his pro- 
 phecies, although omitted in the second book of Kings. The questions 
 raised by some interpreters, as to its antiquity and genuineness, are founded 
 on the mere possibility, that the passage may be of later date and by another 
 writer. So far as we have evidence, either external or internal, there is not 
 the slightest ground for critical misgiving. The n at the beginning of the 
 last clause does not mean concerning his sickness and indicate the subject 
 of the composition, but, as usual before an infinitive, denotes the time of the 
 action. This is by most writers understood to be, after he had been sick 
 and had recovered, as explained in the Vulgate (cum aegrotasset et conva- 
 luisset). The words, in themselves considered, would more naturally seem 
 to mean, during his sickness and recovery, and are accordingly explained by 
 Hitzig. There is nothing in the psalm itself at all inconsistent with the 
 supposition, that it was conceived, and perhaps composed, if not reduced to 
 writing, before the complete fulfilment of the promise in the king's recovery. 
 The contrary hypothesis has tended to embarrass and perplex the interpret- 
 ation, as will be more distinctly seen below. The idiomatic phrase to live 
 from sickness, in the sense of convalescence or recovery, occurs repeatedly 
 elsewhere, either fully or in an abbreviated form. (See for example 1 Kings 
 1 : 2. Gen. 20 : 7.) 
 
 V. 10. I said in the pause of my days I shall go into the gates of the 
 grave, I am deprived of the rest of my years. The pronoun of the first 
 
636 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 person does not seem to be emphatic ©r distinctive, as it usually is when 
 separately written, but appears to be expressed for the sake of a euphonic 
 or rhythmical effect. The words '•a* "'ma ma y naturally qualify either the 
 foregoing or the following verb, I said in the pause of my days, or, in the 
 pause of my days I shall go ; but the latter construction is favoured by the 
 accents, and by the analogy of the following verse, where *TOpDK is immedi- 
 ately succeeded by the words which he uttered. The explanation of Mtfl 
 •'a*, as meaning the blood of my days, is unnatural in itself, and requires an 
 arbitrary change of pointing. Kimchi gives ""ai the sense of cutting off 
 (nrvns), derived from na^i. (See above, the note on ch. 6: 5.) Most 
 interpreters regard it as synonymous with 1B*J silence, stillness, though they 
 differ as to the application of the figures. Scheidius supposes it to mean 
 the standing still of the sun, or its apparent pause at noonday, and then 
 noon itself, or what the Greeks call r\ [itorjupQia tov fliov, and ourselves the 
 meridian of life. This may also be the meaning of the Septuagint version 
 (iv tcp vxpei tav fjfiEQwv uov), in the height (or zenith) of my days, although 
 Clericus and others confidently allege that the Seventy for w read iai, of 
 which there is no example elsewhere. Umbreit understands by the stillness 
 of his days the period of life when the passions cease to govern and the 
 character becomes more calm. Gesenius applies it to the reign of Heze- 
 kiah, and supposes him to mean that he was about to be cut off when he had 
 every prospect of a peaceful reign. Even Kimchi's sense of cutting off is 
 reconcilable with this explanation of *WI as meaning silence, then cessa- 
 tion. The general idea is correctly given in the Vulgate (dimidio), which 
 Gesenius gratuitously thinks may be a mere conjecture from the Latin demi, 
 but which is much more likely to have been suggested by the analogous 
 expression in Ps. 10*2: 25, I said, O my God, take me not away in the 
 midst of my days (^n* k, :£na). There is not the slightest ground, however, 
 for supposing this last to be the true text here. The preposition before 
 gates may mean either to, through, or into ; but the last is its usual sense 
 after verbs of motion. As parallel expressions may be mentioned the gates 
 of death (Ps. 9 : 14) and the gates of hell (Matth. 16 : 18). The verb Ng| 
 means to visit, and especially to visit for the purpose either of inspection or 
 punishment. From the former of these applications springs the secondary 
 sense of missing or finding wanting. This is adopted here by Gesenius, so as 
 to make the last clause mean, I shall be missed (by my acquaintances and 
 friends) during the rest of my years. But nature and the context show 
 that Hezekiah's thoughts were running upon what he was to miss himself. 
 Besides, the future meaning given to the preterite is, in this case, gratuitous, 
 and therefore ungrammatical. A much better use of the same general sense 
 is made by those who take the Pual as a causative passive, J am made to 
 miss or lose the rest of my years, or as the English Version has it, J am 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 637 
 
 deprived of them. It is better still, however, because more in accordance 
 with the tone and spirit of the whole composition, to understand the verb as 
 expressing not mere loss or privation, but penal infliction. It was because 
 Hezekiah regarded the threatened abbreviation of his life as a token of God's 
 wrath, that he so importunately deprecated it. Instead of the remainder, 
 Cube and Dathe read the best part of my days, but without any adequate 
 authority from usage. 
 
 V. 11. I said, I shall not see Jah, Jah in the land of the living ; 1 
 shall not behold man again (or longer) with the inhabitants of the world. 
 m m is not an error of the text for mm (Houbigant), but an intensive repe- 
 tition similar to those in vs. 17, 19. Or the second may be added to explain 
 and qualify the first. He did expect to see God, but not in the land of the 
 living. This is better than to make the second m the subject of a distinct 
 proposition, as Luzzatto does, I shall not see Jah, (for) Jah (is only to be 
 seen) in the land of the living. The same writer regards this as the appro- 
 priate name of God considered as a gracious being. He supposes it to have 
 been originally an exclamation of delight or joy, corresponding to m (oval, 
 vae) as an exclamation of distress or fear, from the combination of which 
 arose the name mm, denoting an object both of love and fear. For other 
 explanations of the name m, see above, on ch. 12: 1 and 26: 4. The 
 land of the living is not the Holy Land (Hendewerk), but the present life. 
 The preposition t& may connect what follows either with the subject or the 
 object of the verb ; J with the inhabitants, or, man with the inhabitants. 
 Vin, which strictly means cessation, is regarded by the older writers as a 
 description of this transitory life or fleeting world. Vitringa objects, that he 
 would not have regretted leaving such a world, and therefore applies bnn to 
 the state of death. J, with (or among) the inhabitants of (the land of) 
 stillness, shall no more see man. This is adopted by Gesenius and the other 
 modern writers. It may be objected, however, that it needlessly violates the 
 parallelism, on which so much stress is elsewhere laid, and which plainly 
 indicates, in this case, that the last words of the verse bear the same relation 
 to I shall not see man, that the words in the land of the living bear to I 
 shall not see Jah. If the latter designate the place in which he was no 
 more to see God, then the former would naturally seem to designate the 
 place in which he was no more to see man. Another reason for preferring 
 the old interpretation is afforded by the obvious affinity between the expres- 
 sion here and that in Ps. 49 : 2. Hear this all the nations, give ear all the 
 inhabitants of the world (ibn *zv*). That the text in one of these cases is 
 to be corrected by the other, or that one of them arose from misapprehension 
 of the other, are superficial and uncritical assumptions. That the one was 
 suggested by the other, but with an intentional change of form, so as to fur- 
 
638 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 nish two descriptions of the present life, alike in sound but not identical in 
 sense, is not only probable in itself, but perfectly in keeping with the genius 
 of the language and the usage of the sacred writers. (See above, ch. 37 : 
 24.) As to the objection, that Hezekiah would not have been loth to 
 leave a world so transient and unsatisfying, it is not only contradicted by 
 experience, but admits of this solution, that its transitory nature was the 
 very thing for which he grieved. 
 
 V. 12. My dwelling is plucked up and uncovered by me (or away from 
 me) like a shepherd's tent, I have rolled up, like the weaver, my life ; 
 from the thrum he will cut me off; from day to night thou wilt finish me. 
 The same thing is here represented by two figures. The first is that of a 
 tent, the stakes of which are pulled up, and the covering removed, with a 
 view to departure. The usual sense of *fa (generation) seems inappropriate 
 here. For that of age or life there is no authority in usage. That of 
 dwelling is founded on the Arabic analogy, and yields a good sense, not 
 only here but in Ps. 49 : 20. Most interpreters explain inbaa as meaning 
 removed or departed, a sense which it has not elsewhere. Its usual sense 
 uncovered is entirely appropriate, and exactly descriptive of a part of the 
 process of striking a tent. The ^sa may then be understood, either as refer- 
 ring the act described to the speaker, or as making him the object from 
 which the removal was to take place. On the latter hypothesis, some of the 
 German writers enter into profound discussions whether Hezekiah meant to 
 identify the Ich or personal principle with his body or his soul, or with both, 
 or with neither. The second figure is that of a web completed and removed 
 by the weaver from the loom. The old interpretation of ■'n'iBp makes it 
 mean cut off ; the modern one, rolled up ; the allusion in either case being 
 to a weaver's mode of finishing his work. To make this verb passive or 
 reflexive, is entirely arbitrary. Still more so is a change of person from the 
 first to the second, since the same succession of the first, second, and third 
 persons reappears in the next verse. It is not even necessary to make the 
 verb causative (1 have caused him to cut out or roll up my life). The true so- 
 lution is proposed by Calvin, viz. that he first thinks of himself as the guilty 
 cause of his own death, and then of God as the efficient agent. Umbreit 
 imagines that he here describes himself as dying by a voluntary act, as 
 Schleiermacher is said by one of his biographers to have done, instead of 
 dying like other men because he could not help it. This is not only unna- 
 tural and irrational in itself, but inconsistent with the context, where the king 
 is represented as any thing rather than a voluntary sufferer. According to 
 the latest writers, n^a does not mean with pining sickness, nor from a state 
 of exaltation, but from the thrum (as in the margin of the English Bible) 
 i. e. the ends of the threads by which the web is fastened to the beam. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 639 
 
 Lowth gives the same sense by employing the more general term loom. 
 From day to night is commonly explained to mean before to-morrow, within 
 the space of one day. The verb in the last clause might, without violence 
 to etymology or usage, be explained to mean, thou wilt (or do thou) make 
 me whole. But interpreters appear to be agreed in giving it the opposite 
 sense of thou wilt make an end of me. Some suppose moreover that the 
 figure of a weaver and his web is still continued, and that the idea expressed 
 in the last clause is that of finishing a piece of work. 
 
 V. 13. I set {him before me) till the morning (i. e. all night) as a lion, 
 (saying) so will he break all my bones ; from day to night thou wilt make 
 an end of me. Either these last words are repeated in a different sense, or 
 else the repetition shows that they have no special reference, in the forego- 
 ing verse, to the process of weaving. Gesenius seems to treat with contempt 
 the suggestion of an inadvertent repetition on the part of some transcriber, 
 though he has no difficulty in adopting it when it can serve a useful purpose. 
 Most writers disregard the masoretic interpunction, and connect like a lion 
 with the second clause. They are then obliged to take flp^lj in the sense 
 of I reckoned (i. e. counted the hours, or reckoned that as a lion etc.), or as 
 meaning I endured, or I composed myself, neither of which has any sufficient 
 ground in the usage of the language, and the last of which requires but to be 
 arbitrarily supplied. Jarchi adheres to the masoretic accents, and explains 
 the first clause, I likened myself to (or made myself like) a lion (i. e. roared) 
 until the morning. To this it has been objected, not without reason, that 
 as the crushing of the bones involves an obvious allusion to the lion (compare 
 Ps. 7 : 3), we then have the same figure used to represent both the suf- 
 ferer and the author of his sufferings, which is forced and unnatural. The 
 masoretic interpunction may, however, be retained without this inconve- 
 nience, by explaining *iy*rt in accordance with its usage in Ps. 16 : 8 and 
 119: 30. In the former case, the Psalmist says, I have set Jehovah before 
 me always, i. e. I continually recognise his presence, or regard him as pres- 
 ent. In the other case the same idea seems to be expressed by the verb 
 alone, with an ellipsis of the qualifying phrase. Thy judgments have I placed 
 (i. e. before me). Supposing a similar ellipsis here, the sense will be, I set 
 him before me, i. e. viewed him as present, imagined or conceived of him as 
 a lion, and expected him to act as such, saying, so (i. e. as a lion) he will 
 crush all my bones. If this be the true construction, it removes all ground 
 for making fear, or pain, or the disease, the nominative of the verb will 
 break, and leaves it to agree with Jehovah, as the natural subject of the 
 sentence. This construction is further recommended by its giving uniformity 
 of meaning to the clauses, as descriptive of the sufferer's apprehensions. 
 
640 ISAlAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 V. 14. Like a swallow (or) a crane, (or like a twittering swallow?) 
 so I chirp ; I moan like the dove ; my eyes are weak (with looking) upward 
 (or on high) ; O Jehovah, I am oppressed, undertake for me (or be my 
 surety). In the first clause the moanings of the sufferer are compared, as 
 in many other cases, to the voice of certain animals. The dove is often 
 spoken of in such connexions, and the mention of it here makes it probable 
 that the parallel expressions are also descriptive of a bird or birds, oto is the 
 common Hebrew word for horse, and is so explained even here by Aquila, 
 who retains iws without translation. Theodotion retains both, but writes 
 the first ah' ( D>1t ?)> which Jerome thinks is probably the true text. This 
 same reading appears as a Keri in the masoretic text of Jer. 8: 7, the only 
 other place where the word seems to signify a bird. The old rabbinical 
 interpretation gives to D*io the sense of crane, and to rittg that of swallow. 
 Bochart reverses them and undertakes to show that **» is the Hebrew word 
 for crane. This word affords a curious instance of the way in which Gese- 
 nius sometimes leaves his followers and transcribers in the lurch. In his 
 Commentary, while he speaks of Twaj as a word of doubtful import, he gives 
 Bochart's explanation as upon the whole the most probable. Some of his 
 copyists go further and allege that it certainly means crane. In the mean 
 time Gesenius, in his Manual Lexicon, rejects Bochart's proofs as invalid, and 
 explains "flas as a description of the gyratory motion of the swallow. In the 
 Thesaurus, this is abandoned in its turn, and the word explained to mean 
 chirping or twittering. Maurer objects to the explanation of WN0 as a mere 
 descriptive epithet, that in Jer. 8 : 7 we have iwi bio as two independent 
 substantives. To this Gesenius replies, that the epithet is there used as a 
 poetical substitute for the noun, or perhaps the name of a particular species. 
 On any supposition, the comparison before us is evidently meant to be de- 
 scriptive of inarticulate moans or murmurs. The reference of the verbs in 
 the first clause to past time (I chirped, I moaned), though assumed by most 
 interpreters, is perfectly gratuitous, when the future proper yields so good a 
 sense. This violation of the syntax has arisen from assuming that the clause 
 must be a retrospective description of something already past, and not an 
 expression of present feeling such as he might have uttered at the moment. 
 That this last is no unnatural hypothesis, is certain from the fact that all 
 interpreters adopt it in the other clause. But if that may be the language 
 of the sufferer at the time of his distress, it is equally natural, or rather more 
 so, to explain the first clause in the same way. Clericus understands iPf as 
 meaning lifted up, which he admits to be a mere conjecture having no 
 foundation in usage, but rendered necessary by the addition of dnob. Most 
 interpreters regard it as an instance of constructio praegnans, and retain the 
 proper meaning of the verb. Hitzig makes hpttJS an imperative, and identi- 
 fies it with the Arabic (J^ti+z to love tenderly or ardently. Incline thy heart 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 641 
 
 to me. There is, however, no necessity or warrant for departing from the 
 Hebrew usage of pes to do violence or oppress. The older writers supply 
 a definite subject, such as death, my disease, or the like. Ewald makes it 
 impersonal, it is oppressed to me, i. e. I am oppressed. Gesenius treats it 
 as a noun, {there is) oppression to me, and explains the Metheg as a mere 
 sign of the secondary accent. Junius and Tremellius render ^5*}?j weave 
 me through (pertexe me), i. e. do not cut out the unfinished web. But this 
 return to the metaphor of v. 12, after alluding in the mean time to a lion, to 
 a swallow, to a crane, and to a dove, would be exceedingly unnatural, and 
 although not impossible can only be assumed in case of extreme exegetical 
 necessity, which certainly has no existence here. The same word is used 
 in Ps. 119: 122, in the sense of undertake for me or be my surety, i. e. 
 interpose between me and my enemies. The reference is rather to protec- 
 tion than to justification. Gill carries out the metaphor to an extreme by 
 saying that Hezekiah here represents his disease as a bailiff that had ar- 
 rested him, and was carrying him. to the prison of the grave, and therefore 
 prays that the Lord would bail him or rescue him out of his hands, 
 
 V. 15. What shall I say? He hath both spoken to me, and himself 
 hath done (it) ; 1 shall go softly all my years for the bitterness of my soul. 
 This, which is substantially the common version, is the one adopted by most 
 modern writers, who regard the verse as an expression of surprise and joy at 
 the deliverance experienced. What shall I say ? i.e. how shall I express 
 my gratitude and wonder? He hath said and done it, he has promised and 
 performed, perhaps with an implication that the promise was no sooner given 
 than fulfilled. The recollection of this signal mercy he is resolved to cher- 
 ish all his years, i. e. throughout his life, by going softly, solemnly, or slowly, 
 on account of the bitterness of his soul, i. e. in recollection of his sufferings. 
 Some, however, understand these last words to mean, in the bitterness of 
 my soul, i. e. in perpetual contrition and humility. But the preposition fe* is 
 properly expressive, not of the manner of his going, but of its occasion. The 
 verb rtt3J* occurs only here and in Ps. 42: 5, where it is commonly agreed 
 to signify the solemn march of the people in procession to Mount Zion. It 
 would here seem to be equivalent to the phrase ax -?n applied to Ahab in 
 1 Kings 21 : 27. Another interpretation of the verse, which might, at first 
 sight, seem more natural, regards it as the language of Hezekiah during his 
 sickness, and as expressive, not of joy and wonder, but of submission. TVhal 
 shall I say, in the way of complaint ? He hath both said and done it, i. e. 
 threatened and performed it. But this view of the first clause cannot be 
 reconciled with any natural interpretation of the second, where the phrase 
 all my years is inconsistent with the supposition that he expected to die 
 forthwith. 
 
 41 
 
642 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 V. 16. Lord, upon them they live, and as to every thing in them is the 
 life of my spirit, and thou wilt recover me and make me live. This exceed- 
 ingly obscure verse is now most generally understood to mean, that life in 
 general, and the life of Hezekiah in particular, was dependent on the power 
 and promise of God. Upon them, the promise and performance implied in 
 the verbs said and did of the preceding verse, they live, i. e. men indefinitely 
 live. The sense of £s, when construed thus with mn, is clear from such 
 examples as Gen. 20 : 27. Deut. 8 : 6. Some suppose ba to govern ■wfr, 
 notwithstanding the intervening word fria, and the prefix \ which must then 
 be pleonastic. All the life of my spirit (is) in them. A simpler construc- 
 tion is to make bab an adverbial phrase meaning as to (or with respect to) 
 every thing. The other attempts which have been made to explain Btfto 
 as referring to the bones of Hezekiah, or his years, or his subjects, or those 
 over whom (God is) Lord, are so forced, that the one first given, notwith- 
 standing its obscurity and harshness, seems entitled to the preference. The 
 explanation of the future and imperative in the last clause as referring to 
 past time (thou hast recovered me and made me live) is not only arbitrary 
 but gratuitous, as it assumes without necessity that such a prayer or expec- 
 tation could not have been uttered after Hezekiah's recovery, whereas it is a 
 natural expression of desire that what had been begun might be continued 
 and completed, ^Tin is not an infinitive, which would here take the con- 
 struct form, but an imperative. In either case, its meaning is determined 
 by the foregoing future, so that both verbs may take the future form in 
 translation. The original form of expression may, however, be retained in 
 English, by omitting the auxiliary in the second future. 
 
 V. 17. Behold, to peace (is turned) my bitter bitterness, and thou 
 hast loved my soul from the pit of destruction, because thou hast cast behind 
 thy back all my sins. The idea of change or conversion must either be sup- 
 plied, or supposed to be expressed by is, which is then the preterite of W, 
 not elsewhere used in Kal, although the Hiphil is of frequent occurrence. 
 Most of the late writers understand io *b ^e as an emphatic or intensive 
 repetition, of which there are several examples in this passage (vs. 11, 19), 
 and suppose the verb to be suppressed, or suggested by the preposition b. 
 The English Bible, and some other versions, put an opposite meaning on 
 the clause, as a description, not of his restoration but of his affliction. For 
 peace I had great bitterness, or, on my peace (came) great bitterness. The 
 other interpretation agrees better with the usage of the preposition and 
 makes the parallelism more exact. We have here another instance of preg- 
 nant construction, to love from, i. e. so to love as to deliver from. This 
 sense is expressed in the English Bible by a circumlocution, ^a means 
 properly nonentity, annihilation, here put for perdition or destruction from 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power (2 Thess. 1 i^rjr 
 The last clause shows that Hezekiah regarded the threatened destruction as 
 a punishment of sin. To cast behind one, or behind one's back, in Hebrew 
 and Arabic, is to forget, lose sight of, or exclude from view. The opposite 
 idea is expressed by the figure of setting or keeping before one's eyes. (See 
 Ps. 90: 8. 109: 14, 15. Jer. 16: 17. Hos. 7: 2.) 
 
 V. 18. For the grave shall not confess thee (nor) death praise thee ; 
 they that go down to the pit shall not hope for thy truth. Here, as often 
 in the Psalms, the loss of the opportunity of praising God is urged as a rea- 
 son, not only why he should be loth to die, but why God should preserve him. 
 (See Ps. 6:6. 88 : 11,12.) It does not follow from these words, either that 
 Hezekiah had no expectation of a future state, or that the soul remains un- 
 conscious till the resurrection. The true explanation of the words is given 
 by Calvin, viz. that the language is that of extreme agitation and distress, 
 in which the prospect of the future is absorbed in contemplation of the 
 present, and also that so far as he does think of futurity, it is upon the 
 supposition of God's wrath. Regarding death, in this case, as a proof of the 
 divine displeasure, he cannot but look upon it as the termination of his sol- 
 emn praises. The truth mentioned in the last clause is the truth of God's 
 promises, to hope for which is to expect the promised blessing, -pin mh 
 strictly means, shall not acknowledge thee, with special reference to the 
 acknowledgment of favours, or thanksgiving. The influence of the negative 
 extends to the second clause, as in ch. 23 : 4. (See above, p. 407.) 
 
 V. 19. The living, the living, he shall thank thee, like me (or as I do) 
 to-day ; father to sons shall make known, with respect to thy truth, i. e. the 
 truth of thy promises, as in the verse preceding. Only the living could 
 praise God in that way to which the writer was accustomed, and on which 
 his eye is here fixed, with special reference, no doubt, to the external 
 service of the temple. The last clause must be taken in a general sense, as 
 Hezekiah was himself still childless. 
 
 V. 20. Jehovah to save me ! And my songs we will play, all the days 
 of our life, at the house of Jehovah. The obvious ellipsis in the first clause 
 may be variously filled with came, hastened, commanded, was ready, be 
 pleased, or with the verb is, as an idiomatic periphrasis of the future, is to 
 save for will save. The reference to the future and the past is equally 
 admissible, since God, in one sense, had already saved him, and in another 
 was to save him still. WWO is properly the music of stringed instruments,, 
 or a song intended to be so accompanied. The word may here be used in 
 the more general sense of song or music ; but there seems to be no need of 
 
644 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXVIII. 
 
 excluding the original and proper meaning. The singular form, my song, 
 refers to Hezekiah as the author of this composition ; the plurals, we will 
 sing and our lives, to the multitude who might be expected to join in his 
 public thanksgiving, not only at first, but in after ages. The use of te is 
 explained by some as an allusion to the elevated site of the temple ; but it 
 seems to be rather a license of construction, similar to our promiscuous use 
 of at and in, with names of towns. It is a possible but not a necessary 
 supposition, that this particle may here denote upward motion, as in a pro- 
 cession from the lower city to the temple. We will sing or play my songs, 
 all the days of our lives, up to the house of the Lord. The general sense 
 in either case is that of public and perpetual praise, the promise of which 
 closes this remarkable production. 
 
 V. 21. And Isaiah said, Let them take a lump (or cake) of Jigs, and 
 rub them (or lay them softened) on the boil (or inflammation), and he shall 
 live (or let him live), i. e. recover. The indirect construction, preferred by 
 most of the modern writers, that they should take, and that he might recover, 
 is entirely unnecessary, since the words may naturally be regarded as the 
 very words spoken by the Prophet himself. m» seems properly to have the 
 sense of rubbing, either in reference to the application, or to the preparing 
 of the figs by trituration. The latter explanation is now commonly preferred. 
 Grotius follows some of the rabbinical interpreters in the assumption that the 
 natural effect of such an application would have been injurious. But al- 
 though this may seem to magnify the miracle, it is a gratuitous assumption, 
 and directly contradicted by the modern oriental practice of applying figs to 
 pestilential pustules, for the purpose of maturing their discharge. Such a 
 pustule is commonly supposed to be denoted by fTOj both here and else- 
 where, although some choose to adhere to what they think the primary sense 
 of inflammation. Hitzig makes this noun the subject of the verb w (that 
 it might be healed) on the authority of Lev. 13 : 10, 14, 15 ; but the analogy 
 of the first verse of the chapter now before us seems to be decisive in favour 
 of the usual construction, which makes the verb refer to Hezekiah. 
 
 V. 22. And Hezekiah said, What sign that I shall go up (to) the 
 house of Jehovah? The ellipsis is easily supplied by reading, what sign 
 dost thou give, or what sign is there, or more simply still, what is the sign! 
 The construction of no as an exclamation of surprise (ivhat a miracle !) is 
 neither natural in itself, nor justified by usage, in a case where the usual 
 interrogative sense is perfectly appropriate. The question is more fully 
 given in 2 Kings 20 : 8 as follows. And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, What 
 sign that Jehovah is about to heal me, and that I shall go up, on the third 
 day, to the house of Jehovah 1 The reference is to the promise as recorded 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 645 
 
 in v. 5 of the same chapter. Return and say to Hezekiah, the chief of my 
 people, Thus sailh Jehovah, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy 
 prayer, I have seen thy tears ; behold, I am about to heal thee ; on the third 
 day thou shalt go up to the house of Jehovah. The last two verses of this 
 chapter in Isaiah are evidently out of their chronological order, and the 
 question has been raised, whether this transposition is to be ascribed to the 
 original writer, and if so how it is to be accounted for. The hypotheses 
 which have been proposed may be reduced to three. The first is, that the 
 transposition is an error of transcription, arising from the mere inadvertence 
 of some ancient copyist. Besides the difficulty common to all such suppo- 
 sitions, that errors of the kind supposed, although they might take place, 
 could scarcely become universal ; it is here precluded by the fact that these 
 two verses cannot be inserted in the text above without breaking its conti- 
 nuity, and cannot therefore have dropped out of it, unless we take for 
 granted also, that the text was altered after the omission, which is only add- 
 ing arbitrarily another to the gratuitous assumptions made before. Some 
 avoid this difficulty by supposing that the verses do not properly belong to 
 this text, but were added by a later hand, in order to complete the narrative 
 as given in the second book of Kings. Apart from the natural presumption 
 against all such imaginary facts, except where the assuming of them cannot 
 be avoided, it can scarcely be doubted that a copyist or critic, who would 
 use such freedom with the text, would have used more, and inserted 
 this statement in its proper place. It is only necessary to compare these 
 fanciful hypotheses with the obvious and simple supposition that the passage 
 before us is the first draught or original form of Isaiah's narrative, in which 
 the facts recorded in these two last verses were added by a kind of after- 
 thought, and that in re-writing the account, as a part of the national history, 
 he naturally placed them in their chronological order. It would probably 
 be easy to produce many parallel cases from the correspondence of volumi- 
 nous letter-writers, or from other cases of repeated composition on the same 
 subject by the same writer. However this may be, it seems clear that the 
 explanation now proposed is simpler in itself, and requires less to be ima- 
 gined or supposed, than any other, and is therefore, even on the strictest 
 principles of criticism, entitled to the preference. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIX. 
 
 This chapter contains an account of the Babylonian embassy to 
 Hezekiah, and of his indiscreet and ostentatious conduct, which became the 
 
646 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 
 
 occasion of a threatening message by the hands of Isaiah, predicting the 
 Babylonian conquest and captivity, but with a tacit promise of exemption 
 to the king himself, and to the country while he lived, which he received 
 with humble acquiescence and thankful acknowledgment. 
 
 The chapter is evidently a direct continuation of the narrative before it, 
 nor is there any real ground, internal or external, for suspecting its authen- 
 ticity, antiquity, or genuineness. 
 
 V. 1. In that time, Merodach Baladan, son of Bala dan, Icing of Baby- 
 lon, sent letters and a gift to Hezckiah, and he heard that he was sick and 
 was recovered. The first phrase is used with great latitude of meaning, and 
 may either describe one event as contemporaneous with another, or as follow- 
 ing it, at once or more remotely. Knobel supposes it to mean here simply in 
 the days of Hezekiah. Most other writers take it for granted that this mes- 
 sage of congratulation must have been sent soon after the recovery of Heze- 
 kiah. These understand W6*\ as equivalent in meaning to snttj ^3 2 Kings 
 20 : 12, and explain all the verbs of the last clause as pluperfects (for he had 
 heard etc.), Knobel, on the contrary, gives 1 its usual sense, and understands 
 the clause to mean, that the king of Babylon heard of Hezekiah's sickness 
 from his ambassadors on their return. But this is inconsistent with the paral- 
 lel statement, assumes a needless prolepsis or anticipation, and encumbers the 
 narrative with a fact entirely superfluous. What the ambassadors reported 
 to the king on their return, is of no importance to the history. Merodach 
 occurs in Jer. 50 : 2, as the name of a Babylonian idol. Grotius supposes 
 that a man of that name had been deified ; others, that it was common to 
 name men after gods. Hitzig identifies the name with the Persian diminu- 
 tive Jt>yo little man (as a term of endearment), Gesenius with the Mars of 
 classical mythology. In 2 Kings 20 : 11, it is written Berodach, which 
 Hiller explains as a contraction of Bar Merodach, the son of Merodach, 
 while Knobel regards it as a mere mistake, and Gesenius as a customary 
 variation, b and m being often interchanged. Two manuscripts read Bero- 
 dach in the case before us, and a few have the transposed form Medorach. 
 Baladan, according to Von Bohlen, is a Persian word meaning praised; 
 according to Gesenius, an Aramean compound meaning Bel (is his) lord. 
 Hitzig explains bal as a connective syllable, like pol in Nabopolassar, pal 
 in Sardanapalus, etc. Most of the modern writers agree with Vitringa in 
 identifying this king with the Mardokempad of Berosus, as preserved in the 
 Armenian version of Eusebius ; but Knobel understands him as naming 
 Merodach Baladan distinctly. The same authority describes these Baby- 
 lonian princes, not as sovereigns, but as viceroys or tributaries subject to 
 Assyria. In that case, it is not improbable that Merodach Baladan was 
 meditating a revolt, and sent this embassy to gain Hezekiah's co-operation. 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 647 
 
 The congratulation on his recovery may have been a secondary object, or 
 perhaps a mere pretext. In 2 Chron. 32: 31, a further design is men- 
 tioned, namely, to inquire of the tvonder that was done in the land, whether 
 this be understood to mean the destruction of Sennacherib's army, or the 
 miraculous recession of the shadow. There is no incompatibility between 
 .these different designs. Perhaps an embassy is seldom sent to such a dis- 
 tance with a single undivided errand. 
 
 V. 2. And HezeJciah was glad of them, and showed them his home of 
 rarities, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the good oil (or oint- 
 ment), and all his house of arms, and all that was found in his treasures ; 
 there was not a thing which HezeJciah did not show them, in his house and 
 in all his dominion. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 13) has SEtiJ ,,, i 
 firrb*, which Knobel understands to mean that he heard of them, but which 
 seems to be more correctly rendered in the English Bible, and he hearkened 
 unto them. There is no need of regarding either as an error of transcription, 
 or as the correction of a later writer. Nothing could be more natural than 
 such a variation on the part of the original writer, describing Hezekiah's 
 feelings in the one case and his conduct in the other. He hearkened to 
 them courteously because he was glad of their arrival. Henderson says, he 
 was delighted with them ; but the context seems to show that it was not so 
 much the company or manners of the men that he was pleased with, 
 as the honour done him by the king of Babylon in sending them. The 
 practice of exhibiting the curiosities and riches of a palace to distinguished 
 visitors, Vitringa illustrates by the parallel case of Croesus and Solon, as 
 recorded by Herodotus, ros has been commonly regarded as identical with 
 the rvtsaa of Gen. 37 : 43, and the whole phrase interpreted accordingly, as 
 meaning properly a house of spices, and then by a natural extension of its im- 
 port, a depository of rare and precious things in general. The former meaning 
 is retained by Aquila (tbv oiaov rwv aQG)[tdtG)v) and the Vulgate (cellam aro- 
 matum). The other is given in the Targum and Peshito, and by most mod- 
 ern writers. The Septuagint retains the Hebrew word (vexa&u). Abulwalid 
 derives it from P23 to bite, and applies it to provisions ; Lorsbach from a Per- 
 sian verb meaning to deposit ; Hitzig from a Hebrew root of similar import. 
 o^s ma is not a house of jewels or vessels, but of arms, i. e. an arsenal, most 
 probably the same that is mentioned in ch. 22 : 8. Luther has all his arse- 
 nals, but this would be expressed in Hebrew by the plural. Lowth more 
 correctly has whole arsenal, which is also the meaning of the common ver- 
 sion, all the house of his armour. The goodly or precious oil is supposed 
 by Barnes to have been that used in the unction of kings and priests, or 
 perhaps applied to more ordinary purposes in the royal household. Knobel 
 explains ir&iswQ as meaning in his power or possession. So the LXX. 
 
648 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 
 
 (Qovaia). It is more commonly explained, however, as a local noun 
 denoting realm or dominions. Hitzig gives rvnx*a the specific sense of 
 store-rooms or treasure-chambers, which is unnecessary. Even on the usual 
 hypothesis, the a need not be translated among, but may have its usual and 
 proper .sense of in. 
 
 V. 3. Then came Isaiah the prophet to the Icing HezeJciah, and said to 
 him, What said these men, and whence came they unto thee 1 And Heze- 
 Jciah said, From a far country came they unto me, from Babylon. The 
 Prophet was not sent for by the king, as in ch. 37 : 2 ; but he was no doubt 
 sent by God, and came in his official character. The older writers seem to 
 regard as the occasion of his visit the vainglory which the king had dis- 
 played in his entertainment of the strangers. The moderns lay the chief 
 stress on the political negotiations which had passed between them, and 
 which could not be regarded by the Prophet but with strong disapprobation. 
 The statement in Chronicles is that God left him, to try him, to know all 
 in his heart (2 Chr. 32: 31). This may include the sins of vain ostenta- 
 tion and of distrust in God, showing itself in a longing after foreign alliances. 
 There is no sufficient ground for Hendewerk's assumption, that a treaty had 
 actually been concluded. Gesenius observes that Hezekiah answers only 
 the second of the Prophet's questions, as if he shrunk from answering the 
 first. But this mode of replying to the last interrogation, when there is 
 more than one, is natural and common in cases where there can be no mo- 
 tive for concealment. It is unnecessary, therefore, to suppose with Ciericus, 
 that a part of Hezekiah's answer is omitted in the narrative. In the last 
 clause, Calvin understands the king as boasting of the distance from which 
 the embassy had come, as implying the extent of his own fame and political 
 importance. Vitringa supposes the distance to be mentioned as an excuse 
 for his hospitable attentions. Knobel thinks it was intended to disarm Isai- 
 ah's suspicion of a league, as if he had said, too distant to admit of any inti- 
 mate communion or alliance. All these interpretations seem to strain the 
 words beyond their natural and obvious import, according to which a far 
 country is nothing more than a familiar designation of Babylon or Babylonia. 
 
 V. 4. And he said, What have they seen in thy house 1 And HezeJciah 
 said, All that is in my house have they seen ; there is not a thing that 1 
 have not showed them in my treasures. Some of the later Germans say that 
 Hezekiah, finding evasion and concealment impossible, now frankly tells 
 the truth. But the frankness of the answer here recorded rather shows, that 
 there was no attempt at concealment from the first. It was not, as Calvin 
 well observes, until the Prophet questioned him, that Hezekiah became 
 aware of the error which he had committed. Knobel gratuitously asserts 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 649 
 
 that the Prophet here shifts his ground from finding fault with what had 
 passed in words to blaming what had passed in act, between the king and 
 the ambassadors. 
 
 V. 5. And Isaiah said to Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah of 
 Hosts. This form of expression gives to what follows the solemnity and 
 authority of a divine decree. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 16) omits 
 mans, which Vitringa regards as emphatic here, implying a signal exer- 
 cise of divine providence and power. 
 
 V. 6. Behold, days (are) coming, when all that (is) in thy house, and 
 that which thy fathers have hoarded until this day, shall be carried to 
 Babylon ; there shall not be left a thing (literally a word), saith Jehovah. 
 Jarchi directs attention to the exact correspondence of the punishment with 
 the offence. As the Babylonians had seen all, they should one day take 
 all ; as nothing had been withheld from them now, so nothing should be 
 withheld from them hereafter. The German interpreters are at a loss, 
 whether to make this explicit prophecy a proof of later date, or to explain 
 it as a sagacious conjecture founded on the previous fate of the ten tribes, 
 and on the actual relations of the Babylonian monarchy to Judah and 
 Assyria. The scale preponderates in favour of the latter supposition, not- 
 withstanding its absurd assumption of a mere political conjecture as to events 
 which did not happen for a hundred years. To those who are under no 
 unhappy necessity of explaining away the clearest proofs of inspiration and 
 prophetic foresight, this passage affords a striking instance of the gradual 
 development of prophecy. The general threatening of expatriation had 
 been uttered seven hundred years before by Moses (Lev. 26: 33. Deut. 
 28: 64-67. 30: 3). Five hundred years later, Ahijah had declared 
 that Israel should be rooted up and scattered beyond the river (1 Kings 14 : 
 15). Within a hundred years, they had been threatened by Amos with 
 captivity beyond Damascus (Am. 5 : 27). Isaiah himself had obscurely 
 intimated a future connexion between the fortunes of Israel and Babylon 
 (ch. 14: 1. 21 : 10). But here, for the first time, the Babylonish exile 
 is explicitly foretold, unless the similar prediction of the contemporary 
 prophet Micah (4 : 10) be considered earlier. The fulfilment of the pro- 
 phecy began in the deportation of Manasseh (2 Chron. 33 : 11), but was 
 described as something still prospective by Jeremiah (20 : 5), in whose 
 days, and the reign of Zedekiah, it was at length fully accomplished (2 
 Chron. 36 : 18). To the objection, that a national calamity of this descrip- 
 tion bears no proportion to the fault of Hezekiah, there is no need of any 
 other answer than the one already given by Vitringa, to wit, that Hezekiah's 
 fault was not the cause but the occasion of the punishment which fell upon 
 
650 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 
 
 the people, or rather of its being so explicitly predicted in the case before 
 us. For, as Calvin says, the punishment of Hezekiah's individual fault was 
 included in the punishment of Israel for national offences. 
 
 V. 7. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, 
 shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of 
 Babylon. The future form of the expression in the first clause has respect 
 to the fact that Hezekiah had as yet no children. (See above on ch. 38 : 
 2.) Hendewerk regards the terms used as inapplicable to any but immediate 
 descendants, in which case the prophecy must be restricted to Manasseh (2 
 Chron. 33 : 11). But Hitzig and Knobel justify the wider application of 
 the terms by the analogy of ch. 51 : 2, and by the constant use of father 
 and son in reference to remote descendants or progenitors. The $fi at 
 the beginning of the verse is universally admitted to be partitive. They 
 shall take may either be an indefinite construction, or agree with the Baby- 
 lonians understood. bWib is strictly understood by the Septuagint 
 (anaSovtag) and the Vulgate (eunuchi), but explained by the Targum to mean 
 nobles ("pa-on absurdly rendered in the London Polyglot, nutriti), i. e. 
 courtiers or household-officers, an extension of the meaning which agrees 
 well with the usages of oriental courts. The latter explanation is approved 
 by Gesenius in his Commentary for a specified reason. In his earlier Lexi- 
 cons he leaves it doubtful ; but in the Theasurus he contends for the strict 
 sense, even in Gen. 37 : 36, as well as in the case before us, with respect 
 to which he answers his own argument upon the other side, by a counter- 
 argument of equal strength. Instead of inp^, the parallel passage (2 Kings 
 20 : 17) has the singular rip* 1 , which is equally correct and regular, in a case 
 of indefinite construction. The fulfilment of this prophecy is recorded in 2 
 Kings 24: 12-16 and Dan. 1 : 1-7, and that so clearly, that the neologists 
 are driven to their usual supposition of an interpolation, or of such an altera- 
 tion as to make the terms of the prediction more determinate. 
 
 V. 8. And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, Good is the word of Jehovah 
 which thou hast spoken. And he said, For there shall be peace and truth 
 in my days. The word good is here used, neither in the sense of gracious 
 nor in that of just exclusively, but in that of right, as comprehending both. 
 While the king acquiesces in the threatening prophecy as righteous and 
 deserved, he gratefully acknowledges the mercy with which it is tempered. 
 That he looked upon the woes denounced against his children as a personal 
 misfortune of his own, is clear from his regarding the postponement of the 
 execution as a mitigation of the sentence on himself. The expression of 
 thankfulness at this exemption shows how true the narrative is to nature and 
 experience. Umbreit has the good sense and feeling to describe it as a 
 
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 651 
 
 natural and childlike acknowledgment. The purer taste and loftier morality 
 of other German writers can regard it only as naiv-egoistisch (Gesenius), or 
 as an expression of true oriental egoismus (Hitzig). According to these 
 philosophical interpreters, Hezekiah, instead of being thankful for the mercy 
 which was mingled with God's judgments, ought to have rejected the pro- 
 mise of peace and truth in his own days, unless extended to his children 
 also. This sentimental magnanimity may answer well enough in plays 
 and novels, but is equally at variance with human nature and the word 
 of God. It was not more clearly Hezekiah's duty to submit without a 
 murmur to God's threatening, than it was to accept with gratitude the 
 exemption promised to himself. Quamvis enim haec poena aliud seculum 
 maneret, tamen praesentem gratiam amplecti debuit ; et certe nostro potis- 
 simum seculo servire debemus, ejusque praecipue ratio habenda est ; futurum 
 non est negligendum, sed quod praes ens est atque instat magis officium nos- 
 trum requirit. (Calvin). Nothing, therefore, as the same great writer well 
 says, can be further from the spirit of this answer, than that of the Greek 
 sentence, e^iov ftavovrog yala ptx&rjno nvql, or the Latin, mihi mortuo omnes 
 mortui sunt. Calvin is also of opinion that the words, which thou hast spo- 
 ken, are emphatic, and intended to recognise Isaiah as an authoritative mes- 
 senger from God. There is no need of supposing that the second lo»*»1 
 means, he said in his heart (Hitzig), or after Isaiah was gone (Knobel), much 
 less that it simply means he thought (Hendewerk). The obvious sense of 
 the expression is that these words were added to explain his previous acqui- 
 escence in the divine determination. The repetition of the verb he said 
 implies a pause or interval however short. The various explanations of 
 the particle *0, as meaning well, yes, provided, only, yet, oh that, etc. are 
 mere substitutions of what the interpreters think Hezekiah ought to have 
 said for what he did say, which is simply this, (I call it good) because there 
 is to be etc. This exact sense of the words is retained in the Targum and 
 the English Version. The optative meaning is expressed in the Septuagint 
 (yeveo&co dy) and the Vulgate (Jiat tantum). The Peshito simplifies the syn- 
 tax by omitting and he said, and connecting the two clauses directly : good is 
 the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken, that there shall be peace and 
 truth in my days. But this, besides its arbitrary mutilation of the text, 
 impairs the force of Hezekiah's language by restricting it wholly to the 
 promise. Peace may be here taken in the wide sense of prosperity, but 
 with special reference to its proper import, as denoting exemption from war. 
 Truth is understood by Henderson and Barnes in its modern religious sense 
 of true religion. Cocceius even restricts it to the preaching of the truth. 
 Hendewerk gives it the sense of goodness, as the Septuagint does that of 
 
652 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXXIX. 
 
 righteousness. Hitzig supposes it to mean the mutual fidelity of men in 
 their relations to each other. But the best interpretation seems to be the 
 one approved by Calvin, Vitringa, and Gesenius, who take the word in its 
 primary etymological sense of permanence, stability, in which the ideas of 
 fidelity and truth may be included, as effects necessarily imply their cause. 
 
 From the foregoing exposition of chapters xxxvi-xxxix, it may safely 
 be inferred, as a legitimate if not an unavoidable deduction, that they form 
 a continuous unbroken narrative by one and the same writer ; that this 
 writer may as well have been Isaiah as any other person, if we regard inter- 
 nal evidence, and can have been no other, if we regard the immemorial tra- 
 dition of the Hebrew Canon ; and that these four chapters, far from having 
 been inserted here at random or through ignorance, are in their proper place, 
 as a connecting link between the Earlier and Later Prophecies, the threat- 
 ening in ch. 39: 6 b^ing really the theme or text of the long prophetic dis- 
 course, with which th^ remainder of the book is occupied. 
 
 THE END 
 
 V 
 
 
f O WLE'S SERMONS,— Chiefly designed to show the practical working of Faith. 1 vol. 2 00 
 GILL'S COMPLETE BODY OF DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL DIVINITY. 
 
 New edition. 2 large vols. 8vo. . . . . . . 5 50 
 
 GLEIG'S SERMONS for Advent, Christmas, and the Epiphany. 1 vol. . 1 75 
 
 GOODWIN. — The Treatises of that famous Divine, Thomas Goodwin, D. D. First se- 
 ries. 1 large vol. 8vo. . . . . . . . 3 50 
 
 GRESLEY. — Ecclesiastes Anglicanus: being a Treatise on Preaching. Third edition, 
 
 revised. 1 vol. 12mo. . . . . . . . 2 25 
 
 ANGLO CATHOLICISM.— A short Treatise on the Theory of the English Church. 
 
 1 vol. 12mo. . . . . . . . . . l 38 
 
 HALL. — The Works of Robert Hall, A. M., with a Memoir of his Life, by Dr. Gregory. 
 
 6 vols. l2mo. Neat edition. . . . . . . . 7 00 
 
 HAMMOND. — The Definitions of Faith, and Canons of Discipline of the Six Oecumen- 
 ical Councils, with the remaining Canons of the Code of the Universal Church. 
 Translated, with notes. To which are added, the Apostolical Canons. 1 vol. 8vo. 2 25 
 
 HARRINGTON. — The Object, Importance, and Antiquity of the Rite of Consecration 
 
 of Churches. 1 vol. 8vo. . . . . . . . 2 25 
 
 HAWEIS'S SKETCHES OF THE REFORMATION AND ELIZABETHAN AGE, 
 
 taken from the Contemporary Pulpit. 1 vol. . . . . . 2 00 
 
 HENGSTENBERG'S COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS.— Translated by Fair- 
 bairn. Vol. l,in8vo. . . . . . . 2 50 
 
 HOLLAND'S RECORDS, Biographical and Critical, of the Psalmists of Great Britain. 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. ......... 5 50 
 
 HOOKER— The Works of Mr. Richard Hooker. Arranged by the Rev. John Keble. 
 
 Third edition. 3 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1845, . . . . .10 00 
 
 Another edition, with his Life and Death, by Isaac Walton, and an Index. 2 large 
 
 vols.8vo. Oxford, 1845, . . . . . . . 4 50 
 
 HOPKINS.— The whole Works of the Right Reverend Ezekiel Hopkins, D. D., with a 
 
 Memoir of the Author. 1 large volume, . . . . . 4 00 
 
 HOWARD'S MARY SPENCER,— A tale for the Times. 1 vol. . . l 25 
 
 INTERLINEARY HEBREW AND ENGLISH PSALTER.— A new Hebrew and 
 
 English Lexicon. In 1 vol. 12mo. . . . . . . 3 25 
 
 Or separate. The Psalter $1 50. The Lexicon $2 00. x 
 JAMIESON. — The Manners and Trials of the Primitive Christians. Third edition, 1 50 
 
 JEBB'S PASTORAL INSTRUCTIONS on the Character and Principles of the Church 
 
 of England. 1 vol. l2mo. . . . . . . . 2 00 
 
 JELF'S BAMPTON LECTURE.— An Inquiry into the Means of Grace, &c. 1 vol. 
 
 8vo 3 25 
 
 JONES. — The Book of the Heart, or Plain Meditations on various Religious Subjects, 
 
 Doctrinal, Spiritual and Practical, in the form of self-application. 1 vol. . 1 25 
 
 JONES.— The Theological Works of the Rev. William Jones, A. M., of Nayland. 6 
 
 vols. 8vo. . . . . . . . . . 14 00 
 
 JOSIAH.— By the Author of Gideon. 1 vol. . . . . . 1 38 
 
 JOWETT'S HELPS TO PASTORAL DEVOTION: illustrating the Scriptural In- 
 tercourse of a Minister with his Flock. 1 vol. .... 1 75 
 
 KEN. — The Practice of Divine Love. l8mo. • .. . . . 31 
 
 KNOX.— Select Practical Writings of John Knox 1vol. . . . 100 
 
 LATHBURY'S HISTORY OF THE NONJURORS: their Controversies and Wri- 
 tings, &c. &c. 1 large vol. 8vo. . . . . . 4 50 
 
 LATIMER. — Sermons by Hugh Latimer, sometime Bishop of Worcester, Martyr, 1555. 
 
 Edited by Rev. G. L. Corrie, B. D. 1 large vol. 8vo. . . . • 4 00 
 
 LEIGHTON'S WHOLE WORKS.— New edition. 2 large vols. 8vo. London, 1845. 5 00 
 LESLIE.— The Theological Works of the Rev. Charles Leslie. 7 vols. 8vo. . 18 00 
 
 LETTERS OF THE MARTYRS : collected and published in 1564. With a Preface, 
 
 by Miles Coverdale. 1vol. . . . . . . 2 00 
 
 LITURGIES, (the two,) A. D. 1549, and A. D. 1552 : with other Documents set forth by 
 
 authority in the reign of King Edward VI. 1 large vol. 8vo. . . . 4 00 
 
 LIVES OF THE ENGLISH SAINTS :— 
 
 No. 2. St. Richard, the Saxon, . . . . . . l 00 
 
 " 3» St. Augustine, of Canterbury, . » . . . 1 00 
 
 «« 4. St. Bartholomew, &c. . . . . . . l 00 
 
 - 5. St. Wulstan, . . . . . . . 1 00 
 
 " 6. Sts. Paulinus, Edwin, Ethelburga, &c. . . . . 1 25 
 
 ■ 7. St. Gilbert, . . . . . . . 1 00 
 
 " 8. St. Wilfrid, Bishop of York, . . . . . 1 25 
 
 LINGARD'S HISTORY and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. New and en- 
 larged edition. 2 vols. . . . . . . 7 00 
 
 LYON'S HISTORY of St. Andrews, Episcopal, Monastic, Academic and Civil. 2 vols. 
 
 8vo. .......... 8 00 
 
4 00 
 3 00 
 
 1 50 
 1 75 
 
 3 75 
 
 2 50 
 
 3 00 
 1 88 
 1 75 
 
 21 00 
 1 88 
 1 25 
 
 75 
 
 2 50 
 
 3 00 
 
 MADGE'S LECTURES on certain High-Church Principles, commonly designated by the 
 
 term Puseyism. 1 vol. 8vo. . . . . . . . 2 75 
 
 MAITLAND'S SERIES OF ESSAYS on the State of Religion and Literature in the 
 Dark Ages. 1 vol 8vo. ....... 
 
 MANNING'S SERMONS, preached before the University of Oxford. 1 vol. 8vo. 
 
 MARRIOTT'S ANALECTA CHRISTIANA, in usum tironumr edidit et annotation- 
 bus illustravit. Part 1. . . . . . . # 
 
 MARRIOTT'S SERMONS, Preached before the University, and other places. 1 vol. 
 
 MARSDEN'S DISCOURSES for the Festivals of the Church of England. With notes. 
 1 vol. 8vo. ......... 
 
 MARTINEAU'S ENDEAVOURS AFTER THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.— A volume 
 of Discourses. 1 vol. ........ 
 
 MAURICE. — Christmas Day, and other Sermons. 1 vol. 8v«. 
 
 MILL'S FIVE SERMONS on the Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness. 1 vol. 8vo. 
 
 MONTGOMERY.— Christ our all in all. 1 vol. l2mo. . 
 
 MORNING (The) EXERCISES AT CR1PPLEGATE, St. Giles in the Fields, and in 
 Southwark. Fifth edition, revised and improved. 6 large vols. 8vo. 
 
 NEALE. — Hierologus ; or, The Church Tourists. I vol. l2mo. 
 
 A Mirror of Faith. Lays and Legends of the Church of England. 1 vol. 
 
 The Triumphs of the Cross. Tales and Sketches of Christian Heroism. 1 vol. 
 
 12mo. . . . . . 
 
 NELSQN — A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Church of England. New 
 edition. 1 vol. 8vo. ........ 
 
 NORTH'S SERMONS ON THE LITURGY. 1 vol 
 
 OVERALL. — The Convocation Book of MDCVL, commonly called Bishop Overall's 
 Convocation Book, concerning the Government of God's Catholic Church, and the 
 Kingdom of the Whole World. 1 vol. 8vo. . . . . . 3 00 
 
 PALEY. — The Church Restorers ; a Tale, treating of Ancient and Modern Architecture, 
 and Church Decorations. 1 vol. ...... 
 
 PLAIN SERMONS, by Contributors to the Tracts for the Times. Vol. 6. 
 
 POOLE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the Invasion by the Romans, to the Ac- 
 cession of Queen Victoria. Vol. 1. . 
 
 PRECES SELECTEE ; or a Selection of Prayers for the use of Harrow School. 1 vol. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS of the General Anti-Slavery Convention, held in London in 1843. 1 
 vol. 8vo. . . . . . . 
 
 PULPIT (The.)— SERMONS, by Eminent Living Divines. 45 vols. A complete set, 
 very scarce, ......... 
 
 The same. Vols. 42, 3, 4, 5. Each ...... 
 
 RANKE'S HISTORY of the Reformation in Germany. Second Edition, translated by 
 
 Sarah Austin. 2 large vols. ....... 
 
 RIDGWAY. — "The Faith once delivered to the Saints," considered in its distinctive 
 
 principles and sure results. 1 vol. 12mo. ..... 
 
 SABBATH (The) QUESTION ILLUSTRATED ; by a Roadside Inquirer. 1 vol. 12mo. 
 SANDFORD'S PAROCHIALIA ; or, Church, School, and Parish. 1 vol. 8vo. . 
 SCOTTISH PULPIT ; a series of Sermons by the most eminent Divines of the Scottish 
 
 Church, forming a complete Body of Divinity. 5 vols. 8vo. 
 SELF-SACRIFICE ; or, The Chancellor's Chaplain. 1 vol. l2mo. 
 SERLE. — The Christian Remembrancer. 1 neat volume, 12 mo. . 
 
 SEWELL'S CHRISTIAN POLITICS. 1 thick vol 
 
 SEWELL. — Popular Evidences of Christianity. 1 thick vol. 
 
 SHARP.— The Theological Works of the Most Reverend John Sharp, D. D. 5 vols. 8vo. 
 
 SHORT.— What is Christianity 1 1 vol. ...... 
 
 SOUTH. — Sermons preached on several occasions by Robert South, D. D. New Edition, 
 
 with the chief heads of the Sermons, a Biographical Memoir, and General Index. 
 
 Two large volumes, royal 8vo. ....... 
 
 SPALDING'S PHILOSOPHY OF CHRISTIAN MORALS. 1 vol. 8vo. 
 STOPFORD'S PAGANO-PAPISMUS; or, an exact parallel between Rome-Pagan 
 
 and Rome-Christian in their Doctrines and Ceremonies. 1 vol. . . 2 25 
 
 SYLVANUS ; or, the Primitive Christian. A Tale of the first century of the Christian 
 
 Era. 1 vol. . . . . . •. 1 25 
 
 TOMLINS MISSIONARY JOURNALS AND LETTERS, written during eleven 
 
 years' residence and travels among the Chinese, Siamese, Javanese, Ate. 1 vol. 2 50 
 
 TAYLER. — Tractarianism not of God. Sermons. 1 vol. 12mo. . . 1 75 
 
 THACKERAY'S RESEARCHES into the Ecclesiastical and Political State of Ancient 
 
 Britain. 2 vols. 8vo. . . . . . . . 7 00 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. By Members of the University of Oxford. Complete 
 
 in 5 vols. 8vo. . . . . . . . . . 13 00 
 
 UHDEN — The Anglican Church in the 19th century : indicating her relative position to 
 
 dissent in every form ; and presenting a clear and unprejudiced view of Puseyism 
 
 and Orthodoxy. 1 vol. 8vo. . .... 3 75 
 
 1 50 
 
 2 00 
 
 1 50 
 63 
 
 2 50 
 
 60 00 
 2 50 
 
 8 50 
 
 1 50 
 1 25 
 4 75 
 
 7 00 
 2 00 
 
 1 00 
 
 2 00 
 2 00 
 
 14 00 
 1 00 
 
 6 00 
 3 75 
 

 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to dt i from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 — 
 
 2 JAN 194ft 
 
 ***** 
 
 REC'D LX 
 
 JRH29 , b4-9fl» 
 
 interhjbram 
 
 LOAN 
 
 SEP 
 
 ?4 1973 
 
 LD 21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 
 
/D 31292 
 
i M M IR ' k M 1 
 
 
 )j : :j ' • ijllij 
 
 M : Hi 
 
 \ ; i ' i "ii • iiHi* 
 
 ''l/.ttl'F^i r !'i I'i 
 
 ,; ; '"i||h jjlt i»Ih 
 
 HUH! 
 i|j!li|i|||H 
 
 i Hi 111 uU